Wrong. Totally, Completely, Terribly Wrong.
I Propose The Creation Of A New Rule: "No Good Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff Ever Goes Unpunished."
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Featured Stories | National Security — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Ever since Donald Rumsfeld left the Pentagon and was replaced by Robert Gates, I hoped that the change in personnel--traumatic as it was--would at least cause official Washington and the rest of the country to stop focusing on personalities connected with the reconstruction effort in Iraq and start focusing instead on the reconstruction effort itself, with an eye towards making it succeed. Part and parcel of that effort involves a greater and more vigorous public relations effort in order to convince the American public of the need to see the reconstruction effort through to a successful conclusion. That effort would have to be spearheaded by none other than the Bush Administration, starting, of course, with the President of the United States.
So you can imagine, perhaps, how I feel about this:
Switching course, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Friday he has recommended Adm. Mike Mullen, currently chief of naval operations, to replace Gen. Peter Pace as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Gates said he had originally intended to seek another two-year term for Pace, but concluded that would have resulted in a divisive Senate confirmation focusing on the Iraq War.
"It would be a backward looking and very contentious process," Gates said at a Pentagon news conference.
Pace has been either chairman or vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs for the past six years--a period that covers the Iraq war.
But Gates said that after consulting with senators in both parties, he had concluded that "the focus of his conformation process would have been on the past and not on the future."
Gates said that Mullen has the "vision strategic insight and integrity to lead America's armed forces."
At the same time, he conceded he wished "it were not necessary to make a decision like this."
It was not necessary to make a decision like this. By refusing to fight for Pace's confirmation due to the fear of "a backward looking and very contentious process," the Bush Administration has once again surrendered the rhetorical field to opponents of the reconstruction effort.
Read on . . .
Who cares if the process would have been "backward looking and very contentious"? Most policy debates of concern and consequence are. Merely because a debate might be "contentious" does not mean that the debate should not be engaged in. As things currently stand, the Administration is fighting to keep the reconstruction effort afloat against public opinion and a majority in Congress that want to bring matters to a precipitous close. In order to succeed in the face of this opposition, the Administration must argue for its position and for the people who have worked loyally along with it on the reconstruction effort.
There is, of course, no evidence whatsoever of Chairman Pace's disloyalty. Quite the contrary; by all accounts he has done yeoman work in trying to get the reconstruction effort to succeed. And for this, he gets thrown under the bus by an Administration that has a congenital inability to stand up for itself and for its ideas. One does not know whether or not this stems from incompetence or sheer intellectual cowardice. Perhaps a combination of the two is at work. In any event, it is utterly lamentable, especially given the nature of the challenges facing us.
I have the highest respect for Secretary Gates. I think that along with William Casey, he was the best Director of Central Intelligence in my lifetime and the two of them may, perhaps, have been the best Directors the CIA has ever had. He has a sterling intellect, high energy, a devotion to duty and he uses his tremendous and formidable bureaucratic infighting skills for the forces of Right and Good ninety-nine times out of a hundred. Indeed, while I may cause him career heartburn by pointing out that he shares those personality qualities with former Secretary Rumsfeld, my conclusion on that score seems inescapable to me.
Which is why I am so disappointed in the part that Secretary Gates appears to have played in the sordid and appalling decision not to renew Chairman Pace's tenure at the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Secretary has a great deal of respect and regard on both sides of the aisle in Washington. He should have cashed in on his credibility in order to push hard for Chairman Pace's renomination and confirmation. The Chairman has done everything possible to try to help the Secretary get acclimated with Defense issues in the midst of hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely, he deserved a little loyalty in return, no?
And as for President Bush . . . well . . . his decision to remain mute on this issue comes as little to no surprise whatsoever. Evidently, for this President, his willingness to engage in a debate of consequence and importance for the nation is inversely proportional to the actual importance attached to the debate itself. Chairman Pace had a right to expect better treatment from his Commander-in-Chief. And the national body politic had a right to expect that their President would appeal to its collective intellect and conscience on the issue of Iraq, rather than leaving public opinion to the intellectual ravages of the tactically and strategically shortsighted.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Mel Martinez's Approval Rating Sinks to 37% — Comments (41) »
Wrong. Totally, Completely, Terribly Wrong. 35 Comments (0 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Pejman, I hear what you're saying, and in theory your position is more than reasonable.
