CMR in the US and Learning from It

The dismissal last week by US President Barak Obama of his military commander in Afghanistan, Lt Gen Stanley McChrystal, should be carefully studied. In contrast to India, where civil-military relations remain mired in wary mutual watchfulness, America has demonstrated a robust civil-military structure with a healthy tolerance for risk. This was evident from the joint political-military decision to prosecute an “Afghan friendly” strategy despite the politically nettlesome issue of higher US casualties; and from Obama’s swift decision that the general had unacceptably violated propriety in making public the fissures between top US policymakers.

It may be unthinkable in India, where the system produces generals (and that includes flag officers of the navy and the air force) who would never dream of functioning like Stanley McChrystal. Looking deeper especially at McChrystal’s, and now Petraeus’ selection as commanders in Afghanistan based on clear strategies that they brought to the table, India could learn much from the US civil-military structure, based as it is on meritocracy, responsibility and accountability.

Consider how India would have selected a commander for a hypothetical Afghanistan mission. The MoD would have asked the Indian Army to “post” a suitable general.

In the US the President nominates key commanders, based on their achievements and abilities, and the Congress ratifies those appointments. General Petraeus, for example, was nominated as US Central Command chief, superseding several compatriots, after framing a widely acclaimed counter-insurgency doctrine for the US military. American generals routinely leapfrog less talented officers while being appointed to higher rank.

In the poisoned relationship between India’s military and the bureaucratic-political elite, the Armed Forces do not accept US-style “deep selection”. India’s military suspects that political interests would run rampant, promoting well-connected officers rather than competent ones. The army remembers Lieutenant General BM Kaul, whose connections with Nehru allowed him to drive India to defeat at the hands of China in 1962.

Read the Full Post: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/06/mcchrystal-gazing.html

The process that the US went through in removing the General from the Af Command is fairly graceful in a democracy. There could be different perceptions at strategic level amongst professionals at Flag Level, the Govt. in order to have it's 'will' prevail should always handle the issue gracefully and transparently taking the System, and the nation into confidence to avoid any negative fall-out - builds strong CMR.

Svipja Technologies

Afghan War General Removed from Command

President Barack Obama and Gen. David Petraeus walk to the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday to make a statement after meeting with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was ousted as commander of forces in Afghanistan. Patraeus was nominated to assume McChrystal's command.

Obama said bluntly that Gen. Stanley McChrystal's scornful remarks about admin officials represent conduct that "undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system." He ousted the commander after a face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office and named Petraeus, the Central Command chief, who was McChrystal's direct boss, to step in.

In a statement expressing praise for McChrystal yet certainty he had to go, Obama said he did not make the decision over any disagreement in policy or "out of any sense of personal insult." Flanked by Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Rose Garden, he said: "War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president."

Afghan War General Removed from Command

This enhances CMR in a country -- a part of 'Military - Civil Maryada' covered in the Post below. Military must know where is the limit, and the Civil how to 'gracefully act' in an embarracing situation with the Military, upholding the national interests.


Svipja Technologies
Credit: msn.com

Britain’s Chief of Defence Staff Axed

Britain’s senior most serving military commander, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup has been axed before his term was to end in April next year. The Sun reports that the decision, which is expected to have far reaching political consequences, was announced by Defence Secretary Liam Fox.Sacking of Sir Stirrup has not surprised the security experts, as his performance in Afghanistan was seen as far from satisfactory and was dogged by the failure to provide the requisite equipment to the British troops in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Chinese news agency Xinhua reports the British Defence Secretary denying charges that Sir Stirrup had been sacked. According to the news report, Liam has said that the services' professional head, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, had not been sacked, but he would be replaced early, leaving his post in the autumn some months earlier than his retirement in the spring of next year.

Current Army head General Sir David Richards or vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nicholas Houghton are favourites for the top job. The Ministry of Defence's top civil servant Sir Bill Jeffrey will also get the elbow. The Mirror reports that the Chief has been made a scapegoat and criticized the new government of politicizing the armed forces.

Coutesy: 8ak.