Gosh, it seems almost like yesterday when a president dismissed a senior officer for actual insubordination and the left side of the aisle was outraged that dissent was being suppressed.
President Obama had every right to fire McChrystal for any reason at all, although I fail to see how the cause was insubordination given that McChrystal was attempting to carry out Obama's policies despite interference from others in the administration.
Fallon, by contrast, was clearly attempting to block presidential decisions--and was proud of his history of that thinking--yet there was no cry about the absolute need to maintain civilian control over the military.
Really, I'm not revisitng the McChrystal issue. What's done is done. Obama had reasons, and it was a decision that could have gone either way, as far as I'm concerned.
But I am fascinated by the standards with which the two incidents are judged.
About Me
- Brian J. Dunn
- I live and write in Ann Arbor, Michigan. University of Michigan AB and MA from Eastern Michigan University. One term in the Michigan Army National Guard. Former American history instructor and retired nonpartisan research analyst. I write on Blogger and Substack. Various military and private journals have published my occasional articles on military subjects. See "My Published Works" on the TDR web version or under the mobile version drop-down menu for citations and links.
