Who Really Runs The Pentagon?
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Featured Stories | National Security — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
That was the subtext of an earlier post of mine. This editorial, picks up on the theme and runs with it:
There's a rumor going around that Robert Gates is the Secretary of Defense. We'd like to request official confirmation, because based on recent evidence the man running the Pentagon is Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan. For that matter, is George W. Bush still President?
We can't help but wonder after the Bush Administration's refusal last week to renominate Marine General Peter Pace to a second two-year term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. Gates had earlier sent the names of General Pace and his deputy, Admiral Edmund Giambastiani, to the White House for approval as his choices for the nation's top two non-civilian military posts. Mr. Bush had agreed.
But then on Friday, Mr. Gates, or some impersonator, declared at a Pentagon press conference that he had decided not to renominate the two men because he wanted to avoid a "quite contentious" debate on Capitol Hill over Iraq. Mind you, said Mr. Gates, his decision had "absolutely nothing to do with my view of General Pace's performance or that of General [sic] Giambastiani whatsoever."
It's just that General Pace was Vice Chairman for four years and has been Chairman for two more, and was one of Mr. Bush's main Iraq war generals. So Mr. Gates, the ostensible leader of our fighting men and women, concluded that he didn't want to do any political fighting of his own for General Pace. The veteran of combat in Hue City, and the first Marine to hold the Chairman's job, will now be the shortest-serving Chairman in more than 40 years.Mr. Gates nominated Admiral Michael Mullen to replace General Pace, and because the Chairman and Vice Chairman don't typically come from the same service branches, Admiral Giambastiani also had to go. To his credit, the Admiral declined Mr. Gates's offer of another job and will retire as well.
Of course, the fact that Admiral Giambastiani's career has to come to an end as a result of the fact that Chairman Pace's tenure will not be renewed is yet another reason why the Bush Administration ought to have gone to the mattresses on behalf of the Chairman. Instead, they have allowed Senator Levin to dictate personnel--and soon, perhaps policy--at the Pentagon and have emboldened their critics to obstruct and usurp at every turn and every opportunity.
No one who is even remotely passionate about the display of administrative competence on the part of the Executive Branch ought to be happy or impressed with this state of affairs. No one.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Wrong. Totally, Completely, Terribly Wrong. — Comments (35) »
Who Really Runs The Pentagon? 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...differentiate between branches of service?
in the face of Republican revolt, this Administration stands firm behind Gonzales STILL, while a 40 year veteran warfighter gets thrown under the bus for having helped wage and win wars.
I share your angst and frustration Pej...
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
I find the statements in support of Gen Pace somewhat puzzling. This weekend Sen Dickie Durbin ranted on one of the talk shows that Pace had nothing! nothing! to do with the war in Iraq. It was all Bush! Hmmm. The antiwar bunch seems to be reviving the generals-listening complaint about Bush again. Let's review:
Gen Pace was appointed Vice Chair of the JCS in October 2001 and Chairman in the fall of 2005. That means he was involved in all the decisions and conduct of the wars in Aghanistan and Iraq, at the highest levels.
" a 40 year veteran warfighter gets thrown under the bus for having helped wage and win wars."
/slaps forehead/ I missed where we *won* the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Heck, I'm not even sure how hard we are *waging* these wars.
So, after going on six years of failure it's a mistake to replace Pace? I don't see it.
I am a big supporter of Gen Petraeus, but if someone proposed a more fighting general who would do a better job of winning the war, I'd say replace Petraeus.
I am interested in WINNING. Nothing else matters.
btw I am posting this as reply to Haystack
not everything in Iraq and Afghanistan are failures. Also, we won bot WARS...it's winning the peace that we continue to fail at...
Pace ad Chairman does not command the branches-he advises up and down, but does not execute. Rumsfeld got thrown under the bus for symbolic reasons, and to shut up the anti-war crowd. Fearing similar treatment, Gates threw Pace under the bus.
There are only so many buses...how HARD we wage the fight is only because of a lack of political will...reduced in large part by the anti-war crowd I mention.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
is the only reason for lack of success. In fact, I submit that the reason the antiwar argument resonates at all (and I don't think it is particularly strong) is as a result of failure. It is not the cause of failure.
I don't say these conflicts are without successes for our side, but the word you used for Pace was "winning" and while I firmly believe we will win both these wars (and the upcoming war with iran as well) I don't think it can be said that we are winning them at present.
And yes, I know the JCS has an advisory role offering assessments of various kinds, not operational. I'm just saying that Pace has had *an* important role in our wars since 2001.
