The New, Improved War Cabinet
The president is going to have to make some policy decisions pretty soon. About foreign and national security policy. They will take the form of personnel changes at the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Department of Defense, but since personnel=policy, the new (or reshuffled) lineup will perhaps tell us if Mr. Obama has actually learned anything about the way the world works and America’s role in it.
Since his public statements can be used to prove most anything you wish — he’s been on virtually all sides of many crucial issues — the personnel moves will likely be enlightening, or at least helpful to those trying to figure him out.
Gates is retiring “soon,” sometime “this summer.” So that’s one open slot. And Mullen, the current chairman of the JCS is term-limited and must leave in September. So that makes two. If you believe the Washington insiders, you will bet that Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, will move to the Pentagon, that General David Petraeus, the current commander of the Afghanistan war effort, will replace Panetta in Langley, and that General “Hoss” Cartiright, Mullen’s deputy at the moment, will move up one rung.
The Cartright move is the least likely, in part because there is considerable opposition within the top military ranks. Moreover, the JCS job is apparently Petraeus’s for the asking. He’s certainly qualified, and although, Washington being what it is and human nature being what IT is, there are those who are less than unqualified admirers, no one will mount a campaign against him. As against that, Petraeus doesn’t have a warm cuddly relationship with the president and with Thomas Donilon, the powerful national security adviser, while Cartright apparently does.
Indeed, one of the insiders’ favorite subplots is that Obama fears Petraeus as a political rival, whether within the system or as a Republican presidential candidate next year. If he were at JCS, the general would have a very visible podium, but if he were at CIA he’d have to be quiet. So it would make political sense for the president to send Petraeus to Langley and reward his buddy Cartright with the chairman’s seat at JCS. Furthermore, the loyal Panetta would ensure that the chiefs sing from the Obama hymnal.
If you were Petraeus, what would you do? I can’t answer that question, since I don’t know if he wants to run for public office. He’s certainly a very political animal, and a master of public relations. Does he fancy a run for the White House or some other such job? If so, he’d be ill-advised to go to the CIA, where Panetta has done a splendid job protecting Obama’s back from the sort of murderous assaults that the spooks unleashed against W. He hasn’t turned the Agency into a first-class organization, but I don’t think anyone can do that. You can find folks close to Petraeus who believe that he might make the CIA much better, and that he might take the job because it’s so important for the future of the country. If true, and if he goes to Langley, I would expect Petraeus to have a very difficult and unpleasant tenure. Those guys might not know what they’re supposed to about Iran, Syria and Libya, but they know a great deal about Washington, and they have lots of willing co-conspirators in the media.
How would Panetta do at DoD? He’s very close to Obama — which would give him at least as much leverage over policy as the cautious Gates has had — but he doesn’t seem to be a particularly vigorous policy advocate. So what would the leverage be used for? The most likely answer is that it would be used in reverse, in a campaign to cut the defense budget and weaken the services. Good for Obama, bad for the country, you might say. But he’s the president, and he’s going to head in that direction, and I would expect him to want “his guy” to manage it.
If Petraeus, acting out of character, says it’s either JCS or he’ll consider his options as a private citizen, Obama might have to find a different CIA director, and he’d likely want someone in the Panetta mold: a loyal pol. And that’s easy, those people are all over Washington, and lots of them would love to be head of CIA, even in its diminished status under the thumb of the director of national intelligence.
What does all this tell us about policy? What we knew in the first place: that there isn’t anything approaching a coherent policy in this administration, and so Obama is likely to look for a War Cabinet whose members will do his bidding, whatever that might be. There’s not a single name on the list that is associated with a definable global vision, even if you expand the list to include the likes of Senator Reed, or General Odierno. It’s all about himself, about his reelection campaign, and thus about tactical decisions with no strategic goals aside from looking cool.
Yes, they are “talented men.” They do their jobs well. But we’re at war and Obama isn’t very comfortable around warriors. Which is why he seemingly wants Petraeus in internal exile. I don’t know if he’s right about that, it’s what comes out of this little world inside the Beltway, and most of the time that stuff is wrong.
So we’ll get a bit of change, but it doesn’t look like we’re going to get reason for hope that we’re going to take the war seriously.
A government shut down would have been interesting and should have been decisive. Had Obama insisted on including pay for the military, Gates and all the Joint Chiefs along with Petreous really were obliged ethically to resign, given that the CinC was given an option to exclude the military. Senior appointments are entirely political, but hopefully most of them took their leadership ethics with them.
