President Barack Obama’s decision to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal as top commander in Afghanistan will be talked about for quite some time given the interest associated with the war on terror and also the circumstances in which this decision to sack the top commander was taken. As a soldier entrusted with enormous responsibility to over see an important assignment, Gen McChrystal’s disrespectful comments about his Commander-in-Chief (i.e. the US President) and top administration officials was indeed ‘poor judgment’. The General has only himself to blame for his downfall. As President Obama rightly noted, one can tolerate debate within his team, but not division. This brings us to the fundamental question of team work, consensus building and respecting authority. All these factors are important while executing policy whether they are military or civilian in nature. And President Obama followed these fundamental principles while taking the difficult decision of sacking General McChrystal and in the process reasserted his own role as commander-in-chief. While a few may disagree with Obama’s move, an overwhelming majority of people have welcomed the decision taken by the President including the replacement of Gen McChrystal with Gen David Petraeus– commander of the US Central Command and former head of coalition forces in Iraq.
Besides reasserting the authority of the President, the other if not more significant aspect of the McChrystal episode is reinforcing the democratic tradition of having civilian control of the military. As a rule, the ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making should be in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers. This is well accepted as one of the safeguards and even a prerequisite feature of a stable democracy—be it liberal or communist. So the importance of having civilian control over the military finds equal significance in non-western societies as well. For example, in the People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong stated that “Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party,” reflecting the primacy of the Communist Party of China as decision-makers. Following this tradition, in India also the military is subservient to the authority of the political executive and ultimately to Parliament, the House of the People.
It is therefore of outmost importance for the survival of a democratic polity to have in place an inbuilt mechanism of civilian authority deciding on the state of affairs and who will be ultimately responsible to the people. The military is part of the bureaucratic structure and therefore cannot be given such powers that may undermine those who are elected to rule. The civilian leadership must decide on policy and the military which is not accountable to Parliament should merely follow suit. It is however of concern to note that there is a tendency on the part of our political class to rely heavily on the advice, amounting to direction, of the military commanders. This is true in the case of India where our politicians allow the military and security agencies to advocate and shape policies and thereby undermining civilian authority and also democracy. The political establishment in India needs to learn a lesson or two from the latest assertion of authority demonstrated by President Obama. At the end of the day, the President or the Prime Minister as in the case of India is elected while the General or Army Chief is not. The decision to declare war, end a conflict or change a policy untimely rests with the civilian authority.