But it seems, in practice, a bit disconnected from reality.
When the President remains mired in chronically low appproval ratings, when a significant majority of the American public wants out of Iraq, when a sizeable percentage of Republicans want out of Iraq, when a number of members from your own party are tightening the screws, and when your own political base just revolted against you on an immigration bill, certain tough and less than ideal decisions have to be made.
This is just the reality of things for this Administration right now and likely for the foreseeable future. President Bush famously acknowledged his awareness of his political capitol at a time when he was riding pretty high. And he must surely be aware that his political capital has all but vanished.
President Bush is not a delusional man. Nor are the people around him. They know that they don't have the juice to push much through right now, and they must pick their battles wisely.
And (parenthetically) when you choose to expend your dwindling political capitol on defending a clearly weakened friend of yours in the Attorney General, that can have a direct impact on ones ability to fight for other arguably more critical pieces of your administration.
President Bush chose to fight for Alberto Gonzales. And not General Peter Pace.
Think about that, folks.
Forgive me if I am confused by your post. The Iraq reconstruction programs are run through the State Department. The DOD funded programs that were run by the Project and Contracting Office were transfered to the Corps of Engineers but those programs are also overseen by State.
What does changing the CJCS have to do with reconstruction programs?
Also, given your linking of the issues, you state ...
...cause official Washington and the rest of the country to stop focusing on personalities connected with the reconstruction effort in Iraq and start focusing instead on the reconstruction effort itself, with an eye towards making it succeed.
Isn't that exactly what they are doing? They are not focusing on personalities, in this instance Gen. Pace, but are focusing on the most expeditious way of moving forward. To fight for Gen. Pace IS to focus on personalities unless you know some reason that Adm. Mullen isn't qualified as CJCS.
Gen. Pace has served this country well, but every assignment has an end. I do not understand your characterization of this as "being thrown under the bus." For political and other reasons, it's more expeditious to let someone else have a turn at the CJCS position. That's just how life works, in Washington just like everywhere else. I believe Gen. Pace understands that without feeling slighted.
The Bush administration has a long history of failing to recognize that changing situations often require changing personnel. It's called being flexible and adaptive and it is not a bad thing. Finally, he gets it right and we are going to slam him for it.
I'm still a little confused.
...there is a sea change coming? Let's not be like the Left, screaming first, asking questions later.
If Julius Caesar, Hadrian , or Tiberius had been at the helm of American power when 9/11 occurred, every Muslim land would have been sown with salt or its modern equivalent: every Muslim womb would be sere and barren. The final result should be somewhere in between.
blamming some really over the top posts that bash President Bush and Republicans. Instead of being so quick to attack absolutely every announcement that comes from the White House or DoD I think we need to take a deep breath. There are the announced reasons for something and the real reasons for something. They are not always the same, and sometimes the real reasons are actually to get something good accomplished. I will pass on ranting over this one.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
I tend to agree with the thrust of the article. One can not say that this is not a personality issue. One need only listen to the reasoning behind Gates decision to NOT recommend Gen. Pace for an additional 2 year stint.
One of this nation's strengths is that our military is not politicized (Yeah! Right!). Gen. Pace would have served with equal distinction under a Democratic CIC or as present, a Republican CIC. This issue smells like fish from the get-go. Gen. Pace is being dismissed simply due to who his previous boss (Rumsfield) was and not based upon his ability to be an effective Chairman of the JCS. His initial selection had Rumsfield's fingerprints all over it and it is this "stain" that is his undoing. I suspect that when Secretary Gate's "honeymoon" is finally over with Congress, Adm. Mullen will be in line for a similar treatment.
