Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS Newsletter
Other Research
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Alumni & Networks
Alumni
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
Commentaries
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Paper
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
2024 Indonesia Elections
Great Powers
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
Media Mentions
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Future Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSIS Newsletter
      Other ResearchScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to Apply
      Financial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      AlumniAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)SRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersCommentariesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PaperInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      2024 Indonesia ElectionsGreat PowersSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesMedia Mentions
      News ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO10071 | The General and the President: Obama’s “Harry Truman” moment?
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO10071 | The General and the President: Obama’s “Harry Truman” moment?

    30 June 2010

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    Historical parallels have been drawn between the removal of wartime US generals Douglas MacArthur and Stanley McChrystal by their respective commanders-in-chief. While the key question remains the issue of civilian authority over the military, the grounds for dismissal were different.

    US PRESIDENT Barack Obama accepted the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal, the US- NATO commander in Afghanistan, on 23 June 2010, in the midst of an Afghan campaign against the Islamist insurgency. This has been compared to President Harry Truman’s sacking of General Douglas MacArthur, the US-UN commander in Korea, on 11 April 1951, amid the conflict with international communist forces during the Korean War. Is this comparison justified?

    Broad similarities

    Both cases focus attention on the issue of civilian authority over the military, especially in times of war, to achieve US national security objectives. MacArthur and McChrystal were both top commanders tasked by their respective commanders-in-chief to fight “limited wars” abroad in defence of “liberty”. As part of a containment strategy against international communism, MacArthur’s mission was to repel North Korean forces without escalating conflict beyond the spatial constraints of the Korean Peninsula. In a counterinsurgency strategy against Afghan insurgents in the US war on terrorism, McChrystal’s mission was to overcome Taleban forces in the “Af-Pak” region within a fixed timeframe.

    Both generals ultimately refused to subordinate their military strategies to the wider political strategies of the day, just as their campaigns were suffering tactical reverses, and both were consequently relieved of their command for insubordination to their civilian bosses at these critical junctures. Finally, there were parallels in the explanatory statements issued by the two US presidents.

    “Full and vigorous debate on matters of national policy is a vital element in the constitutional system of our free democracy,” declared President Truman. “It is fundamental, however, that military commanders must be governed by the policies and directives issued to them in the manner provided by our laws and Constitution. In time of crisis, this consideration is particularly compelling. General MacArthur’s place in history as one of our greatest commanders is fully established. The nation owes him a debt of gratitude for the distinguished and exceptional service which he has rendered his country in posts of great responsibility. For that reason I repeat my regret at the necessity for the action I feel compelled to take in his case.”

    President Obama accepted General McChrystal’s resignation “with considerable regret,” acknowledging his well-earned reputation as “one of our nation’s finest soldiers” and that “all Americans should be grateful for [his] long record of service in uniform”.

    Still, in Obama’s words: “War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president. And as difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe that it is the right decision for our national security. … Our democracy depends upon institutions that are stronger than individuals. That includes strict adherence to the military chain of command, and respect for civilian control over that chain of command. … I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division. … We need to remember what this is all about. Our nation is at war.”

    Specific differences

    Significantly, however, the specific grounds for dismissal did differ. Prior to his Korean appointment at the onset of the Cold War, MacArthur was already a five-star general, a Pacific War hero and an “American Caesar” in Japan. MacArthur, supremely egotistical with a flair for political theatre, had expressed contempt for President Truman and President Franklin Roosevelt before him, but was never dismissed for disregarding the underlying principle of civilian control over the military.

    MacArthur was sacked in the context of a largely conventional war, for his very public disagreement with the Truman administration and UN allies over matters of policy and grand strategy. Appealing to the American public and the President’s Congressional opponents, MacArthur had advocated the use of more aggressive tactics against the communists, announcing that there was “no substitute for victory”. He had proposed air raids, an American-led invasion of China and even the deployment of atomic bombs — with Hiroshima and Nagasaki in recent memory, a prospect that horrified America’s enemies and allies alike.

    MacArthur’s tactlessly unequivocal appeal, without the President’s consent, angered Truman who perceived this as an insubordination of his leadership. Convinced that MacArthur’s recklessness might push America to the brink of a third world war, Truman swore privately: “The [expletive] isn’t going to resign on me, I want him fired.”

    McChrystal, prior to taking command in a post-9/11 Afghanistan, had a distinguished yet secretive career in special forces operations. He enjoyed a “Spartan” reputation for being a soldier’s soldier, with little appetite for the drama of “Athenian” high politics. Last September, McChrystal clumsily leaked a report calling for troop increases in “under-resourced” Afghanistan, mocking the probable outcome of Vice-President Joe Biden’s alternative strategy — urging greater reliance on drone missile strikes and special forces operations — as creating a state called “Chaos-istan”. This earned McChrystal a rebuke from President Obama.

    McChrystal’s resignation was finally accepted in the context of counterinsurgency operations requiring close civil-military cooperation, where personal comments disparaging the civilian leadership effectively undermined basic trust and unity. The Rolling Stone article entitled “The Runaway General” exposed the McChrystal team’s contempt for the President, Vice-President, and other civilian officials whose diplomatic and nation-building efforts were deemed equally vital to the success of the mission.

    Truman’s dismissal of MacArthur, a war hero lionised by the American public, proved hugely controversial and unpopular. Obama’s dismissal of McChrystal, a more private figure, is unlikely to generate as much controversy. Ironically, MacArthur’s immediate successor — the comparatively unknown General Matthew Ridgway — is credited with securing a more favourable outcome for US- UN forces in the Korean War. It remains to be seen whether McChrystal’s replacement with General David Petraeus, the hero of the successful “surge” strategy in Iraq, will restore momentum to the flagging US-NATO Afghan campaign.

