« Of Clinton and Clintonites | FlyOnTneWall's Blog | Orszag and Zawahiri and Bair, Oh My! (Wednesday Roundup) »
Warning Shots
II. (2) The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...
Our new President hasn't even been inaugurated, but already, the push-back from the uniformed military has begun. That's not a new problem; it's bedeviled a string of Democratic presidents who have run up against a military establishment that sees the world in very different terms. (Actually, it's worth amending that. The political and policy views of enlisted personnel look a lot like those of the rest of the American people; it's the officer corps that shows a strong conservative bias, growing stronger with seniority.)
Yesterday, Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered a remarkable Pentagon briefing. It provided the latest signal that the senior brass is prepared to challenge the incoming administration on a number of key policies, and to take these fights public. That is, to say the least, disappointing. Addressing these challenges, and establishing the terms of the relationship between the President and his military advisors, will be among the crucial early tasks of the Obama administration. I want to highlight two of the warning shots that Mullen fired across the bows of the USS Hope, to illustrate the nature of the challenge.
Withdrawing from Iraq:
No plank in Obama's platform was more important than his pledge to begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq, leaving behind a residual force after only sixteen months. It's a position for which he was initially attacked, but recently, American policy has swung around to a similar stance. The newly-signed Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) requires all American troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. That's a sharp departure from the standard Pentagon stance on this issue, which is that the pace and timing of any withdrawal need to be based upon the conditions on the ground.
Reporters were quick to press Mullen on how he reconciled his previous position with the SOFA and Obama pledge, and on how realistic those timelines might be. "Certainly," said Mullen, "I'm very aware of what has been said prior to November 4th." But, he quickly made clear, he didn't agree with it. Asked whether the forces in Iraq could be dismantled over the timeline envisioned by the SOFA, Mullen replied: "...it is very doable, but it's not the kind of thing that we could do overnight. I think -- I mean, to remove the entire force would be, you know, two to three years, as opposed to something we could do in a very short period of time as we've looked at it thus far."
Two to three years? Not in "a very short period of time"? It's tough to imagine a more direct repudiation of the sixteen-month timeline, and none of Mullen's caveats do much to soften the blow. (Although, admittedly, Mullen appears to be talking about complete withdrawal; the Obama plan likely envisions tens of thousands of troops remaining in the country in a year-and-a-half. Still.) Mullen could easily have punted on this one. Announced it was being re-evaluated in light of ongoing developments, and he'd have an answer in January. This was a press conference, not a congressional hearing; he's under no obligation to provide his thinking to the press.
But it's also a rather striking repudiation of the SOFA. If it could take up to three years to pull our forces out of Iraq, that takes us to the end of 2011, when we're obligated by the SOFA to be out of the country. We'd better start withdrawing tomorrow. But Mullen revealed no such intent, much less imminent plans. The "SOFA itself is adequate for what we need right now," he said, also observing that altering the SOFA is "theoretically possible" based on changing conditions down the road. That sounds less like a new posture than a three-year extension of the status quo.
We've seen the danger of serving officers cowed by a civilian administration into suppressing their dissent, and I have no interest in replicating that. But there's a fundamental difference between testifying before Congress - when officers are legally obligated to provide their best military judgment - and volunteering their opinions to the press. Mullen doesn't know who will be running Defense in January; he hasn't talked to his incoming Commander-in-Chief or his senior aides; and he can't know how the campaign proposal will evolve as classified information is made available to the Obama team. But he does know what he'd like American military policy to be, and he clearly feels few compunctions about seizing the opportunity to publicly advance those views. His term will extend for at least another year, and in all likelihood, be renewed for another two years beyond that. By unnecessarily putting these views on the public record, Mullen is evidently trying to box-in the incoming administration. It's not as if he wouldn't have been able to go public with any dissent in a few months time; it's just that Mullen wasn't interested in so much as giving the Obama team a fair hearing before he picked a fight.