What does all this tell us about policy? What we knew in the first place: that there isn’t anything approaching a coherent policy in this administration,
and what does this tell us about the President? Coherent?
you can count on obama doing what is worst for the USA. therefore, eric holder moves from DoJ to CIA.
Once again this is all about obama protecting obama and not about protecting America.
General Petraeus’s continued unwavering championship of nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq, which he famously endorsed and positioned as the cornerstone of the updated counterinsurgency manual he co-authored along with General James F. Amos in 2006, may wreak havoc with ANY larger political plans he may harbor, in light of the steadily increasing number of Americans who regard it as a hopelessly Sisyphean task (and, I might add, a factor many also feel is undeniably implicated in the unnecessary death and brutal maiming of the REAL “bravest and best” among us). As Donald Trump astutely pointed out, in the midst of an acute financial situation, we still can’t build schools for our own kids in Mississippi and Alabama SIX YEARS after Hurricane Katrina, yet we continue to find the money to build schools in Afghanistan and Iraq that get blown up and re-built. (And again I would add, those are only the schools.) It’s also possible that any prestige and “CV-building” the General might garner from accepting such a position could ultimately backfire by further fueling the growing perception among many that he is not his own man, but rather Obama’s man, a feeling his earlier and again recent proclamations in the Terry Jones saga have done nothing to attenuate. It’s far from coincidental that the litany of iconic, intractable Generals down the 200+ years of our history who exemplify what many citizens now feel simply MUST be the pronounced character traits of any new aspirants to public office, is being evoked in more and more quarters as the appropriate models for what we should be demanding in our military (and Congressional) leaders, as waves of shocked disbelief and righteous anger ripple through society in the wake of news of how the Constitution and First Amendment rights of Americans are being betrayed by those very “leaders” who are paid by us and sworn to defend and uphold them.
To borrow from Twain, the news of the Tea Party’s death has been greatly exaggerated, and represents nothing more than the now-familiar disinformation campaign of the pollsters, RINO’s, and msm, kicking into high gear on fear-induced steroids as the primaries loom. If Petraeus runs for anything, he may find it a very different kind of tough going.
Usually when asked to serve a President in a military or security capacity the default answer is to accept the offered post from a sense of duty to the country. Most people accept even if they have reservations about the People or policies they will have to support. At some point this moral patriotic equation flips. IMHO at some point it becomes immoral to continue to serve or to accept a new higher ranking post. When Gen. Petraeus accepted a demotion to take command in Afghanistan that demonstrated self sacrifice and a sense of duty to the troops as well as to country. I can’t imagine Petraeus moving up in this administration. That would diminish him in my eyes. Surely by now even he must be having doubts about the current doctrines potential for producing positive results. Unless of course he believes the hooey he’s forced to spout such as his comments on the recent Koran burning. Choosing to stay at his current post attempting to see the job through to whatever it’s conclusion for the sake of the troops would be the honorable thing to do.
When in the 1950′s Dr. Mossadegh became the so called “elected” prime minister of Iran one of my relatives accepted a very senior position in his administration. He did so not because he was enamoured by the good doctor or the farce of “free elections”, but because he was convinced that Mossadegh would be moving Iran towards an alliance with the Soviet Union, which is historically accurate. He wanted to be in a position to sabotage such attempts and, failing to do so, publicly blow the whistle from the inside of Mossadegh’s circle even if it meant his death. So, if Petraeus should accept the DCI position he will not be diminished in my eyes. We, those of us who share Dr. Ledeen’s fundamental principles on the direction of this country and the world, desperately need a Petraeus in that position. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
Until the war-chant of the day is no longer a ‘nation building’ strategic model, our military and nation will remain on a losing course. Likewise, until our military is returned to a genuine fighting force in structure and doctrine and less emphasis on a ‘family oriented’ military, we will continue to be a weakened military dependent upon unreliable technology advances to compensate.
Our poor military with the newer ‘secure and release’ strategy to win conflicts have not won a war and conflict since WWII. All of America’s substantial enemies and potential enemies are fully aware that a strategy of guerilla and insurgency tactics will economically defeat our military efforts. Likewise, those same enemies are fully aware that the transformed U. S. military of today, is fully inadequate to wage and win with traditional ground warfare tactics…..in spite of what all the arm chair experts of technological warfare will say. Most any enemy can adapt tactics to counter our techonological air, artillery and other superiority as proven time and again since WWII.