I speak without the benefit of insight into the internal dealings of the Pentagon. I.e., I don't know if there's an untold story here. (smagar to streiff: please weigh in, over).
For instance, maybe Pace made it known privately that he had no desire to go up to the Hill and serve as a punching bag.
Or, maybe Pace really doesn't agree with the surge. If so, the antiwar Dems in the Senate would surely pull that out of him during hearings. Either he'd say it out loud, or his weaving on pointed questions like "Are we doing the right thing in Iraq, General" would leave clear implications of what Pace really thought.
Bottom line: if Pace really didn't support the new Iraq policy, then given today's toxic political environment, maybe he shouldn't have gone to the Hill. Maybe he shouldn't have been renominated. Because, the antiwar Dems and Hagel would have used Pace as a club, no matter what.
Any sign of reluctance and doubt by the Chairman would instantly have been trumpeted as high-quality evidence that the "surge" was doomed to fail. Crafty Dems (with "bipartisan" cover from Chuck Hagel) could have delayed Pace's confirmation hearings until just before Petraeus' "make-or-break" September Iraq update briefings. If Pace's words or impressions painted a gloomy picture, Petraeus could easily have found himself having to de facto counter/contradict the CJCS. General Petraeus, given that you have such a positive outlook for the future of Iraq, how do you explain Chairman Pace's gloomy outlook for Iraq that was so evident to all of us in his reconfirmation hearings just two months ago?
BUT, if Pace really does want to stay on as CJCS, and really does support the surge...then shame on President Bush. Once again. Or, if this is all SECDEF Gates' doing, then shame on him.
At some point, you have to stand and fight for your policy! Unless you are OK with bolstering the perception that the chattering class is right, when they say (or most often just imply) that we're having problems in Iraq because the Iraq War has been run from top-to-bottom by dunderheads. That the WH and Pentagon eschewed easy-to-implement alternative Courses Of Action (COA), and instead willfully picked weaker COAs that were more likely to fail.
I'll give one example: the "failure" to send more troops into Iraq at the very beginning of this war. The prevailing reason for why we didn't use more troops seems to be that the Pentagon and White House were just stupid stupid stupid. Here's an alternative explanation---we didn't have extra troops to send! In January of 2003, the US military had 10 active duty Army divisions and three Marine divisions/MEFs. Roughly half of that force was committed to OIF and OEF. That left the rest--roughly 6 divisions of active ground forces---to cover any/all needs for:
a) Reinforcements in Iraq
b) Troops to rotate into Iraq/Afghanistan, to replace the troops already there. (Especially if we expected to be there for a long, long time, as the Pentagon brass surely did).
c) Existing US military committments in Korea, the Balkans, etc...
d) Anything else that may pop up (e.g., Taiwan) where the free world might need to send a quality ground fighting force.
For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that the critics are right, when they say we should have sent more troops in March of 2003. But, our military would have run significant risks in doing so. Risks that the chattering class knows couldn't have been mitigated. So, the pundits and politicians deal with those risks by...simply pretending they weren't there in the first place. By refusing to discuss them, they can get away with that kind of pretending.
Generals, on the other hand, can't get away with it. They HAVE to look at the problems. They HAVE to consider constraints when they develop OPLANS...and they have to make hard choices about what kinds of risks they're willing to take when they choose COAs.
A reconfirmation hearing would have been a great chance for GEN Pace to explain why sound heads might have disagreed with sending more troops into Iraq. He could have made the case that sending more troops might have been judged a risk too chancy to take, given the US ground military's de facto size and its other worldwide committments. I.e., he could have argued that not sending more troops was a hard but reasoned choice, instead of a dumb oversight.
A Pace reconfirmation hearing would have given the Bush Administration a chance to defend all its Iraq War decisions. It could have laid out the factors that went into making a whole slew of decisions. I'll bet that the discussions would have been illuminating. The American people could have seen that many of the "failures" in Iraq resulted not from carelessness or stupidity, but instead from judgement calls---made in good faith, with limited background information (as always happens in war)---that went wrong. (E.g., letting Iraqi forces lead the first battle for Fallujah). Or that some of the failed courses of action (e.g., "disbanding" the Iraqi Army) were chosen because the alternative COAs might easily have been worse. (If you were a Shia Iraqi, would you want Saddam's old army and Baathist police policing your neighborhood?)
