« 2008, the year to invest in property | Matthew Stavros's Blog | For Bush, "proper" pardons only. »
Top Brass Measuring Up Obama (and talking about it)
The Washington Post reports:
Now imagine that your job dealt with matters of life and death and that your new boss was in charge of telling you, let's be honest folks, who to kill, how and where. Imagine the profound importance of your real and perceived relationship with that new boss. The utmost care must be put into ensuring things go smoothly and that everyone knows their place, the chain of command is without question. Not doing so puts people and property in real risk of injury, destruction, or death. Now let me ask the same question. How appropriate would it be in this case to publicize your impression of the new boss? Probably not so much, I'd say.
Nevertheless, as the article goes on to explain, some very top people in the military are flagrantly and very publicly passing judgment on Obama. While their comments tend to be generally positive, I can't help but wonder if such open verdicts are not completely out of place and, I'll use the word again, entirely inappropriate. Besides the issue of politeness (you wouldn't do it about your own boss even at McDonald's) and the stakes (we're talking about a job that entails protecting and killing potentially large numbers of people here), there is the matter of degrees of superiority. The divide that separates a corporate CEO and a line worker is big, indeed, but qualitatively, it pails in comparison to that which separates a commander-in-chief and an Army or Marine general. I believe that they have no place whatsoever, at least not in their capacity as military personnel, commenting publicly about their impressions of the new president's intellect, personality, or predisposition. It's simply not their place.
The reasons such comments are deemed okay, I believe, is that there is a bias that Democratic presidents are impotent wimps who either loath the military or don't know what to do with it. I wonder if the top brass passed judgment on Bush the same way? My guess is that they did not.
But what do you think? Thanks for commenting and recommending.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went unarmed into his first meeting with the new commander in chief -- no aides, no PowerPoint presentation, no briefing books. Summoned nine days ago to President-elect Barack Obama's Chicago transition office, Mullen showed up with only a pad, a pen and a desire to take the measure of his incoming boss.Sounds reasonable enough. We all measure up a new boss, hoping to get a sense for how smart they are, how you'll get along, and frankly, whether or not they deserve to be your boss. But how many of us feel comfortable publicizing our impressions? How appropriate is it to stand around the water cooler and speak loudly and boldly about how good or bad the new CEO is? Probably not a good idea. Would you go on TV or speak to reporters? No again, right? It's simply not good employee citizenship.
Now imagine that your job dealt with matters of life and death and that your new boss was in charge of telling you, let's be honest folks, who to kill, how and where. Imagine the profound importance of your real and perceived relationship with that new boss. The utmost care must be put into ensuring things go smoothly and that everyone knows their place, the chain of command is without question. Not doing so puts people and property in real risk of injury, destruction, or death. Now let me ask the same question. How appropriate would it be in this case to publicize your impression of the new boss? Probably not so much, I'd say.
Nevertheless, as the article goes on to explain, some very top people in the military are flagrantly and very publicly passing judgment on Obama. While their comments tend to be generally positive, I can't help but wonder if such open verdicts are not completely out of place and, I'll use the word again, entirely inappropriate. Besides the issue of politeness (you wouldn't do it about your own boss even at McDonald's) and the stakes (we're talking about a job that entails protecting and killing potentially large numbers of people here), there is the matter of degrees of superiority. The divide that separates a corporate CEO and a line worker is big, indeed, but qualitatively, it pails in comparison to that which separates a commander-in-chief and an Army or Marine general. I believe that they have no place whatsoever, at least not in their capacity as military personnel, commenting publicly about their impressions of the new president's intellect, personality, or predisposition. It's simply not their place.
The reasons such comments are deemed okay, I believe, is that there is a bias that Democratic presidents are impotent wimps who either loath the military or don't know what to do with it. I wonder if the top brass passed judgment on Bush the same way? My guess is that they did not.
But what do you think? Thanks for commenting and recommending.
Advertisement
I think you are, perhaps, making much ado about nothing.
Then again, so is the media.
November 30, 2008 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
LisB: I don't quite agree that this is "much ado about nothing."
It is extremely critical that the military remain apolitical. I therefore think it is wholly inappropriate for ANYONE in the active military to declare a public opinion on the quality of its leadership.
(SIDE NOTE: Not so sure I trust the retired military to play in the political arena either.)
Gen. MacArthur showed just how volatile a situation can become when we have military leaders playing politics in the press. Truman was right to fire MacArthur, and I think Obama would do well to spell out for Mullen and the rest just how narrow is the scope of topics that are appropriate for them to comment on publically without first clearing their statements with the chain of command.
November 30, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and as regards Stavros' hat? Methinks it needs to be run over and perhaps left out in the rain a few times just to give it some character, no?
- SleepinJeezus: "Style maven for the dispossessed."
November 30, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point.
November 30, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Good timely subject . . .
And I agree with SJ's point:
There are more than a few Generals and Admirals that will need a slight adjustment in their attitudes.
Like they used to say in my Navy, "Shut the pieholes and listen up..." Like it or not, orders come from the top-down and suggestions come from the bottom-up.
~OGD~
December 1, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
That being said.....I do love your hat.
November 30, 2008 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks LisB. Perhaps you're right but I do love to toss out topics that might generate discussion.
My students like to make fun of my hats.
November 30, 2008 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I used to have a hat just like that and now I can't find it. Hmmmm.
November 30, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm, didn't I steal it from you several months ago?