Good point, although I have two caveats. First, the war in Afghanistan is going far better than the one in Iraq, and we shouldn't lump the two conflicts together. Second, I do not think our forces are losing the war in Iraq so much as there is an aspect of that war - the fighting among Iraqis, and the fighting between Iraqis and foreign terrorists - over which we have very little control. But I agree with you (re: my post below) that firing Pace might not have been a bad idea.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
The Bush administration -- along with most of the GOP caucus on the Hill -- seem to be utterly unaware that if they even TRIED to take principled stands for conservative principles (and this IS, albeit indirectly), there is a large base of conservatives who will immediately jump into the fight on their behalf.
Making them both cowardly and foolish
Hurry, Fred, Hurry!!!
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
I would tend to agree with you, provided that the official reasons Secretary of Defense Gates has given for General Pace's termination are genuine. But as with any high profile firing or resignation, there is probably far more to this story than meets the eye.
Remember, this is a President that has risked the wrath of his own party over the Harriet Myers Supreme Court nomination, and has publically defied the Democrats in Congress over the nomination of John Bolton as the UN ambassador. This is also a President who, as haystack points out, simply refuses to terminate Alberto Gonzales's tenure even when almost everybody in Washington, right, center, and left, thinks that would be a good idea.
In short, this is not a President who willingly allows others to make decisions about key personnel for him, and that fact more than anything else calls Gates's statement on General Pace into question. Moreover, has anyone here actually heard that the Democrats in Congress were going to try to kill General Pace's renomination as Chairman? Can anybody point to something Carl Levin or any other top Dem has said which indicates they were ready to block Pace? The closest thing to that I have found is this article from MSNBC which indicates that Levin had privately advised the Bush Administration against confirmation.[1] But that's a far cry from throwing down the gauntlet, as Senate Democrats have repeatedly done over high profile presidential nominations they intend to block (re: Ashcroft, Bolton, Alito).
So, if the Bush administration didn't dump Pace because the Democrats forced their hand, it follows that they wanted to get rid of him. Why might they want to do that? Perhaps, they have fired him because they did not think they could count on him as a reliable ally in some planned military operation they might need to carry out in the future. Like ... oh I don't know, a preemptive strike against certain facilities in a certain middle eastern country that might be trying to develope nuclear power for reasons not altogether innocent in nature?[2] Just spitballing.
[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/191
[2] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
I bothers me a little that for many people on this site, the "Bush Betrayal Complex"[1] seems to have become the default position, rather than actually thinking objectively about these sorts of things. It seems like many of us would rather rip the President at every possible opportunity than take on our opponents on the left over legitimate political issues.
[1] http://www.redstate.com/blogs/nathan_nelson/2007/jun/07/no_earthly_kingd...
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
In the times article they mention that the Flag Officers would retire out of protest if the President moves forward with action against Iran...well I don't know who they are, but maybe they need to move on to corporate america. We are playing defense on our eastern and western flanks in Iraq. We don't have the forces to liberate the Iranians or the Syrian people living under radical regimes, but we can make them feel the repercussions of undermining our mission in Iraq. I saw first hand the handy work of the Sunni insurgency based in Syria in 2004-2005 and it is public info that the Iranians are killing our soldiers and Iraqis. Lieberman is beating the drum. Hopefully he knows something I don't know.
In regards to Pace, I never spoke with him or served directly with him, but I have never heard anything besides incredible admiration and respect for the General from people. If they threw him under the bus, shame on them. If he opposed hitting Iran and that is why he went, then at least he took a stand for what he believed.
From my perch I think it couldn't do anything but help if we can make Iran and Syria feel a little heat. Our boys and girls have enough to focus on inside Iraq, not to mention what is streaming across the borders. Why wouldn't we hit them? Afraid they would mobilize their Armies...Ha...Shooting fish in a barrel.
Who knows...maybe the President is getting his swagger back and taking the gloves off in the last 18 months!
I am on record at this site as opposing an invasion of Iran. However, if Iran continues to push towards developing nuclear weapons I would support a large-scale preemtive strike designed to take out its nuclear facilities. I think the danger of retaliation by the Iranian regime is less than many people think, and in any event it would be far less dangerous than allowing the mullahs to possess nuclear bombs. If the President decides to follow that course of action, he has the right to choose military leaders who will implement his policy.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
retire05
While President Bush allows Levin to call the shots on Pace and the President remains silent, we here in Texas are going "WTF?" since we wonder why Bush would desert Pace but put on the gloves over Gonzales who was pathetic BEFORE he got to Washington.
Perhaps if General Pace had changed his name to Paca he would have had some support.
Never has, never will.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)