jollyroger's picture

    Did young Barack Obama play with toy soldiers?

    By jollyroger on Thu, 01/01/2015 - 8:52pm |

     

     

    I ask because his tortured relationship with his Defense Secretaries is destined to become the topic of more than one PhD dissertation in coming years.

     
    After 6 years of demonstrably poor choices (relative to a metric where loyalty is job one), viz, Gates, Panetta and Hagel-two shivs and a stonewall--Prez is considering himself lucky that his current choice (after several refusals by more highly regarded candidates ) Ashton Carter, accepted.  
     
    Looking back on the once jocular suggestion that picking Colin Powell would be a slick move, I think it might have turned out better.
     
    By continuing with the Defense Secretary of his predecessor (Gates) Obama evinced a troubling diffidence vis-a-vis staking claim to the terrain of civilan command as his own, a  manifest shrinking from vigor when the inevitability of some US Military engagement during a presidential term is virtually certain (alas!).  
     
    One might almost say that unless a new president finds the Duke of Wellington or Marshal Zhukov in the job of Defense Secretary, he needs his own new one.
     
    And for his carelessness in choosing, Obama got books from Gates Panetta that (unencumbered by research) I believe represented, in the timing of their publication-notwithstanding-the-administration-has-not-left-office, unprecedented acts of disloyalty from Secretaries of Defense to their President. 
     
    Finally, Hegel.
     
    The recent resumption of Guantanamo repatriations that had been constipated by Hegel's refusal to sign off makes it clear why the change had to come.
     
    The more interesting question:  How is it possible that when vetting Hegel before his appointment, Prez never got a commitment to cooperate in fulfilling one of his most deeply felt and deeply thwarted pledges, the closure of Gitmo?
     
    Funny thing--when it comes to loyalty (Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, I'm talkin' t'you) you could say that Obama gives as good as he gets.
     
    I guess it's just not on his radar as a character issue, plus or minus.
     
     
     

    Comments

    I believe represented, in the timing of their publication-notwithstanding-the-administration-has-not-left-office, unprecedented acts of disloyalty from Secretaries of Defense to their President. 

    Traditionally it is was a down right mortal sin for military men of their position to do before enough time has passed after everyone leaves office.   


    by trkingmomoe on Thu, 01/01/2015 - 11:36pm

    Great piece, Jolly. Given the missions to wind down wars, exercise caution in getting involved in new ones and deal with major budget cuts and a generally hostile Congress, it's surprising anyone would take the job.   


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 01/02/2015 - 1:22am

    Yeah, one of the last adjectives I would think of to apply to Obama is "loyal." It's not to disparage, that's not it, he's just not that type of person. He's all about professionalism, totally separating friendship and work. If Valerie Jarrett wasn't helpful to him, even she'd be gone. She's there at his side for so long only because she is helpful. It's kind of odd that he's not going to be known for being able to manage that well. Because he's certainly not the politician type, either. I guess i am just babbling. Just struck me that "loyal" is not applicable as to his work. May very well be quite loyal to personal friends.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 01/02/2015 - 2:11am

    Uppity goes with the S.O.D. job, maybe?

    Rummy was such a thorn in W's side. Then go to history, I just quickly picked these at random from Wikipedia--

    like this one, the longest in office

    But declassified records from the Lyndon Johnson Library indicated that McNamara misled Johnson on the attack on a U.S. Navy destroyer by withholding calls against executing airstrikes from US Pacific Commanders. Instead, McNamara issued the strike orders without informing Johnson of the hold calls, constituting a usurping of the president’s constitutional power of decision on the use of military force.[26]

    Or this one:

    In 1949, angered over Forrestal's continued opposition to his defense economization policies, and concerned about reports in the press over his mental condition, Truman abruptly asked Forrestal to resign. By March 31, 1949, Forrestal was out of a job.[18] He was replaced by Louis A. Johnson, an ardent supporter of Truman's defense retrenchment policy.

    Or this one:

    During his tenure as Defense Secretary, Laird did not share President Nixon's lingering timetable for withdrawal from Vietnam. He publicly contradicted the administrations policy, which upset the White House.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 01/02/2015 - 2:29am

    Uppity goes with the S.O.D. job, maybe?

     

    I think that there is some kinda structural tension, no doubt, but I think it runs the other way.

     

    Thus:

     

    Every president is really is own secretary of defense, per contra the other cabinet posts.  And, indeed, the orders directly to the line troops can carry his signature, whereas when Nixon wanted to fire Jaworski he had to first get a compliant A.G.

     

    What I'm driving (groping?) at is that by way of organizational charting, I think that there end up being two parallel tracks of authority.

     

    There certainly must be something intoxicating about looking in the mirror and knowing (now, even better with. drones...) any given human life on earth continues only at your suffrance...


    by JR (not verified) on Sat, 01/03/2015 - 10:03pm

    My guess, btw, is that he didn't play with toy soldiers.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 01/02/2015 - 3:43am

    Latest Comments