Setting a Budget Floor:
In the same press conference, Mullen reiterated that the defense budget ought to enjoy a "floor" of 4% of GDP, an idea that he (along with Bush, McCain, and other hawks) has been pushing for some time. It's likely that only wonks even noticed, but it was the most outrageous thing Mullen had to say. There is a very strong case to be made for serving officers evaluating the requirements of national defense, and even recommending specific budgetary outlays to meet those needs. Aggregating those recommendations, reconciling them, and weighing trade-offs and competing demands makes equal sense. The Chairman might properly present the Secretary, President or Congress with a specific budget recommendation, a total number. But recommending, as Mullen does, that the government allocate a specific share of the GDP crosses a critical line. It's one thing for uniformed officers to assess absolute needs; quite another to make a claim for the relative import of national security compared to other budgetary priorities.
It's also an execrable idea. It only makes sense if you assume that our defense spending should always press against the upper bound of sustainability. But what if a decade of peace and prosperity were to double the size of our economy; would it necessarily follow that we ought to double the size of our military? Or, as we enter recession and the GDP slips, should we necessarily slash military spending? That's why we've traditionally tied defense spending to security needs, and not to economic growth. Need-based spending also allows for greater stability in long-range planning, and for a more honest evaluation of the costs and benefits of various programs. And, as it happens, the Pentagon's own advisory board has just concluded that our present spending levels are unsustainable, and that "bold cuts" are necessary. Independent reviews have reached similar conclusions.
So who's pushing this hare-brained scheme? It's an unholy alliance between two sets of raptors: budget hawks and defense hawks. The bête-noir of budget hawks is entitlement spending. Since they've been unable to convince the public that cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid is a good idea in the abstract, right-wing think tanks like AEI and Heritage have lately latched on to the 4% solution as an indirect way to attack entitlements. Since it would mandate defense spending increases that we can't possibly afford in the current budgetary framework, it would quickly force a crisis, and (they hope) meaningful entitlement reform. It would also have the happy effect of diverting huge amounts of government spending from areas where they oppose government involvement (social welfare) to their top priority (national defense).
The defense hawks sincerely believe that we live in a dangerous world and don't do enough to address that fact. So what if we spend roughly as much as the rest of the world, combined, on defense? We could always spend more. That's part of the fundamental dishonesty of proposing a floor, a baseline hawks are perfectly willing to exceed. Also dishonest is their calculation of our current outlays. The 4% figure is their request for the regular defense budget, not including the supplementals that are funding our current wars, which already well exceed that sum. (Factoring those in, the last Army chief of staff requested a total of 6%.)
There's nothing wrong with uniformed officers pressing for increased defense spending, a hoary national tradition dating back to Washington's innumerable entreaties to the Continental Congress. But they should confine themselves to requesting specific sums. The willingness of the senior brass over the past several years to venture across that line is, to say the least, disturbing.
Reining in the Pentagon
So how should the President-elect respond to this provocation? With public restraint. With calm, measured words. And with determination to listen to dissenting voices, to assimilate their advice, and then to forge ahead with steely resolve. It's a good thing we elected Barack Obama.
It's also worth noting that when it really counted, Obama was right. He voiced his opposition clearly and convincingly to an "occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." That puts him one up on most of the then-serving Joint Chiefs. At the same time, both the brass and Obama were wrong about the surge. The lesson here is that stars and gold braid do not necessarily confer infallibility or soundness of judgment, any more than winning an election. Obama is obliged to listen to and weigh the advice of the Joint Chiefs, but if recent history is any guide, he'd be unwise to follow it in every circumstance. The Joint Chiefs tend to advocate steering a steady course; they represent the weight of experience and institutional inertia. That's not without value, and should not be lightly discounted. But neither should it assume an outsize role in the formulation of policy.
