A general’s poor conduct

Thursday, June 24, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.

President Barack Obama accepted the resignation Wednesday of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, head of the coalition forces in Afghanistan. McChrystal was called to the White House after Rolling Stone magazine published a long profile of him in which he was dubbed “the Runaway General.”

The piece portrayed McChrystal as brash, with little respect for authority. The general and his aides made critical remarks about the president, vice president and top U.S. officials engaged in Iraq. The president was described as disengaged and “uncomfortable and intimidated” when surrounded by military brass.

In a year in command, McChrystal has garnered few friends. The article portrays a general with complaints about the ambassador to Afghanistan and the State Department’s special envoy. An aide is quoted as calling the president’s national security adviser — a retired four-star general — a “clown.”

All in all, the comments paint a stunning display of arrogance and disrespect for authority. McChrystal issued a statement apologizing for showing “poor judgment” in his comments and praising the president and the White House’s national security team. But that was too little, too late as both Democrats and Republicans were outraged by the article. For his part, McChrystal never denied the comments attributed to him and his staff.

Ordered to the White House to explain himself, McChrystal tendered his resignation, and Obama appointed Gen. David Petraeus to take over.

After his meeting with McChrystal, Obama was gracious but showed he was in charge. Although he praised McChrystal’s long and distinguished service, Obama made it clear that the conduct ascribed to McChrystal “does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general.”

“It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system,” Obama said.

Indeed. McChrystal should have understood that. Civilian control of the military is foundational, and military law outlaws disparaging superiors, including the civilians in the chain of command. We can’t imagine that the general would tolerate a soldier under his command so brazenly criticizing him or one of his officers — to do so would undercut military discipline and create unrest among the troops.

Unfortunately, it is evident that McChrystal set a tone in his headquarters that allowed a disrespectful attitude to fester. Doing so, he had taken the focus off the task at hand, and that cannot be acceptable.

The president made a strong statement in the way he handled the situation. He made a wise decision in replacing McChrystal with Petraeus, a seasoned commander who was credited with turning around operations in Iraq. His transition shouldn’t be a problem. He was involved in crafting the Afghanistan strategy and has overseen operations there as commander of the U.S. Central Command.

Moving forward, Obama called for unity in the war effort and the fight against terrorism. That is critical. The administration — and the military commanders — have to be on the same page for the effort to be a success.