The debate, if fully and vigorously waged, could have exposed the shallowness of much of the Iraq War criticism. It could have allowed the Bush Administration to defend its stewardship of this war---and in so doing, rebuild popular confidence in its ability to successfully fight the battles that lay ahead.
Instead, the WH seems to be throwing Pace to the public opinion wolves. If so...then, are they OK with a perception that (a) they've screwed up things so far and (b) consider loyal Beltway soldiers (Pace, Libby) to be expendable?
I hope so. Because that is the impression they're leaving. With lots of people.
The Bush administration reminds me of Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman. At the very end of the movie, he's speaking up in defense of his young friend Charlie, who's accused of lying. Pacino remarks that, when he had been faced with difficult decisions throughout his life, he knew without question which path was the right one to take, which COA was the right one to pick. But he never did the right thing, because it was simply too d**n hard. He always took the easy route.
Sound like a certain White House we know?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Okay...I may be "out there" a bit on this but it's my feeling that Gates was totally calculating in his recommendation of Admiral Mullen due to the fact that the next major undertaking for this nation's military is Iran. And the attack, blockade and siege of Iran will be conducted primarily from the decks of aircraft carriers - Gates wants an Admiral in charge at the top, not a Marine.
I was not a fan of Pace's appointment to begin with. Being Army oriented I dont much care for the admirals running many of the key combatant commands at a time we are fighting a major ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan.I dont fault Gates for wanting to put his own "guys" in key posts I dont like the selection of Mullen or Cartwright.I didnt like Casey's selection as Army Chief of Staff because of his poor performance in Iraq.During his tenure at MNF-Iraq most of the time we were in a defensive posture. Now we are being aggressive and its going to pay big dividends.
Starting with this:
I was not a fan of Pace's appointment to begin with. Being Army oriented I dont much care for the admirals running many of the key combatant commands at a time we are fighting a major ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gen. Pace is a Marine, not a sailor, and he's a General, not an Admiral.
From there, I have even more trouble understanding exactly what you're saying (save the last three sentences about Casey and being aggressive).
Can you help me out a little bit?
Pace was a politician in uniform.He is not what you would expect from a Marine general.There are a couple of Marine generals that would make great CJCS - General Conway and LTG Mattis.
My comments about the admirals refer to the admirals who are combatant commanders.Combatant/Unified Commands being run by Admirals are:
NORTHCOM
CENTCOM
PACOM
SOUTHCOM
STRATCOM
SOCOM
They command no troops. Their job is to:
a) advise politicians in the legislative and politicians/bureaucrats in the executive branches;
b) look out for the best interests of the military, while being in a position of subservience (harsh but true wording) to the SECDEF, White House and Congress.
What do you think Pace should have done? Subject Senators and Congressmen to some wall-to-wall counseling? Led the Old Guard and the Marine Barracks Silent Drill Team on a bayonet charge up the steps of the Capitol? Yes, those are wonderful thoughts, but not practical ones. For one thing, there is that pesky American tradition of the military obeying civilian rule...
OK, you've called Pace out as a politician. Now, I submit that you place yourself on record and tell us what, in the circumstances he found himself in, Pace should have DONE differently.
Over
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I don't think you are right.
1. Mullen is an Admiral, so ousting Pace in favor of Mullen isn't any improvement from your stated gripes.
2. Stratcom is under a Marine -- Cartwright.
3. Northcom is under an AirForce General-- Renuart.
4. Socom is under an Army General-- Bryan Brown.
So that just leaves Cent and South and Pac as Navy billets. There are only about ten of these four star seats, so somebody is going to get three while everyone else gets two.
I can't imagine anyone with more than one star on his shoulder who isn't a politician of some kind. They all have to spend more time answering to Congress than leading men.
instead of how we wish it was.