But there are also three affirmative steps that Obama should take to address the problem of uniformed opposition to his policies:
1) The first, as I've explained before, is to retain Bob Gates at Defense. He's done a superb job of reasserting civilian control while simultaneously encouraging constructive dissent and the voicing of heterodox views; and that's no mean feat. As we change course, having a steady hand at the helm will prove invaluable, at least for the next year or so.
2) The second step will be for Obama to articulate a positive vision of national defense that can be compared and contrasted with Republican views. That means more than emphasizing diplomacy or attacking wasteful spending. With the exception of its call for 92,000 additional ground troops, the Obama platform comes perilously close to promising to do more and spend less on every front. And that's a problem for Democrats. Liberals have never seen a weapons system they actually like; conservatives never encounter one they don't love. So Democrats propose cuts (except for programs built in important districts), and Republicans attack them for being soft on defense.
It doesn't have to be like that. One alternative would be, in broad terms, to abandon our obsession with building multi-purpose weapons. A recent study suggests that it's vastly cheaper to build, maintain, and field, say, three different kinds of single-purpose aircraft than one multi-purpose jet; an approach that also ensures weapons are more perfectly suited for the roles they serve. That emphasizes a fundamental shift in procurement that will produce superior results at a lower price, rather than simple cuts. Couple that with the idea implicit in Obama's call for enlarging our ground forces and adding a Civilian Assistance Corps: that we need to re-emphasize personnel instead of equipment. All of a sudden, you have a coherent alternative. Republicans want expensive weapons systems that do everything well but nothing superbly; Democrats want to invest in personnel, and to give them intellectual and physical tools designed specifically for the tasks they'll need to perform.
Not everyone in the military will subscribe to the Democratic approach, but that's hardly the point. The key is to devise a superior approach to national security, one that reshapes the military to meet pressing needs. We can do that more cheaply and more effectively, by replacing failed and bloated weapons systems with proven, cheaper alternatives, and by investing in people rather than hardware. It'll antagonize the military contractors and this supporters, which is one way of validating the approach. But it will win over forward-looking officers, who understand that the military-industrial complex is heading down a dead-end road. Republican administrations have left this nation less secure and more vulnerable; it's time we reversed that.
3) Obama must also commit himself to long-term change. It is fundamentally unhealthy that the leadership of our nation's military feels increasingly estranged from the civilian population. Obama should move to diversify the officer corps. He should push for the re-establishment of ROTC chapters at elite private universities. Emphasize graduate and post-graduate educational opportunities for serving officers, and shift their loci from defense institutes to universities. Establish or enlarge military stations near urban areas, to retain young officers bored of rural life. The officer corps is always going to draw upon an unrepresentative sample of the general population; that's fine. The crucial task is to tie serving officers more closely to civilian leaders, and to retain the brightest and most gifted among them. As things presently stand, we're failing at both of those tasks, and it's hurting our national security.
UPDATE: Discretion, it seems, is still the better part of valor. In comments recently moved over the AP Wire, Mullen did his best to undo the damage of his press conference yesterday. The headline puts it best: "Mullen says US military can meet Obama's demands." The article reveals that the military has identified and "practiced traveling out of Iraq" on routes through Jordan and Turkey; that the Pentagon has begun planning for a 16-month drawdown; and that Mullen is working to get troops into Afghanistan as quickly as possible. Private sit-downs with the leading wire service are unusual, particularly on the heels of a press-conference. It's either an olive-branch from Mullen, or a signal from Gates or Bush that they intend to run a smooth transition. Either way, it's most welcome.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On an unrelated note, I'd like to remind readers of my explanation of why Obama wanted Joe Lieberman to keep his Chairmanship, and my speculation on why Hillary Clinton wants a cabinet post. I sometimes use this space to post corrections; it's nice to get a few right, too.
If you've enjoyed this, please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend' link. You can find more analysis on my blog, or subscribe by clicking 'Follow Me' on the right. As always, I welcome your comments and corrections, and thank you for your feedback.
