An interesting sidebar to the debate sparked by the leak of General McChrystal’s Afghanistan strategy review is the question of how such debates should take place to begin with.
Peter Feaver complains that the president has been rushed by leaks. Pat Lang is irked by the fact that the likely leaker wore a military uniform, possibly even a general’s stars.
Meanwhile, Marc Lynch thinks the “strategy review” was conducted by people without the proper expertise precisely for the purpose of reaching the conclusions it did and Andrew Exum complains that the war’s critics aren’t offering similarly serious analyses.
In my New Atlanticist piece “Debating Afghanistan: Beyond the McChrystal Leak,” I examine all these arguments and more, concluding,
Yes, one might prefer that debate take place according to a set of rules from a fabled age of civility, where politics stopped at the water’s edge, generals were unfailingly deferential to civilian political leadership, and nothing was ever leaked to the press. But, alas, it will take place in the real world.
Much more at the link.
Photo: Scoop44.
