Obama. McChrystal. Critical Loyalty.

McChrystal, his staff, their comments in Rolling Stone. Obama dismisses McChrystal. Few of us are experts, can pass judgement. However, three issues were involved.

First. Maintaining team-cohesion. McChrystal was a member of a team, including Secretary of Defense Gates, Secretary of State Clinton, National Security Advisor Jones, Ambassador Eikenberry, and Special Envoy Holbrooke, and more than a handful of next-level experts.

Second. The relationship between civililan-run government and the military. The United States is a republic. A democracy. Those holding the weapons are clearly and distinctly under the strict command of the people. We Americans respond immediately to the slightest hint questioning that bottom-line premise. We fought against tyranny. We don‘t want its return.

Thirdly. The relationship between a general and a commander-in-chief. That is a working relationship. Its basis is trust. When trust is breached, the relationship is broken.

Let‘s not debate the issues here. More relevant for Germans and Americans in their daily cooperation is that very issue, the nature of trust between team-lead and team-member. I think of the German term kritische Loyalität, literally translated critical loyalty.

I have discussed this term often with Germans. How to walk that fine line between voicing legitimate concern and criticism about the team-lead‘s strategy and questioning that team-lead‘s authority?

Surely it will depend on timing, forum and language. When critique is voiced. In what forum. The words chosen. It seems that questions two and three were not handled well.

How do Germans and Americans define kritische Loyalität ? If it is important that team members voice their concerns, provide expert input, when is it constructive, helpful, acceptable? When does it threaten the legitimacy of the team‘s leader, thus the cohesion of the entire team?

What are your thoughts? Have you experienced this in the cross-Atlantic context? How did it play out?