Advertisement
Great Post and analysis Fly. I agree that this presser could prove significant. Last night as I was channel surfing over to Monday Night Football, I clicked on Admiral Mike and stopped long enough to hear about all of the pertinent parts of the press conference you cite.
I am no policy wonk, and your analysis goes beyond my initial reaction and thoughts, but as soon as I heard him say something about the 4% floor nonsense, and then respond to the SOFA question (couldn't you feel the sympathy in the voice of the questioner??) my initial reaction was: Oh boy, if Admiral Mike is dumb enough to try to make these points in a press conference before Obama is even sworn in, then then the President-elect ought to start soliciting resumes for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs position (what kind of joints do these guys smoke anyway?) on stupidity grounds alone.
I got the feeling that Admiral Mike was interviewing for one of those cushy defense contractor jobs.
Isn't it odd that we have not heard much on the Pentagon/defense industry front from Obama?? Is he
saving best for last??
November 18, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a policy wonk either. But I agree that we need a better worked out framework in order to put "defense" into some kind of context where it becomes just a "part" of overall prioritizing, rather than the equivalent of a male sexual organ in search of satisfaction at any cost. (Sorry if that sounds sexist, but there it is....) I made an attempt in that direction this morning at Lux's blog and I may just repost the same ideas here. They're ideas, mind you. I'm sure others have better ones. But I am convinced that unless we place problems in larger contexts it's harder to argue the case for prioritizing. I see our problem with regard to "defense" and its outrageous budget as being forced to have a battle on ground chosen by those who stand to gain from continuing to bleed the nation through wars and war toys. I think we'll find it easier to argue our case(s) if we first describe a different context for thinking about "defense."
So I'm lifting a couple of paragraphs from that comment this morning, not because they have the "answer" but just to point one way I think we could enlarge the discussion in order to prioritize:
Without forethought, IMHO, this group of TPM Cafe bloggers is working together on issues of great import. I see us circling and recircling these issues of late. In the best TPM tradition. Not in the way we all worked like ants on an anthill during the doc dumps of DOJ memory. But almost as if by reading each other and staying abreast of information, we are taking different roles in a grand enterprise, providing info, kicking around ideas, even working together to solve conflicts that arise in the course of our pursuing these concerns (as it seems other forces are working against our important work, which tells me for sure how important what we're doing here must really be).
Obviously Obama has his gameplan and he's a strong individual, able to get many people to work together, and able to persuade individuals to sign on to his visions for the future. At the same time I think we can assist ourselves and this coming administration, at times by going out ahead of his objectives - maybe too often wanting him to do way more than he actually can. But I see that as good. Our system works like the judicial system in some ways. It's adversarial. So it's good for us to over-reach at times, recognizing that our over-reaching (in terms of wanting policies that may never come to fruition as much as we want) may make Obama's compromises more possible... tugging policy a little further in sane directions.
These are just a few thoughts. Fly, I'm sure, you're way better than I at framing arguments and taking into account subject areas that are not mine. But I try to read the tea leaves, so to speak, and to "see" where we're going or where we might consider going. Or what's happening in terms of "process."
What we're doing here matters. And each of us matters. And to the degree that we work together, we can make a difference, even if never as much as we'd wish. Recognizing that our efforts to do so are a huge threat, apparently, to those who are heavily invested in the status quo.
November 18, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops.... meant to give a link for Lux's blog. At the moment there are only two comments. Mine is second. But it's worth reading the blog and the first comment too.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mr_beebers/2008/11/in-memory-of-henry-a-wallace.php
November 18, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry if that sounds sexist, but there it is....)
_____
Your apology doesn't cut it, hypocrite: under no circumstances, in any sense whatsoever, could a male say the equivalent without being called all sorts of names, beginning with "sexist" and up to and including "mysoginist".
Only males hate. Only males are bigots. All violence originates with males.
Women are only ever victims.
But only women can, on those points, be cunts.
Like it? No? Then stop being a bigot and hypocrite on the point: men get no slack from women on issues of sexism, then neither do females. And I for one am fed up with the routine pejoratives against males, including the uses of "balls" and "pricks" and like body-parts by those who profess to hate being regarded in terms of body-parts.
November 18, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me start by noting that this post was intended to address defense issues alone; I'd certainly agree that there exists a pressing need to expand the role of government in caring for those who cannot help themselves, and in creating opportunities for those who can. But defense spending hasn't, in recent decades, been the primary brake on the expansion of social programs. In fact, it's worth noting that entitlement spending has far outpaced defense, dramatically shifting the focus of federal expenditures. To the extent that there isn't enough money for the things we want, it's largely because of Republican efforts to cut revenues, and entitlement programs gobbling up what's left, squeezing out discretionary spending. That said, I think it's crystal clear that we're spending too much on defense, and spending it in the wrong places. Refocusing our defense policy could well yield a peace dividend that we could reinvest on the domestic front, where it would do more good.
From a purely tactical perspective, I think the Obama administration would do better to propose a coherent alternative defense policy, and then make a separate effort to advance its domestic agenda, than to try to make the case that the latter ought to be paid for at the expense of the former. I'd also, I suspect, place a little more emphasis on national defense than some other readers here, yourself included.
But here's one place where we absolutely agree. It's wonderful to have a forum like this one in which friends can engage in honest and open debate, and air our differences. We won't always agree, TheraP, but I hope we can recognize the good faith in which we hold our beliefs and advocate our views - and find those goals we share in common.
November 18, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem with your honestly held views. None whatsoever! Because we're neither of us out to nuke one another. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority when it comes to defense. I'm more of a peacenik. And spending over 50% of the world's defense budget is way out of line. I understand your post was on defense issues alone - but I can't subtract "defense" from protection. And in that we differ - in a friendly way. I have immense respect for you, Fly. And I only wish the folks in defense were you.
November 19, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You'd be surprised how how quickly the military will follow orders once those orders change. The leadership of defense comes from the US president, most of whom have been hawks. In fact, it was our second president who instituted a standing army in direct contradiction to the Constitution.
As for social spending, that will be a given once defense spending is brought under control. There was a report recently that the defense accountants themselves thing the entire thing needs to be trimmed down in order to be more sustainable and strategic. Once we trim the military's sails, money is freed up for other things.
I don't anticipate the government doing the providing though, beyond funding and mandates. We have a enormous non-governmental infrastructure in this country that has long provided effective social services on shoe-string budgets.
Between the Faith based Initiatives program (that many liberals roasted Barack for) and increased support for non-profits, we may in fact fix many of our most pressing social ills more effectively than if we created huge government bureaucracies to handle the same issues. In fact, by trimming the redundancies out of the federal government budget for programs that don't work as effectively as their civilian counterparts, we will get even more bang for our buck.
We need to rethink the entire script, not just a new cast of characters spouting the same tired lines.
November 19, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, I think we have found common ground! And indeed, I think your idea of looking for thinking through things in novel ways has great merit.
November 19, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
One reason why I almost never comment on your threads: you cover pretty much all of the bases. At several times while reading your latest missive, an objection would pop up in my head, only for you to address that objection in the very next paragraph.
Well done, as usual.
November 18, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur. The shift from equipment to personnel, in particular, is absolutely crucial. It holds implications far beyond budgeting. With more boots on the ground to ferret out insurgents and protect civilians, and fewer planes in the air bombing Afghan wedding parties, America's ability to end the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan (and any future conflicts like them) will be ratcheted up almost exponentially. Shiny toys can win the war, but it's our boys who win the peace.
November 18, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems the military has had the run of the place for the last 8 years and they will have to adjust to having a civilian CinC who has a strategic plan. Actually, the dominence of the military on our strategic thinking has been one of the most frightening things about the bush administration.
November 18, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think not. You think a President and a Senate who can't stand up to Traitor Joe have the balls to take on the military industrial complex?