General Pace has already made history as the first US Marine (to my knowledge)Officer to be appointed Chairman and before that vice-chair.
Gates is simply telling it as it is. Congress would use this confirmation process to further muddy the waters. Rather than "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle", Gates is playing maneuver warfare by moving around a tough but essentially non-mobile obstacle, thus rendering it useless.
Think Maginot Line,
Gates is playing maneuver warfare by moving around a tough but essentially non-mobile obstacle, thus rendering it useless.
as a bridge for his turning movement.
Think pitching your comrade out of the wagon, so it can ride out of Indian country faster.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
The Democrats in the Senate are the Maginot line, and Secretary Gates is trying to run around them.
Run like Reagan!
The Democrats in the Senate are the Maginot line, and Secretary Gates is trying to run around them.
winner.
BTW, for those criticizing General Pace as a mere politician himself, the entire JCS is a political organization. The Commandant of the Marine Corps for example doesn't command any of the operating forces. Those commanders report up the chain to the various theatre commanders who report to the President.
The JCS exists to administratively lead the services by setting and maintaining standards, and to advise the political establishment of how to conduct .mil operations. - Source
Also, every general officer appointment must be confirmed by the Senate individually. So, if as a 2nd Lt you manage to piss off the junior aide to the junior critter from the great state of confusion it can bite you in the ass thirty years later when you want a star and he is now the chief of staff to the senior critter from the great state of intoxication. - Source
The thing to remember is that he started as a butterbar and worked his way up earning his chops. Rather than cut and paste stuff, I would suggest simply checking out his bio here and take note of his accomplishments and command history.
The bottom line is that every Officer (at least in my Marine Corps) is groomed to win in any arena whether it be tactical or political. Gates is making a tactical move and anyone who thinks that this somehow lessens the Generals credibility is mistaken.
That only works if the point of contact isn't at a choke point and is actually a non-mobile obstacle. Senate confirmation is a choke point for Presidential nominations, there is simply no way around it. The Dems have made it plain that since they lost their temper tantrum to overturn the plain words of the Constitution, they will use every other opportunity they get to mulligan the battle until they win. So Gates the only thing Gates has changed is who the target will be when the Dem ambush opens up. Pejman's essential point is that until the Dems recognize that EVERY time they try this Bush is going to hand them their teeth, they will keep trying it. And whenever Bush or one of his appointees makes "a tactical decision to go around an obstacle" the Dems instead learn that their tactic is working.
That only works if the point of contact isn't at a choke point and is actually a non-mobile obstacle. Senate confirmation is a choke point for Presidential nominations, there is simply no way around it.
I totally understand. And I am not saying you are wrong. The analogy was the best I could come up with.
Pejman's essential point is that until the Dems recognize that EVERY time they try this Bush is going to hand them their teeth, they will keep trying it.
Absolutely true. President Bush has demonstrated that he isn't as confrontational as I would like. I really doubt the Pace would have rolled either. I think that confirmation hearings can be a great opportunity to set records straight and hand your opponent his rear end.
I also didn't mean to imply that I agreed with Gates decision. I simply understand the tactics of it. Mullens will be far less likely to tell the pols to take a hike in diplomatic terms than a Marine or Army General Officer.
And, for the benefit of the poster who laid out the NYT link. Thanks. I hope that when the courts martial finish up, the (found guilty) murderers die screaming.
BTW. Is there a newbie forum? I am new here and while I can navigate via compass and map, that only works if the terrain is 3D.
and the disturbing declaration by the IAEA regarding Iran's nuclear program, there would seem to be distinct advantages in having the Chief of Naval Operations assume the role as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Until Gen. Pace issues a public statement clarifying the circumstances leading to his retirement, I plan to withhold judgment regarding the Bush Administration's calculated decision to subject Admiral Mullen to the inquisition confirmation process.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
He'll probably simply fade away, like old soldiers/sailors/Marines/airmen do.
