It seems that practically anyone can criticise the government so why should the military be excluded? It often seems that the military (in European countries anyway) come under fire whenever they say anything even remotely controversial. Yes they are public servants but their views are as valid as anyone else’s.

Actually the Patriot act inhibited civilians from making such comments.^[1] it was highly criticized during the Bush days but remains in tact. So anyone can not just go ahead and say whatever they want against the government. The problem with McChrystal was that he lacked savoir faire , workplace formality which is required as a means to not undermine the authority of those above you.

1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

At what point do the public have a right to know that the generals think what the politicians are doing is wrong? In western societies we increasingly believe that the public has a right to lots of information and the government has no right to keep things secret. Should we not get to know if there are disagreements between the military and the politicians? It is certainly something that could affect the way people vote so it makes sense that we should be allowed to know the military’s view on military matters.

The armed forces are a bureaucracy as are the other agencies that are involved in a warzone. In the case of McChrystal some of the criticism he gave was directed at state department people particularly Richard Holbrooke. This is always going to happen and will sometimes spill over into the public arena and the newspapers may become a battle ground as the bureaucracies jockey for position.

The aim should be to have as little bureaucratic infighting as possible. Equally this should not spill over into the public sphere. Sure we all recognise it happens but that does not mean that it inspires confidence when it does. Having a vendetta against a particular person should not be encouraged in the workplace unless it's part of friendly competition (a vendetta is not usually friendly). And even in the case of the latter;corporations nip it in the bud just to play it safe. No one wants to know or wait until competition amounts to something serious(especially in the military given all the crazy things American soldiers have done on American soil in the past few years).

It would not pose as an effective deterrent against future behavior of this sort otherwise. If someone so highly ranked can be laid off then every other soldier will have to think twice about what they write in emails.

There is a clear chain of command in the military and everything should be settled internally with the politicians. The generals should complain to the Joint Chiefs of Staff who then would pass the complaint on to the Secretary of Defence or the President himself. The politicians would then decide if there is any merit in the complaints about State department personnel such as Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry whom McCrystal felt betrayed by during the debates in the Autumn for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. This is the same in any military. The complaint should go through the general’s superiors in the military and the civilians in the Defence Ministry eventually getting to the Head of Government/State if it merits such attention. This is much better for all concerned. Hopefully the generals can have their concerns addressed while the politicians manage to keep control over everything and remain able to say that everything is still fine while everyone manages to avoid big front page headlines in the newspapers which results in problems and sackings all round.

In the past kings were generals; leading armies into battle. The solution to this is not disposing off the military which is needed to defend your country but to... as absurd as this sounds, elect military leaders so that as is desired with/from democracy power rests with the people.

There is only a short step from constructive criticism towards the military becoming too politically active and all the problems this can cause. Militaries are in the west non political precisely because a military can potentially have so much power if the generals chose to use it. Politically active militaries are a curse for much of the third world. They prop up dictators and despots such as in Saudi Arabia or Iran and often overthrow democratic governments, for example Musharraf in Pakistan or the Coup against Thakain Shinawatra in Thailand. They often put themselves into power with little or no democratic credentials brushing aside the wishes of the people as the Junta in Burma did in 1988. Those who control the military can control the government as it is the military that has the ability to use force if they are willing to do so. This is supposed to be directed externally to prevent others from using force against the country but all too often becomes directed internally against enemies of the state real or imagined and armies even if they originally acted legitimately or with good reason can all too often find reasons to stay in power long after they are needed.