November 18, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, STFU, you FISA freak.
November 18, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
48 Laws of Power
Law 2
Never put too Much Trust in Friends, Learn how to use Enemies
Be wary of friends-they will betray you more quickly, for they are easily aroused to envy. They also become spoiled and tyrannical. But hire a former enemy and he will be more loyal than a friend, because he has more to prove. In fact, you have more to fear from friends than from enemies. If you have no enemies, find a way to make them.
Law 11
Learn to Keep People Dependent on You
To maintain your independence you must always be needed and wanted. The more you are relied on, the more freedom you have. Make people depend on you for their happiness and prosperity and you have nothing to fear.
November 18, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that. This should work:
http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cg/Courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm
November 19, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The two most conservative institutions in a given country tend to be the establishment church and the military. The innate conservativism of the latter sometimes acts as a break on the just and unjust alike when it comes to the civilian administrations that nominally oversee them
In the Bush/Cheney co-presidency, the only real effective opposition was centered in two fairly conservative institutions: the Article III federal courts and the military.
So far as torture, illegal detention, and overstepping on surveillance, the Article I branch was more or less completely supine. Only the courts and military JAG generals were able to put some breaks or at least mount an opposition to the executive maximalists.
I want to think that the military will continue to follow the missions assigned it and minimize its vocal opposition, although it has a responsibility to provide both the Executive and Congress with accurate information and best guess recommendations without fear of retaliation as guaranteed by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986:
"Under the system established by the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act, the joint force combatant commander—not the Army chief of staff—and the secretary of defense work together, with the secretary in the lead, to weigh military with political risks and forward the best recommendation to the president. If that recommendation turns out to include too few troops, then all three authorities are accountable. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld had a right to approve Frank’s plan over Shinseki’s objections without Shinseki intervening to unilaterally raise the costs of the policy. If the Shinseki tax on Rumsfeld was legal, soldierly, and in some sense courageous, so much the worse, for that made it harder to measure the actual damage against norms underpinning civilian control. The legal code laid down by Goldwater-Nichols aimed at unity of command in war by setting up a direct link between the four-star field commander responsible for all joint force campaigns within a pre-assigned region of the world and the secretary of defense. Military advice back in Washington was also to assume a more joint character as the power of the chairman on the Joint Chiefs of Staff increased relative to members heading each of the individual services. Against this prevailing tide toward greater unification and joint operation, Congress worried about what might happen over the long term if the services completely lost their capacity to voice independent perspectives. Accordingly, the legislation explicitly described the responsibilities of the service chiefs and vice-chiefs of staff and codified their legal right and duty to provide independent professional and personal judgment for Congress. Furthermore, the legislation implied that retaliation on the part of the executive against chiefs that testified in contradiction to opinions of the secretary of defense or the president would be unconstitutional because it would effectively usurp Congress’ share of the war-making power. Under these service protections, then, Shinseki was asked by a senator of the Armed Services Committee what he thought about post-war plans, and he was duty- bound to give his honest answer, which also turned out to be a courageous one."
--Democratic Accountability and Military Dissent: the Case of General Shinseki D Coleta, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association
So my take is that Admiral Mullen is duty bound to provide accurate counsel to the President and Congress, but he has to take care of the forum he chooses. Press conferences are a very bad idea and the protections that Goldwater-Nichols extends probably do not cover opposition to administration policy voiced in such settings.
November 18, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another astute and intelligent article.
What I don't understand is why can't Obama get rid of this guy? Decorum aside, the military is under civilian control. They need to be reminded of that.
November 18, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Obama can fire a given Chief of Staff or theater commander. Political fallout is the cost. Might be worth it.
November 18, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
A well-written post, though I don't really agree with some of the conclusions with regards to some orchestrated push-back from the military brass as Barack gives them a new 21st century mission.
The military is like any organization. Their culture comes from the leadership at the top. Since the end of World War II we have had a warrior culture promulgated by the civilians in charge of the military. Even Clinton did it. We have been feeding this beast long past the time we should have killed it. Like the War on Drugs.
