How to use this Page

Elvin Lim is Assistant Professor of Government at Wesleyan University and author of The Anti-intellectual Presidency, which draws on interviews with more than 40 presidential speechwriters to investigate this relentless qualitative decline, over the course of 200 years, in our presidents’ ability to communicate with the public. He also blogs at www.elvinlim.com. In the article below he looks at General Stanley McChrystal. See his previous OUPblogs here.

Sarah Palin is not the only person going rogue these days. In a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London last Thursday, General Stanley McChrystal advocated for an increase in American troop levels in Afghanistan by 40,000, while rumors that the General would resign his command if his request was not honored remain unquashed. A week before, McChrystal appeared on CBS’s “60 minutes” to spread the word that help is needed in Afghanistan. And before that, he, or one of the supporters of his proposal, leaked a confidential report of his petition to the president to Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, which published a redacted version of it. These are the political maneuverings of a General who understands that wars abroad must also be waged at home.

But, the General fails to understand that the political war at home is not his to fight, and his actions in recent weeks have been out of line. No new command has been issued yet about Afghanistan, but General McChrystal has taken it upon himself to let the British and American public know how he would prefer to be commanded. As it is a slippery and imperceptible slope from preemptive defiance to actual insubordination, as President Harry Truman quickly came to realize about General Douglas MacArthur, President Obama needs to assert and restore the chain of command swiftly and categorically.

As Commander of Special Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq from 2003 to 2008, McCrystal was given free reign to bypass the chain of command. This leeway allowed McCrystal’s team to capture, most illustriously, Saddam Hussein during the Iraq war. But it may have gotten into his head that the discretion Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney granted to him has carried over to his command in Afghanistan. No doubt, McCrystal has been emboldened by supporters of a troop increase in Afghanistan, who have recently chastized President Obama for not having had more meetings with McChrystal. Others, like Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) have on CNN accused the “people in the White House … (as) armchair generals.”

Those who assault the principle of civilian control of the military typically and disingenuously do so obliquely under the cover of generals and the flag, for they dare not confront the fact that the constitution unapologetically anoints an armchair general to lead the military. It is worth noting, further, that in the same sentence in which the President is designated “Commander-in-Chief,” the Constitution states, “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments.” The President may require the opinion of any cabinet secretary should he so choose to do so, but he isn’t even constitutionally obligated to seek the opinion of the Secretary of Defense, to whom General McChrystal’s superior, General David Petraeus, reports via the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General McChrystal has spoken out of turn even though his chain of command goes up quite a few more rings before it culminates in the person seated on an armchair in the Oval Office, and yet I doubt he would take kindly to a one-star general speechifying against his proposal for troop increases in Afghanistan.

Dwight Eisenhower, when he occupied the armchair in the Oval Office, wisely warned of the “Military Industrial Complex” because he understood that it was as much an organized interest as was the Liberal Welfare State, Wall Street, or what would become the Healthcare Industrial Complex. No “commander on the ground” will come to the President of the United States and not ask for more manpower and resources, and Eisenhower understood that the job of the armchair general was to keep that in mind.

Let us not rally around military generals and fail to rally around the Constitution. Inspiring as the Star Spangled Banner may appear flying over Fort McHenry, we will do better to stand firm on the principles etched on an older piece of parchment. As Truman wrote in his statement firing General Douglas MacArthur,
“Full and vigorous debate on matters of national policy is a vital element in the constitutional system of our free democracy. 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.”

For the June issue of Through the Looking Glass, I reviewed the Stanley books by Linda Bailey and Bill Slavin. If you haven't met Stanley yet, then you are in for a treat, because the books about this funny and utterly doggy dog are a joy. Here is an interview that I had with Linda and Bill:

Marya: Linda, where did the idea for the Stanley books come from in the first place?

Linda: The books started with my dog, Sophie. Stanley's Party began when I spotted dog hair on my couch and realized that Sophie, who is not allowed on the couch, was sneaking up onto it whenever we went out. I laughed ~ and wondered what else she might be doing when no one was home. I laughed some more as I started visualizing an escalating series of bad-dog behaviours; they culminated in "the best doggone party a dog ever had." That was the start.

Marya: You really get inside Stanley's head - to great effect. I have three dogs in my life and I immediately recognized Stanley's thought processes. How did you do this?

Linda: Thank you. I'm not sure. I know that when I was first thinking about getting a dog, about ten years ago, I watched dogs a lot. Any time I spotted a dog on its own -- waiting outside a store, for instance -- I stopped and made eye contact. Something about those moments really touched me. Is it true that eyes are windows to the soul? If so, dogs have a lot of soul. When I got my own puppy, Sophie -- I watched her, too, and wondered what was going on in that shaggy little head. I watch dogs all the time, and the truth is, I don't think they're that hard to figure out. Dogs make so many transparently expressive movements and sounds. They kind of wear their hearts on their sleeves, right? Or they would if they had sleeves.