    About the Author

    Emrys Chew is Assistant Professor of History at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. 

    Categories: Commentaries / General / Americas

    Last updated on 10/10/2014

    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    Historical parallels have been drawn between the removal of wartime US generals Douglas MacArthur and Stanley McChrystal by their respective commanders-in-chief. While the key question remains the issue of civilian authority over the military, the grounds for dismissal were different.

    US PRESIDENT Barack Obama accepted the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal, the US- NATO commander in Afghanistan, on 23 June 2010, in the midst of an Afghan campaign against the Islamist insurgency. This has been compared to President Harry Truman’s sacking of General Douglas MacArthur, the US-UN commander in Korea, on 11 April 1951, amid the conflict with international communist forces during the Korean War. Is this comparison justified?

    Broad similarities

    Both cases focus attention on the issue of civilian authority over the military, especially in times of war, to achieve US national security objectives. MacArthur and McChrystal were both top commanders tasked by their respective commanders-in-chief to fight “limited wars” abroad in defence of “liberty”. As part of a containment strategy against international communism, MacArthur’s mission was to repel North Korean forces without escalating conflict beyond the spatial constraints of the Korean Peninsula. In a counterinsurgency strategy against Afghan insurgents in the US war on terrorism, McChrystal’s mission was to overcome Taleban forces in the “Af-Pak” region within a fixed timeframe.

    Both generals ultimately refused to subordinate their military strategies to the wider political strategies of the day, just as their campaigns were suffering tactical reverses, and both were consequently relieved of their command for insubordination to their civilian bosses at these critical junctures. Finally, there were parallels in the explanatory statements issued by the two US presidents.

    “Full and vigorous debate on matters of national policy is a vital element in the constitutional system of our free democracy,” declared President Truman. “It is fundamental, however, that military commanders must be governed by the policies and directives issued to them in the manner provided by our laws and Constitution. In time of crisis, this consideration is particularly compelling. General MacArthur’s place in history as one of our greatest commanders is fully established. The nation owes him a debt of gratitude for the distinguished and exceptional service which he has rendered his country in posts of great responsibility. For that reason I repeat my regret at the necessity for the action I feel compelled to take in his case.”

    President Obama accepted General McChrystal’s resignation “with considerable regret,” acknowledging his well-earned reputation as “one of our nation’s finest soldiers” and that “all Americans should be grateful for [his] long record of service in uniform”.

    Still, in Obama’s words: “War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president. And as difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe that it is the right decision for our national security. … Our democracy depends upon institutions that are stronger than individuals. That includes strict adherence to the military chain of command, and respect for civilian control over that chain of command. … I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division. … We need to remember what this is all about. Our nation is at war.”

    Specific differences

    Significantly, however, the specific grounds for dismissal did differ. Prior to his Korean appointment at the onset of the Cold War, MacArthur was already a five-star general, a Pacific War hero and an “American Caesar” in Japan. MacArthur, supremely egotistical with a flair for political theatre, had expressed contempt for President Truman and President Franklin Roosevelt before him, but was never dismissed for disregarding the underlying principle of civilian control over the military.

    MacArthur was sacked in the context of a largely conventional war, for his very public disagreement with the Truman administration and UN allies over matters of policy and grand strategy. Appealing to the American public and the President’s Congressional opponents, MacArthur had advocated the use of more aggressive tactics against the communists, announcing that there was “no substitute for victory”. He had proposed air raids, an American-led invasion of China and even the deployment of atomic bombs — with Hiroshima and Nagasaki in recent memory, a prospect that horrified America’s enemies and allies alike.

    MacArthur’s tactlessly unequivocal appeal, without the President’s consent, angered Truman who perceived this as an insubordination of his leadership. Convinced that MacArthur’s recklessness might push America to the brink of a third world war, Truman swore privately: “The [expletive] isn’t going to resign on me, I want him fired.”

    McChrystal, prior to taking command in a post-9/11 Afghanistan, had a distinguished yet secretive career in special forces operations. He enjoyed a “Spartan” reputation for being a soldier’s soldier, with little appetite for the drama of “Athenian” high politics. Last September, McChrystal clumsily leaked a report calling for troop increases in “under-resourced” Afghanistan, mocking the probable outcome of Vice-President Joe Biden’s alternative strategy — urging greater reliance on drone missile strikes and special forces operations — as creating a state called “Chaos-istan”. This earned McChrystal a rebuke from President Obama.

    McChrystal’s resignation was finally accepted in the context of counterinsurgency operations requiring close civil-military cooperation, where personal comments disparaging the civilian leadership effectively undermined basic trust and unity. The Rolling Stone article entitled “The Runaway General” exposed the McChrystal team’s contempt for the President, Vice-President, and other civilian officials whose diplomatic and nation-building efforts were deemed equally vital to the success of the mission.

    Truman’s dismissal of MacArthur, a war hero lionised by the American public, proved hugely controversial and unpopular. Obama’s dismissal of McChrystal, a more private figure, is unlikely to generate as much controversy. Ironically, MacArthur’s immediate successor — the comparatively unknown General Matthew Ridgway — is credited with securing a more favourable outcome for US- UN forces in the Korean War. It remains to be seen whether McChrystal’s replacement with General David Petraeus, the hero of the successful “surge” strategy in Iraq, will restore momentum to the flagging US-NATO Afghan campaign.

    About the Author

    Emrys Chew is Assistant Professor of History at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. 

    Categories: Commentaries / General

    Last updated on 10/10/2014

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info