Military Politics

In Israel the big debate is about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu firing his Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant. They are both members of the same political party, Likud.

Gallant came to see his role not only as leader of the armed forces, but also as a political critic. He disagreed with Netanyahu on enlistment of certain Orthodox groups, a proposed cease fire in Gaza, and other issues of national importance.  Whether one agrees with Gallant or Netanyahu, the question is what role should the Defense Minister embrace?

The Prime Minister of Israel, love him or hate him, has been selected and chosen by a coalition making up a majority of Knesset (Parliamentary) members.

In Israel, the newly aroused left sees the firing of Gallant as a reason to express their desire to have a different Prime Minister. Such is politics in any country.

When questioned about this at a recent function, I pointed out that George Washington was nominated as Commander-in-Chief in 1775. Washington relieved General Charles Lee from his command after Lee made poor decisions and was perceived to be insubordinate at the Battle of Monmouth. Washington publicly criticized his subordinate before removing Lee from his position.

Abraham Lincoln was no stranger to the firing of incompetents. The President removed George B. McCellan from command of the Army of the Potomac in November of 1862. The two did not like each other very well and McCellan failed to pursue Lee’s army after the Battle of Antietam. Abraham Lincoln fired five generals during the Civil War prior to landing upon Ulysses S. Grant. Lincoln was pressured by political allies to make Grant the overall Commander of the Union Army. What made Grant renowned was that he pursued Lee’s army to Virginia, causing as much destruction and death as he possibly could. Grant understood that wars were won by totally decimating the enemy.

In World War II General McArthur became something of an icon. In fact, he was a failure as a general. McArthur’s defeat in the Philippines was worse than America’s disgrace at Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, McArthur, through marvelous political contacts, managed to hang on to a command position. Fortunately, the United States Navy worked around him, isolated him to the Southwest Pacific, and marched on to Japan.

After World War II McArthur publicly disagreed with President Truman over the invasion of South Korea by North Korea and China. McArthur was in favor of using nuclear weapons against China. More importantly, the rogue general had the audacity to publicly criticize Truman. Truman sacked him, notwithstanding the popularity of McArthur in the public mystique. Many thought that McArthur would run against Truman as a Republican candidate for President. Instead the Republicans wisely selected Dwight Eisenhower to run against Democrat Adlai Stevenson.

President Andrew Johnson was impeached, at least in part, because he fired Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, a Lincoln appointee and an ally of the Radical Republicans in Congress. On June 19, 1940, on the cusp of World War II, President Roosevelt fired his Secretary of War, Harry Woodring. Donald Trump, his first time around, fired Mark Esper, his Secretary of Defense. During difficult and challenging times, the top civilian officer of the Executive Branch has not hesitated to fire the person in charge of war, when leadership determined that such an action was politically necessary.

Democracies, as well as totalitarian regimes, understand the importance of the top-ranking civilian official being in charge of the army.

Likewise, Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to fire Gallant will be judged by Israel’s success in completing the war against terrorism in the Middle East. Gallant was entitled to his political views and disagreements with the Prime Minister. However, Gallant should have kept them in private and, if he did not like the Prime Minister’s decision, he could easily have resigned and run against Bibi in the next Likud primary.

Not only did Prime Minister Netanyahu have the right to fire Gallant, beyond peradventure, he had the obligation so to do. No democracy can last long when a general or a cabinet officer in charge of defense publicly recriminates the Head of State or undermines the President or Prime Minister. Gallant had to go.

There are those who say that Netanyahu’s timing was bad. The war is not quite over. Hezbollah in North, funded by Iran, is still firing missiles throughout Israel. Iran threatens the existence of the State of Israel, and Gallant is complaining that not enough religious people are being drafted. The Minister of Defense has been critical of the war plan, offering his own vision of how Israel can rid the Middle East of terror. It is the judgment of the people who will eventually elect the Prime Minister as to what plan would work, not the inside machinations of an ambitious fellow party member.

In this way Israel is no different than any other democracy. Democracies love to have internal feuds, while fighting the existential external threats. It keeps democracies vibrant when leadership fights with other would be contenders to leadership. Democracy, by its definition, suggests that there are different points of view that are eventually addressed at the ballot box. However, Gallant could not wait for the people to vote.

When the history of the Middle East is written, Gallant may very well receive credit for prosecuting the war against terrorism in appropriate fashion. However, he was also on board when the October 7^th surprise attack took place.

Gallant has a 35-year history in the military. He originally was in a naval commando unit. He rose to the rank of General and then entered politics 10 years ago. He became Defense Minister when Prime Minister Netanyahu returned to the role of Prime Minister at the end of 2022. Gallant is to be respected and admired for getting along with other allies, especially the United States Administration and Defense Secretary Austin White. It is nerve-racking for Israelis to contemplate yet another attack by Iran without having Gallant in the front ranks. Whose fault is that? Had Gallant kept his mouth shut and worked with the government until he was ready to run against his opponent, the nation would have been better off.

Rather than criticizing Netanyahu for dismissing a thorn in his side, perhaps it makes more sense to ask why Defense Minister Gallant would pick a political fight when he is not the political head of state and has a war to complete.

Hopefully, Israel and its allies will find support in the western world for completing the job necessary to take down terrorism in a very bad neighborhood.