As he weighs future U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama may find himself parrying less with peace activists and wary Democrats in Congress and more with Gen. Stanley McChrystal. The top commander in Afghanistan has argued for sending more U.S. troops into the country to rid it of Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. A report the general filed with the White House was leaked to the press, so whatever recommendations the president makes for Afghanistan will be weighed against the general’s private conclusions, now made public.
The president is correct in asserting that the mission — a vision for Afghanistan, a desired outcome — must come before any strategy is chosen. Generals, with all good intent, are typically confident they can “win” on the military front. They see problems in the limited terms of personnel, weaponry, territory and violence, and believe they can solve them with the resources at their command, or with more of the same.
Rarely do they admit that a political goal is not achievable militarily.
The commander in chief, especially if he does not have military experience, often struggles to overrule his generals’ recommendations.
The role of generals in shaping U.S. foreign policy is full of examples of the difficulties in these relationships.
President Abraham Lincoln began fighting the Civil War with George B. McClellan commanding the Army of the Potomac. Known for careful planning, Gen. McClellan often failed to use the full force of his army, even when it outnumbered the enemy’s, in part because he was prone to overestimating the strength of the Confederate force.
Gen. McClellan was critical of Mr. Lincoln, and the president responded in kind, saying at one point, “If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.” Once Gen. Ulysses S. Grant took over, the course of the war changed in favor of the Union. Told that Gen. Grant was too fond of drink, the president said if he knew what whiskey Grant drank, he would send a barrel to the other generals.
In the 20th century, President Harry Truman famously clashed with the charismatic, popular and egotistical Gen. Douglas MacArthur. During the Korean War, the general wrote to the House Republican leader in Congress, criticizing the president’s policy. He also contacted the Chinese army, undermining Mr. Truman’s efforts at establishing a cease-fire.
President Truman relieved him of command.
Throughout his presidency, President Lyndon Johnson remained committed to fighting and winning in Vietnam in part — it was later alleged — because Gen. William Westmoreland deliberately underestimated the strength of the Viet Cong in his reports to the president. Mr. Johnson might have begun winding down U.S. involvement had he known the actual strength of the enemy.
Being commander in chief requires giving orders to military leaders with decades of experience, a difficult task. President Obama is correct in formulating the mission in Afghanistan before charging a general with developing a strategy to implement it.