THE PRESIDENT AND THE GENERAL

Was it really such a good idea for President Obama to sack General Stanley McChrystal, the architect and implementer of the U.S.A.'s (and NATO's) plan to pacify Afghanistan? I am not sure that it was. True, it was unfortunate - to put it mildly - that the general and his subordinate officers said a whole lot of disparaging things about the President (and other senior politicians), while an embedded journalist from Rolling Stone magazine was in hearing. But underlings are always saying disparaging things about their superiors, whether it be in a company, another organisation, the Army, a family, or even the country. Having millions of people not only think that you are a complete jerk, but saying and writing it every day under the protection of the Constitution, goes with occupation of the Oval Office.

I accept that in America the position is complicated by the fact that the Head of the Executive Branch - unusually amongst democracies - is also formally Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. This can create problems in time of war, since, with notable exceptions such as Eisenhower and Grant, Presidents tend not to have much, or even any, military experience. Soldiers, more than anyone, are supposed to be loyal to the chain of command. That must be tough if you think that the politicians don't know much, and are far away from getting hurt.

General McChrystal is by all accounts a first rate soldier. So is his replacement, General David Petraeus, the man who led the coalition forces in Iraq, was the architect of the "surge" there, and ended up as General McChrystal's immediate superior. As such, he will obviously know all about the military plans for the country. But he won't have - or, at least, not for some time - General McChrystal's political contacts and personal relations in Afghanistan, built up over the past year while in post. He may also have to deal with possible personnel difficulties, if subordinates think that General McChrystal has got a raw deal.

To my mind, the whole episode smacks of President Obama's trying to show, a little bit too hard, that he is in charge. He has got problems at the moment; an oil well in Louisiana remains uncapped, Afghanistan is not going well, and his approval ratings are sliding. However, it is not a general's criticism that is losing him approval, but what Harold MacMillan, a former British Prime Minister, is supposed to have said, namely "events, dear boy, events". For my part, I would have hauled General McChrystal over the coals, and told the world's press, with the general standing beside him, "I kicked his ass, told him not to speak to journalists, and ordered him to get on with prosecuting the war". Sometimes, less can be more.

Walter Blotscher