Marya: Did you use your dog Sophie as a model for Stanley?

Linda: Yes, partly. I use Sophie's behavior, the sounds she makes, and so on. But psychologically, Stanley is also based partly on me, I think. I have this theory that when writers develop characters, we are often "mining" different aspects of our subconscious selves, who we are, who we would like to be, who we are scared we might be, etc. If I were a dog, I imagine that I might chafe at my non-human condition. I think I would long for freedom and adventure and a wider social life. If I were as brave/foolish as Stanley, I might act on those longings.

Marya: How do you decide what kinds of adventures Stanley is going to have?

Linda: Stanley's adventures seem to come along on their own. Stanley's Wild Ride came about when kids were skateboarding on my street, and I noticed Sophie watching. Dog . . . skateboard . . . what if Stanley were to ride a skateboard? Stanley at Sea began at the Dog Beach in Vancouver where I live. The dogs were playing in the ocean. Behind them, boats and ships sailed by. Dogs . . . boats . . . what if Stanley and his friends got into a little red boat and were swept out to sea by the current? As for Stanley's Beauty Contest, that came straight out of a "dog day" at a local park; it included a most-beautiful-dog contest. The dogs were ordinary mutts, and the prizes were minimal, but there were people there who were taking the whole thing very seriously. Me? I couldn't help wondering what the dogs were thinking about all this . . .

Marya: Do you have a writing schedule, and do you like to read children's literature in your spare time?

Linda: I don't really have a schedule. I do treat writing as a "job" in that weekday "business hours" are sacrosanct. I try to put in a real working day each day.Yes, I do read children's literature in my spare time, picture books and novels. I try to keep up with the new-and-wonderful (Sherman Alexie's The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian at the moment). I also try to catch up on classics I have missed (lately, Kipling, Edward Lear and James Thurber).

Marya: The illustrations that you have created for the Stanley books are deliciously funny. Where did your inspiration for the art come from?
Bill: My inspiration for my art always comes first and foremost from Linda's wonderful text. When it came to creating the characters for the Stanley books, I wanted to do something that matched the energy and humour of Linda's writing. Even though Stanley, in so many ways, is a very real dog, to have worked in a more realistic style of artwork would have robbed the story of its humour intsead of building upon it. So I just think about dogs and how they do things, and then push it over the edge.

Marya: How do you create the illustrations?
Bill: My illustrative technique uses acrylics on gessoed paper. Gesso is a medium that allows me to create a great deal of texture on the page, which can be played up for things like dog fur, or grass, or seascapes.
I work from dark to light, finishing with a lot of dry brush and washes, allowing the initial line to continue to inform the artwork.

Marya: Do you talk to Linda much about the artwork that you create for her books?
Bill: Our processes are generally quite separate. Fortunately, we share a common view of our world and what we find funny, so that goes a long way to helping pair the written and visual story and make it all work as a single entity. Linda is also an extremely visual writer, always giving me lots of material embedded in the text itself to work with and at times building in parts of the story that are intended to be told in the artwork alone. On those occasions notes included with the manuscript give me the heads up.

Marya: Did you use real dogs as models for Stanley and his canine friends?
Bill: As models, no. As inspiration, yes. I live in a small village where many of my friends have a dog (or dogs!) and when we get together, the dogs usually get together as well and have their own little party.

Marya: In the Stanley books, you beautifully capture the essence of dogginess. How did you do this? Do you have dogs in your life?
Bill: No, at least not in my own life. As I say, more in avuncular sense, where many of my friends have dogs, and I have lots of opportunities to watch them sleeping, at play, etc. Our cat, Merlin, is quite dog-like, and is probably my primary Stanley prototype, barrel-chested, small-bummed and good-natured. But mostly, as in any good story-telling, I have to think like a dog and the pictures usually come from some place inside there.

Marya: Congratulations on winning the California Young Reader’s Award for Stanley’s Wild Ride! How do you feel about the success of the Stanley books?
Bill: Awed. Humbled. Puffed at times. Very pleased.
Linda: Surprised. Delighted. I have no objectivity about Stanley, and I always get a happy little jolt when people express strongly affectionate feelings about him.

Marya: Are there plans for any more Stanley adventures?
Bill: I believe so. A couple maybe. Right, Linda? :o)
Linda: Yes. I'm not done with Stanley. I hope Bill isn't, either.

Thank you Bill and Linda for such wonderful interviews. Do visit Linda on her website.