So, I don’t see all this senior leadership personnel replacement moment being anything to significant given the direction of the nation and its current strategies around the world.
How about we the people, returning our government and military to the constitutional intent and mandate? We certainly have the constitutional means to convene a constitutional convention and make the wording even more simple for those who have troubles interpreting the original intent and mandates!
Panetta has done a wonderful Stansfield Turner impression at Langley, telling Obama what he wants to hear no matter what is actually coming in from SIGINT and (our very limited) HUMINT. Not to mention gutting Operations even more thoroughly than Turner did, apparently attempting to turn the Company into something out of the TV show “Chaos”.
At Defense, my guess is Panetta will be another Les Aspin, with all that implies. (Including a sequel to “Black Hawk Down” at some point in the near future.)
As for General Petraeus, if he’s smart, he’ll retire. The only reason Obama wants him for anything is as another body to throw under the bus when needed. And after the muff on Iran, and now Libya, The One is going to need another sacrificial lamb pretty soon. (“Oh, look! Someone’s jumped under the wheels! Well, it was obviously all his fault, wasn’t it?”)
As for Cartwright, if he actually wants to be CJCS under the likes of The One- he deserves whatever consequences he ends up facing. The only thing more important than knowing your own limitations is knowing those of your Commander-in-Chief. In this case, those limitations are somewhere between Charles The Bold Of Burgundy, and Boris Badenov.
With a side order of Daffy Duck.
clear ether
eon
Marking time is an old practise of the military, and frankly I have a greater
expectation of that being the aftermath, rather than change which comes from shuffling the deck once more.
Michael, what do you make of the Polish government supporting the opposition in Belarus? I figure, Poland is in a position to teach lessons to those who know better.
i don’t worry much about Poland. Enough to worry about…
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/world/europe/06iht-poland06.html
shows the help Poland is giving the dissidents in Belarus. I tried to find it over at the most recent online edition of Maclean’s magazine, but no luck.
It is in the most recent print edition though.
I have been hoping Petraeus would reconsider his decision regarding running for president. I don’t know if any of the current crop of candidates can do what they would have to do to straighten out the country although Romney and Trump have had to reorganize companies.
There is a dearth of independent thinkers in the group of generals and admirals mentioned. Panetta, a party hack, should be put out to pasture. If I were Petraeus, I would want to be away from the continual backstabbing and nitpicking of politicians. Obama is just as guilty of that as the underlings The CIA should probably be cleaned out and a degree of intelligence reinstalled but I don’t think any of the people named can do that. The same may be true of the Pentagon.
Question for Michael (and readers):
As a senior general officer and commander in Afghanistan and Iraq, did Petraeus have some obligation (as a matter of Honor) to offer his resignation at some point in light of the failure of the current and previous U.S. administrations to do something effective about lethal Iranian assistance to the insurgents? As Michael has documented, this aid was and is targeted against our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I served in Iraq and am serving in Afghanistan (currently home on leave for Passover) and it sometimes feels as if we built and are building sandcastles close to the surf at low tide. The Surge in Iraq, purchased (it can’t be said often enough) with the blood of our forces, was brilliantly conceived and executed and provided significant potential strategic benefits. But it seems we threw those benefits away. As for Afghanistan, I think the best image comes from Asia Times columnist “Spengler”: “a Petraeus Village”.
I don’t believe Petraeus had or has an obligation to resign if he disagrees with policy. I think he’s obliged to resign if he feels that he can’t — for whatever reason — carry out the orders of the commander in chief. I also believe that he and other general officers are obliged to argue very forcefully for actions of legitimate self defense against iran and iranian proxies. He and others may well have done that, such information is way above my pay grade.
As the father of two children who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a third who has received orders for Afghanistan deployment, I share many of your frustrations. But we have done well, in many ways. I do not believe that we “threw it away” in Iraq; if we had a serious Iran strategy, we’d see much better things in Iraq. We certainly defeated Iran,Syria and al Qaeda in Iraq, in ways that surprised many of our warriors…even before the formal “surge.” It’s too soon to write that history.
Spengler is a close friend and a national treasure. A genius, a wonderful eccentric and a “fun person” for extras. All praise to him!
and you. thanks.