November 30, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The public passing of judgement follows what will probably prove to be our worst president ever. I think that most of the top brass is so grateful to have a CofC that has more than 2 brain cells they want to shout from the mountian tops. Obama was percieved as weak on security and military knowledge and I think this is a way for the top brass to send the message on down for all to fall in line behind him. Getting military support early will make not only Obamas job easier, it will go a long way to helping the military. My only surprise at the talking about the new boss was it was coming from the famously closed lipped military.
By the way - the hat is the non issue here. Looks fine - no cause for the students to pile on. :)
November 30, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally get the point you're making. I agree with Lisa in that you're probably placing a bit too much emphasis on what's essentially a press-driven dramatization of the meetings between Obama's transition staff and the Pentagon, but still, generals are used to acting as politicians to a certain degree. They are definitely aware of how the press is looking to use their words and actions surrounding this transition to create a narrative. It would probably be best if they kept a lower profile right now, especially in light of recent events. create a narrative.
November 30, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I entered the Army in 1963, served in Germany from 1964-66 - the generals of that Army would not have commented on the President because the officers of that Army saw it as perforce apolitical. Times have changed; today's Army is much more part of society - today's standards of conduct have been assimilated by the officer corps: ask General Barry McCaffrey
November 30, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today's military is much more involved in setting foreign policy (not military policy) it seems to me. I believe that's what bothers me most about them. And I agree that it's not their place to praise or criticize the CinC in public.
November 30, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The increasing voice of the military in shaping and influencing public policy should be a concern to anyone in a democratic society IMO. As Birdsong points out Barry McCaffrey, ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/washington/30general.html?_r=1&hp ), although retired, has played a very public and reportedly self serving role in influencing defense policy and defense expenditures. Public commentary from active military commanders I personally find troubling. The last eight years have seen the politicization in the DOJ and DOD, a trend ultimately at odds with the concept of democracy.
November 30, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
My question is: WHY are they doing this? Are they attempting to send a signal to the troops that Obama is [more or less] trustworthy? Or, are they testing the waters for injecting more personal and public statements into the media under the Obama (and future) Administrations? OR a bit of both?
Obama may have to slap them down slightly once he takes office, just on general principles, even if it is a non-directed wrist-slap meant mostly as a signal "don't do that, whether you like ME or not--its not American for the military to involve itself in politics."
November 30, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Matthew that military leaders should not be passing judgment on the CinC in public. That they do is a symptom of how influential they have become in forming foreign policy, not just military policy. As far as I can tell, bush handed the reins over to Petraeus and Gates and let them lead the way.
November 30, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the double post. Didn't think the first one went through.
November 30, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem from the military point of view is that they have not been influential in policy, especially under the Bush administration.
The policy process was driven solely by Rumsfeld and the other political appointees in the Pentagon, with no tolerance for military input. This is reflected in the articles and papers from the military think tanks and war colleges. For the most part, even before the war the military did not perceive the invasion as necessary or optimal and accurately predicted many of the problems the US has since experienced in Iraq.
As the WaPo article acknowledges:
"Encouraged" is somewhat misleading in the face of the retribution received by Gen. Eric Shinseki, the army chief of staff who had the courage to dispute the number of troops needed for the Iraq invasion.
Whether right or wrong, it seems like the current military leadership is trying to pass the word that from their point of view, the new CIC will proceed differently.
November 30, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is highly improper, completely out of order, for a subordinate to comment publicly in any fashion on a superior in any military or public office capacity. As a citizen I do not require of a senior officer of the Republic's military to approve or disapprove of our choice of commander-in-chief, and in fact I very much disapprove of his having done so.
That said, the US military has, much like Joe the plumber, voted against its own interests since Vietnam. My recollection is that they have voted more than 65% Republican and the net result is that colonels and generals land cushy retirement jobs while the actual idiot-sticker's who were time and again shot at and bombed get jobs as security guards at huge military procurement dumps.
But I digress; I suspect that Adm. McMullen was trying to reassure a justifiably nervous military that they are going to be fine. The troops are worn out, the system is just about broke (you might want to consider that if the US were to confront an actual old fashioned power grab of some sort our only recourse would be nuclear since we don't have troops available in sufficient numbers to respond meaningfully) and most of the jr officers and almost all of the NCO's are kinda tribal about being conservative and republican. The troops aren't political, they are practical and they want to know what to expect from their leadership but they are understandably nervous at a time of great change.
On balance I suppose that McMullen should get away with this but I wonder if he would appreciate nominations of his being vetted publicly by subordinates?
November 30, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first time I remember this type of political commentary by generals is Colin Powell over the gay military issue at the beginning of Clinton's first term. It was totally inappropriate for Powell and other military leaders to weight in on that and harmful to civilian leadership of the military that they won. It was at that point I lost all respect for Powell.
December 1, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
For you to purview . . .
Truman Or MacArthur: Who's In Command?
~OGD~
December 1, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, interesting essay.
December 1, 2008 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Making positive comments is one thing.
What happens if the brass happens to be in disagreement with Obama? A sitting president would have little choice except to fire any general who went public with a disagreement. I think the brass already knows Obama runs a tight ship and won't tolerate any nonsense. I can't really imagine Obama being tested in this way.
December 1, 2008 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are the general and you usually want to kiss up to the new CIC. You wish to keep your position, your power, your prestige. That is why the majority seem to have positive impressions.
We were not really privy to the communications between Petreas (sp) and Barack as the Dem Nominee. Reports were fun--but only speculation. If I were Barack I would have discussed this matter with Wild Bill, and Jimmy but most of my advice would come from the members of the military that I am appointing to special positions. But, the military has no place in politics--note McCrery (sp) but that is another subject. Yes sir. No sir. I believe your question was.....
December 1, 2008 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink