Should Petraeus have weighed in on Koran burning? General defends himself.
| Washington
Was it a good idea for Gen. David Petraeus, US commander of the war in Afghanistan, to comment on the Koran-burning plans of a small fringe church in Florida? That is the debate quietly making rounds among Pentagon officials and military analysts after Petraeus told the Wall Street Journal that the move 鈥渃ould endanger troops, and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan.鈥�
At issue, they say, is whether a top military commander should weigh in on free speech matters involving American citizens and, what鈥檚 more, whether doing so crosses a civil-military dividing line.
Petraeus argues that it does not. 鈥淚鈥檓 not commenting on an issue of free speech. I鈥檓 providing an assessment of the likely impact of an action by a fellow American citizen on the safety of our troopers and civilians,鈥� he says in an e-mail to the Monitor Wednesday. 鈥淚 think I鈥檝e got an obligation to those I鈥檓 privileged to lead to provide such an assessment.鈥�
Government officials are entitled to express their views 鈥� and these views can be valuable in lending moral weight and providing practical feedback, says Eugene Volokh, a first amendment law professor at University of California Los Angeles. 鈥淚t really is him trying to use his moral authority, and his expertise, to opine on what people ought to be doing.鈥�
At the same time, one possible problem, adds Mr. Volokh, is that by jumping into the national debate, 鈥淚t may be that General Petraeus may be inadvertently exacerbating the problem by encouraging people to restrain what they are saying for fear of extremist violence鈥� waged against US troops by radical insurgents overseas.
What Afghans expect of the US
It also plays into expectations in some parts of the world that American officials can and should control the legal, if undesirable and ugly, behavior of its citizens.
鈥淚t could be that these statements from American government officials could quiet at least some critics who will say, 鈥楲ook, at least the American government is saying the right thing here, so we shouldn鈥檛 retaliate,鈥� 鈥� Volokh says.
But, he adds, such statements could also anger some Afghans even more.
鈥淭hey could say, 鈥楨ven the American government is acknowledging that it鈥檚 a bad thing, so why isn鈥檛 it stopping them?鈥� " he says. "There鈥檚 reason to say that whatever the practical benefits might be of accommodating your action to the demands of violent extremists, there are also practical costs.鈥�
But there is a difference between stopping or threatening to retaliate against free speech and simply pointing out its possible effects, says Christopher Swift, a fellow at the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. 鈥淚t鈥檚 perfectly fine for a four-star general whose mission depends on developing goodwill to say that the action of this small group of extremists in Florida is going to undermine what we鈥檙e trying to do.鈥�
That doesn鈥檛 mean, he adds, 鈥渢hat they are going to shut down these folks. Whether General Petraeus has stepped over the line or is trying to chill free speech 鈥� I don鈥檛 see that happening. He鈥檚 concerned about an 18-year-old private running into an 18-year-old Afghan. How is that Afghan going to give the American soldier the benefit of the doubt when he has pictures of Koran-burning on his mobile phone? Petraeus is right to call that out.鈥�
The spirit of civilian control
But while such remarks from military officials do not violate any tenets of civilian control of the military, they may violate their spirit, particularly if such statements are sanctioned or encouraged by the Obama administration, says Michael Cohen, senior fellow at the American Security Project.
鈥淲hat worries me a little is that I don鈥檛 think the administration minds that the general is out front on this. They think, 鈥楲ook, he has credibility. It has weight coming from Petraeus,鈥� " says Mr. Cohen. "To me that鈥檚 very dangerous. It puts a national-security cast on what is unfortunately protected free speech, and I think there鈥檚 something deeply inappropriate about a general doing that.鈥�
Even as the Koran-burning designs of a 50-member Florida congregation threaten to imperil US troops, such a prospect, he adds, is no less than the high price of democracy.