Has Shinseki clarified much publicly, since he became a veritable volleyball during the 2004 election? Not from what I recall. Why should we expect Pace to be any different?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
"Why should we expect Pace to be any different?"
Because Gen. Pace is a Marine, and I believe the United States Marine Corps would be better served if one of their own set the record straight and "let the chips fall where they may."
If Sec. Gates is correct in his assessment that Gen. Pace's confirmation hearing would devolve and "the focus of the hearings would be backward-looking instead of forward-looking, and contentious just because of all the issues that we're familiar with," I'm pretty sure this would be one of those issues.
A statement by Gen. Pace would clear the air allowing the debate to move forward. We need to implement a long-term strategy for victory that includes Iraq, Iran and Lebanon. Spinning our wheels defending the past has become a dangerous distraction. IMHO.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
nor am I implying it. Far from it.
My point was that, from what I can tell, many military leaders don't lash out publicly if they feel their civilian bosses wronged them. They simply take it stoically, in silence. That's why I listed Shinseki as my example.
We need to implement a long-term strategy for victory that includes Iraq, Iran and Lebanon.
You're right. But, I suspect we'll all have to wait until after the 2008 election for that. I don't see how a lame duck White House can implement anything "long term." Especially when its--and all of our---hands are full with the current fight in Iraq.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
stoic. We (meaning US Marines) were essentially raised from recruit training on with the understanding that while we were subordinate to civil authority, we were by no means inferior. In fact most of the leadership I ever met viewed the political shenanigans as just something unpleasant that cannot be avoided and must be be lived with. Small price to pay for being part of the worlds finest and all that.
so I can figure out how to navigate and in general not blunder about the site like an idiot? Thanx - Phil
Do you have a link to that old RS etiquette diary? I can't seem to find it.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
One -- Pace's disdain for throwing out Don't Ask Don't Tell for openly gay troops serving got him ditched.
Don't think that wasn't it. A measure of pure power, shown by Gay rights groups within the Dem Party. And a measure of Dems focus: gay rights over military preparedness and effectiveness.
Two -- The withdrawal is certain. An Army CoS could have been selected, but why? The decision is already done to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan (which has always been unsustainable). Dems, Media, and now GWB who folds not fights for anything but Illegal Alien Amnesty have all agreed to surrender in September. I can read the political tea leaves in the NYT and WaPo as well as anyone. It's obvious.
Three -- we are not attacking Iran. If we got nuked and it was suspected that Iran did it, most Dems and the Media would demand we "negotiate" and "find out why they hate us" rather than respond militarily. Obama's answer to the hypothetical in the debate was no fluke, nor was the others. We are profoundly pacifist and it would take the loss of at least three cities to get us to act. The hold of the elite pacifists who hate military action (because it allows ordinary people to rise in opportunities particularly politics) is not to be underestimated. Iran can continue to make war on us and we'll do nothing in response.
Nor overestimated. The enemy won't stop. He'll keep attacking, here at home. And we will get a populist revolt like we did on the Illegal Amnesty bill.
Bottom line: Mullen for Pace means the Gay Lobby trumps military action (and get ready for the Gay Military) or effectiveness, we are not serious about fighting the enemy, and the wealthy liberal aristos have for now locked down any military action other than surrender/retreat.
Never mind that his views on gay personnel are based solidly on military law and proven pragmatism; such is the pervasive reach of Beltway politics.
You guys are all making much more out of this than
is really there. Gates wanted a change, whether
because he was dissatisfied with Pace's current
(or past) performance or just didn't feel
comfortable with his leadership going forward.
Throwing him to the curb publicly would not be
Gate's style so he makes a plausible case why he
makes the change. Very typical of Washington no
matter the administration in power.
Rant Street! www.rant.st
doesn't make it the right thing to do.
When you are in charge---nay, when the American people have elected you to be in charge---you are supposed to do the right thing. And, if "right" turns out to not be synonymous with "easy", no matter. You do the right thing anyway. Or at least you should.
And, if you don't do the right thing, expect to be judged harshly.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.