Masters & commanders: A power trip

U.S. President Obama’s dismissal of his commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, underscores the supremacy of the civil over the military. This supremacy of the civil took its time establishing itself. For centuries heads of government suffered the rank insubordination of their brilliant generals, some times bordering on

insolence, dismissing them only on reasons to do with the conduct of war. The fact that they served under an elected government did not stand in the way of commanders who were often related to the monarchy, or held in high esteem.
During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln went to the house of Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan, the commander of the Union Army. The general sent word he would meet the President in his office. Lincoln was later asked how he tolerated such insolence. He replied he would hold the stirrup of McClellan’s horse for the sake of victory. Later, Lincoln dismissed him for military failure and replaced him with Ulysses S. Grant.
Otto von Bismarck was the architect of Prussia’s military victories. During the Franco-Prussian War, a correspondent asked the Chancellor how far the Prussian Army was from Paris. He replied that he knew no more about that than the correspondent; Generalfeldmarschall Helmuth von Moltke (the Elder) would send his war despatches only to Emperor Wilhelm I. In Britain, the Duke of Cambridge, a cousin of Queen Victoria, was Commander-in-Chief of the Army for 30 years. During that period no Prime Minister could interfere with the Army.
Supremacy of the civil over the military was fully established and exerted only in the 20th century. Two incidents pertaining to the conduct of war during the Great War (1914-18) are of significance. Winston Churchill wanted a Navy operation through the Dardanelles to knock Turkey out of the war. The First Sea Lord, Lord Fisher, remonstrated with Churchill, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty. Churchill overruled Fisher and expounded his plan to the Cabinet. Fisher was in silent attendance. He felt it would be disloyal of him to oppose his minister. The Cabinet construed Fisher’s silence as concurrence and sanctioned the operation. The Dardanelles became the greatest disaster in the Royal Navy’s history. A parliamentary panel indicted both: Fisher was dismissed and Churchill sent into political oblivion, for a while. The second instance pertained to Prime Minister Lloyd George and the Army Chief, General Robertson. Lloyd George felt the war had been fought to a standstill in the trenches of France. He wanted some divisions diverted from France to operations against Turkey. Gen. Robertson opposed this as he felt France was where the war had to be fought and won. The French opposed any diversion of effort. This was discussed at the Supreme War Council in Paris presided over by French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau. Clemenceau asked Robertson for his professional advice, which was contrary to that of his Prime Minister. Lloyd George was furious and sacked Robertson. A few months later the Germans launched their big offensive of 1918 which the Allies just barely beat back. Things may have been very different had divisions been diverted. Lloyd George realised his mistake and promoted Gen. Robertson, then in retirement, to field marshal.
A little after World War II, there was friction between US President Harry S. Truman and General Douglas MacArthur, possibly the greatest American military leader of all time. His military genius was put to test during the Communist invasion of South Korea. He undertook his operation against the advice of the American Chiefs of Staff and personally conducted the operation from a warship off the coast at Inchon. MacArthur wanted an all-out offensive. He wanted nuclear waste laid along the Yalu river against Chinese intervention in Korea and an all-out offensive against China in Manchuria and from Formosa into the Chinese mainland. Prophetically, he added that Tibet and Indochina would suffer Communist rule. Truman wanted the war limited to Korea. Europe was still recovering from the Second World War and the Allied powers did not support MacArthur’s war plan. Moreover, the Soviet Union had become a nuclear weapons state. MacArthur made indiscreet remarks to the press. He said he did not know the aim of the war in Korea and added that in war there was no substitute for victory. He wrote a private letter to an American senator expounding his views, which the latter leaked to the press. Truman dismissed MacArthur unceremoniously despite the American people’s regard for him.
There have been hiccups in civil-military relations in India. General K.S. Thimayya was a charismatic leader and the only Indian to command a brigade in war during the British period. He personally led the attack in the battle of Zoji-la in Kashmir. As Army Chief, his relations with then defence minister V.K. Krishna Menon soured. He resigned over the promotion of a major-general to lieutenant-general. This greatly damaged his reputation, particularly when Jawaharlal Nehru first persuaded him to withdraw his resignation and later criticised him in Parliament. Had Thimayya chosen to resign on a more substantive issue and stuck to his resignation, he would have gone out a great hero. The other instance was of rank insubordination to the defence minister by Navy Chief Vishnu Bhagwat over the appointment of his deputy. Bhagwat was sacked.
President Obama’s dismissal of Gen. Stanley McChrystal is being compared with the recall of MacArthur, but it is more in line with the dismissal of Bhagwat. There were no policy differences. McChrystal was dismissed for insubordination after an article appeared quoting Gen. McChrystal and his staff using objectionable language for the President and his security establishment. The supremacy of the civil was maintained.