Yes, I know it is a non sequitur, but I like to spawn comments like: "How can you compare the Iraq War and the War on Drugs? You're an idiot!"
I see Obama's statement that he will change the very mindset that sent us to war in the first place to be his most significant strategic cue. That he will refocus military spending priorities is common sense given the security challenges we face today and into the future.
We no longer need the world-straddling and totally unsustainable military we have much less multi-billion dollar weapons systems that will never be used. From what I understand, Bob Gates is much of the same mind as are many under secretaries in various departments. Given the room to maneuver, I think the military's culture can be scaled back to its pre-Cold War dimensions and enable us to immediately move on all the other things we need to do by freeing up cash.
Boots are way cheaper than bombs and closing bases overseas to reopen them at home could provide a tremendous boost to local economies while we ramp up other programs. This shit isn't rocket science and I am fully confident that Barrack will be the kind of CinC that the military respects and will follow where ever he decides to lead.
Common sense has returned to Washington DC and not a moment too soon.
November 19, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, there's a connection between the war on drugs and the military. The military have many specific missions in Latin America - related to the "war on drugs." Could be in Afghanistan too.
I'm with you on this one! For for it, jason everett miller!
November 19, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
That should have been: Go for it!
November 19, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sexist pig!
:-)
November 19, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I have lipstick with that? :-)
(mind you, I don't wear lipstick! But if I have to be a pig, I might consider it!)
November 19, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
FWIW, I think there's an important fact that needs to be considered in this analysis: promotions to three and four star general or admiral are under political control--nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress. Promotions to major general/vice admiral and below are not--although the politically confirmed brass do have a lot of influence over who gets promoted past lt. colonel and who does not.
We politicized the top ranks for a lot of very good reasons, but it does mean that the top brass will be out of synch with a new president when the White House changes parties after an eight year term, especially one where the party opposing the new president controlled Congress during those years.
I'm just observing that some of the stuff people are suggesting is part of some inherent institutional mindset is actually just the military version of what happens then political appointees in the civilian government "burrow in" to civil service jobs. The good news is that in the military, its self-correcting as top brass age out of the system or take retirement to pursue lucrative consulting or defense industry jobs (or, in some cases, to just pursue golf balls 'cause a lot of those guys are some serious golf addicts with a whole adult lifetime of having too little time to play).
November 19, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's an interesting point.
But I'd add two elements to your analysis. The first is that there's more than one axis along which these picks are evaluated. So you could have a four-star, for example, who supports ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and also wants to invade Iran. Or the head of a Combatant Command who opposes expanding combat roles for women, but wants to channel funds away from weapons platforms and toward personnel. Or even a superb combat commander who happens to be a neanderthal. Finding the right officer for a given role doesn't always entail promoting the general whose views most resemble your own. In other words, I don't think most of the senior officers promoted over the past eight years earned their jobs through their adherence to Republican orthodoxy. And some of the officers whom the new administration will select to implement its policies will undoubtedly be opposed to key elements of the administration's overall agenda. The military is a complex place.
The other thing to bear in mind is that even if it were inclined to promote only those two-stars who, in broad terms, agree with its view of the world (a policy I think would be dangerously wrong-headed), the Obama administration probably couldn't find enough to promote. The innate conservatism of the senior officer corps has deeper routes than the support of the administration over the past eight years, as the studies to which I linked in my post demonstrate.
Institutions change slowly. The best way to affect lasting change in the military is to diversify the pool of incoming officers; to tie the officer corps more closely to civilian leaders, mostly through educational opportunities and stationing; to make the military a more attractive place for its best and brightest company-grade officers, who are leaving in droves; and to change the selection processes for field-grade and general officers to reward innovation and dissent. Do that, and in twenty years time, we'll see a senior officer corps that better reflects the values of the nation it serves.
November 19, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink