Yesterday, in response to a Newsweek article about whether or not President-elect Biden should pick a retired general officer, specifically GEN (ret) Austin, to be the next Secretary of Defense, Senior Chief Nance had a very strident response:
BULL: As a combat veteran I don’t think the @DeptofDefense should be run by a K-Street think tank. An African-American combat veteran like General Austin as #SecDef is the right choice. He will quickly rename bases from Southern Generals & Not. Budge. One. Inch. https://t.co/rBqeiygP6i
— Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) December 3, 2020
GEN (ret) McCaffrey then replied attesting to GEN (ret) Austin’s character and experience. Senior Chief Nance co-signed that by tweet.
Co-sign. #SecDef https://t.co/SAMqp4C5dc
— Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) December 3, 2020
What GEN (ret) McCaffrey did not do, however, was explicitly endorse GEN (ret) Austin for the position of Secretary of Defense, though this tweet from 28 November might be taken as an implicit endorsement.
Retired Army four star General Lloyd Austin. 41 years service. Our best combat leader since WWII. West Point. MA Auburn. Commanded in combat 4 tours. Dir JCS Staff. JCS J3. CENTCOM CDR. Vice Chief US Army. Incredibly good judgment. Easy to deal with.
— Barry R McCaffrey (@mccaffreyr3) November 28, 2020
While I appreciate Senior Chief Nance’s enthusiasm, as well as his concern about the think tank world inside the Beltway, I think he’s wrong regarding the appointment of another general officer/flag officer to the position of Secretary of Defense. While the Newsweek article’s focus, specifically the focus of the people that provided statements to the reporters on this possibility, all seem to focus on reestablishing the Civilian-Military relationship, I think there’s another reason for President-elect Biden to be cautious about appointing a retired general or admiral to be his Secretary of Defense: a 40 plus year career of acculturation, socialization, and indoctrination to deferring to the president as the commander in chief of the military.
While deference to those above one in the chain of command isn’t confined to generals in relation to the President, we have reporting that indicates this was a major problem for Secretary Mattis in his relationship with Trump. Specifically, when Trump threw a temper tantrum at Secretary Mattis, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (now retired) Gen. Dunford, and the Joint Chiefs in the Tank at the Pentagon in the summer of 2017 when they, along with Secretary of State Tillerson and Director of the National Economic Council Gary Cohn, tried to hold an explanatory briefing for Trump about the United States national security commitments and posture. This was the meeting where Trump lost his shit and screamed at Mattis, the Joint Chiefs, and the rest of the military personnel in the room that:
“You’re all losers,” Trump said. “You don’t know how to win anymore.”
“I wouldn’t go to war with you people,” Trump told the assembled brass.
Addressing the room, the commander in chief barked, “You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.”
What happened in response is not just telling, but it provides us with the central reason why a general officer/flag officer may not be the best choice to be the Secretary of Defense (emphasis mine):
Tillerson in particular was stunned by Trump’s diatribe and began visibly seething. For too many minutes, others in the room noticed, he had been staring straight, dumbfounded, at Mattis, who was speechless, his head bowed down toward the table. Tillerson thought to himself, “Gosh darn it, Jim, say something. Why aren’t you saying something?”
But, as he would later tell close aides, Tillerson realized in that moment that Mattis was genetically a Marine, unable to talk back to his commander in chief, no matter what nonsense came out of his mouth.
Others at the table noticed Trump’s stream of venom had taken an emotional toll. So many people in that room had gone to war and risked their lives for their country, and now they were being dressed down by a president who had not. They felt sick to their stomachs. Tillerson told others he thought he saw a woman in the room silently crying. He was furious and decided he couldn’t stand it another minute. His voice broke into Trump’s tirade, this one about trying to make money off U.S. troops.
“No, that’s just wrong,” the secretary of state said. “Mr. President, you’re totally wrong. None of that is true.”
Tillerson’s father and uncle had both been combat veterans, and he was deeply proud of their service.
“The men and women who put on a uniform don’t do it to become soldiers of fortune,” Tillerson said. “That’s not why they put on a uniform and go out and die . . . They do it to protect our freedom.”
There was silence in the Tank. Several military officers in the room were grateful to the secretary of state for defending them when no one else would. The meeting soon ended and Trump walked out, saying goodbye to a group of servicemen lining the corridor as he made his way to his motorcade waiting outside. Mattis, Tillerson, and Cohn were deflated. Standing in the hall with a small cluster of people he trusted, Tillerson finally let down his guard.
“He’s a f—ing moron,” the secretary of state said of the president.
Secretary Mattis is considered to be the most highly regarded Marine of his generation. His Marines affectionately called him the Warrior Monk because of his scholarly, self contained, bachelor lifestyle. He calls himself CHAOS (Colonel Has An Outstanding Suggestion). Those who don’t know him, and don’t realize he hates it, call him Mad Dog. But my Marine teammates all speak of him in the highest regard. Those of my former teammates that know him and have served with and under him all have their own unique stories about him and why he is held in such high regard. Unfortunately, over a forty plus year career Secretary Mattis had been socialized, acculturated, and indoctrinated to defer to the President as the commander in chief. Just as he and every other officer in the Marines, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, had been socialized, acculturated, and indoctrinated to defer to those above them in the chain of command. This is a real problem. One of the now retired general officers that I was assigned to as cultural advisor/senior civilian advisor used to refer to the problem as the Legion of Frightened Men. Colonels and lieutenant colonels and even in some cases general officers who wouldn’t speak up when the most senior general officer in the room asked if anyone had anything to add, any suggestions, any concerns. Not because they didn’t have anything to add or any suggestions or any concerns, but because they had been taught and trained to defer to those who ranked above them in seniority.
I’ve got no dog in the fight over who does or does not become the next Secretary of Defense. Each of the people whose names have been floated – former Undersecretary of Defense Flournoy, former DHS Secretary Johnson, GEN (ret) Austin, and Senator Duckworth – would each be a vast, vast, vast improvement over Secretary Esper and the current acting SecDef. The former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Kath Hill, who is running the DOD transition team for President-elect Biden would also be a vast, vast, vast improvement. But the bulk of my career for the better part of the past 15 years has been serving as a senior civilian advisor to senior Army leaders, from colonels commanding brigade combat teams to lieutenant generals commanding Army Service Component Commands. And I’ve been fortunate in that I’ve been either permanently or temporarily assigned to an excellent batch of senior leaders. It is important to realize, though, that they’re professionally raised differently than civilian senior leaders. I watched one general officer I was assigned to, who was senior in overall time of service, defer to a higher ranking general officer on an issue – a general officer who lied to his face about what was going to be done to deal with that issue – because of socialization to the chain of command. Because that’s what a more junior officer, even if that junior officer is a general or an admiral with more time in service, does when given an order or guidance by a more senior leader. And there is no more senior leader for the US military than the president.
I know GEN (ret) Austin, but not well. I met him in Iraq in 2008 when he was the Commanding General of 10th Mountain Division. The brigade combat team my team was assigned to had been split off from the rest of 1st Armored Division in Multi-National Division North and sent south and east of Baghdad to Multi-National Division Central. 10th Mountain Division fortunately took over Multi-National Division Central two months into our deployment. I met GEN Austin when he came to our FOB as part of his initial battlefield circulation. I was introduced to him, he spoke to me for about 90 seconds, and my part of his briefing lasted about two minutes tops. I also provided support to him when he was the Commanding General of CENTCOM via his Command Sergeant Major, who was my point of contact in the CENTCOM command group.
I barely know GEN (ret) Austin, but what I know of him indicates he’s an excellent general officer. However, given the dynamic we’ve seen with the retired senior military leaders – generals and admirals – appointed to senior positions over the past four years by Trump, many that required Senate confirmation, my professional opinion (for what it’s worth) is that if a highly qualified, exemplary civilian senior leader can be appointed as the next Secretary of Defense, then she or he should be nominated instead of a retired general officer/flag officer. This does not mean that retired senior military leaders are unfit for senior civilian appointments, it just means that they should be appointed to the right positions otherwise they are being set up for failure.
I was very glad when Secretary Mattis was nominated to become Secretary of Defense given the possibilities that Trump could have come up with for nominees. I think he did as good a job as he possibly could have under the circumstances. But it is very clear, as reported by multiple sources in long form news reporting and books, that he was unable to transcend what he always was – a Marine and a Marine general officer – during times when the Nation needed more from him and for him to be more. That isn’t his fault. Asking and expecting him or anyone else to be other than who they are is an unfair expectation. But his tenure as Secretary of Defense, as well as his relationship and interaction with Trump, should stand as a stark warning about making sure that the right person is designated for nomination as the next Secretary of Defense. And given the evidence we have from the last four years, the right person may not be a retired general or admiral no matter how exemplary they are as a national security professional and as a person.
Everyone is different. GEN (ret) Austin is not Secretary Mattis. He may be able to overcome his socialization and acculturation to deferring to the president as the commander in chief of the military and if he can, then he’d be an excellent pick. But if he can’t, then someone else – Flournoy, Johnson, Duckworth, Hill, someone who hasn’t been publicly speculated about yet – should be chosen to avoid recreating the situation that Secretary Mattis found himself in. Not doing so would be setting not just GEN (ret) Austin up for failure as the Secretary of Defense, but President-elect Biden up for failure in regards to building the Department of Defense back better. And if GEN (ret) Austin isn’t the best fit for Secretary of Defense, I would hope that President-elect Biden would find an appropriate senior appointment for him and, should he be willing to return to service, that GEN (ret) Austin would accept that appointment and excel at it.
Edited to Add (ETA):
I want to clarify a point or two as there seems to be some confusion in the comments. I am not arguing that GEN (ret) Austin would not be a good Secretary of Defense. Nor am I arguing that one of the other people whose names have been floated as a potential choice are better choices. What I am arguing is that if GEN (ret) Austin is selected by President-elect Biden, he will have to overcome the same career’s worth of conditioning to defer to the President as commander in chief of the military that Secretary Mattis could not overcome. While GEN (ret) Austin is not Secretary Mattis – they are very different senior military leaders – this will be a key challenge. Of course, as a number of you have pointed out in your comments, President-elect Biden is not Trump, so the dynamic between Secretary of Defense and President would be very, very, very different from the start.
Open thread!
Sunday and Monday: A Post and a Zoom on Tom Levenson’s Money for Nothing, and a Chance To Win an Audio Version of the Book
trollhattan
The idea that ANYBODY in the military would vote for that ignorant monster, regardless of rank, boggles the mind. Name one thing he was going to do to help officers, the enlisted, or the services as a whole. One.
Agree 100%–it’s time to return to unambiguous civilian oversight of the military. We forget the lesson of Douglas MacArthur versus Harry Truman at our peril.
dmsilev
I would also argue that there’s real value in reinforcing the idea of civilian control over the military, and picking a retired career soldier undermines that. That’s a more general, or perhaps philosophical, point as opposed to the practical and let’s say intellectual culture issues you raise, but still worth mentioning.
Goku (Amerikan Baka)
This is rich coming from Cadet Bonespurs and “Avoiding STD’s was my personal Vietnam”. Also, that passage was showed Tillerson in a positive light. It would’ve been nice to see him pushing back like that in public
trollhattan
@dmsilev:
Trump picked Mattis because of his nickname. That’s all the thought he put into it. He must have wondered from the get-go why he said yes.
Adam L Silverman
@dmsilev: It is a good and valid point. But everyone else is already making it, so I’m trying to corner and untapped niche in the market.
namekarB
Totes agree for all the reasons you expressed. It is in the military DNA to obey orders and not question seniors. I only spent 2 years in the Army (Vietnam Infantry for one year) but every officer I was around had that chain of command drilled into them. (Drafted infantrymen – not so much LOL).
debbie
I don’t know. His experience would be very valuable, no?
Adam L Silverman
@debbie: His experience would be immensely helpful. But that doesn’t mean he’s the right person to be the SecDef. It also doesn’t mean he’s not the right person to be SecDef.
DMcK
The acculturation of retired military officers placed in civilian roles that you describe is PRECISELY why Powell turned out to be such a disastrous Secretary of State under Bush. Not that he was incompetent or lacked integrity; just that he was wired to say “Yes, sir”, then unspool a pack of lies to the UN as ordered.
dr. bloor
I’m out of my depth here, and I certainly wouldn’t disagree with your argument overall. In fact, I’m inclined to agree with it in toto. But I wonder if the key here isn’t the general officer appointed to SecDef, but the individual who is CinC. Maybe I’m being naive/generous here, but I can’t imagine Biden creating anything like a situation described above, and again–perhaps the nonmilitary me is just being naive here–I can’t imagine any general officer being cowed into sitting on his/her ideas in a high level meeting as Mattis was, given that Biden couldn’t create an environment as toxic as Trump did even if he tried.
DCA
I read a review of Mattis’ book in the NY Review of Books which claimed two other problems caused by his inability to transcend his 40+ years in the Marines (who among us could?). One was a tendency to carry over his views of other services and surround himself with Marines; the other, related to your comment, was viewing someone like H. R. MacMaster not as something of a equal (they both reported to the president) but as someone of inferior military rank (which he was). Maybe true, maybe not–but it seems plausible enough to add more concerns to the one you express.
Also (personal view) the less blurring of the civilian/military distinction the better: I’d, for this reason, want to see Defense always headed by a civilian.
Adam L Silverman
@debbie: For instance, he’d be an excellent Special Envoy for dealing with the Iran mess Biden is preparing to inherit. Similarly, he’d be an excellent Special Envoy to the Coalition that is fighting ISIS or the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace (Israeli-Palestinian dispute).
Mary G
I have no expertise, but this sounds sensible. Twitler is determined to destroy DOD on his way out, and the new SecDef is going to have to be someone who can fire people and a lot of them:
and:
All the best people, I’m sure.
Adam L Silverman
@dr. bloor: I think it is a combination. Personalities matter and relationships matter.
debbie
@DMcK:
People can be unwired.
Adam L Silverman
@DCA: Yep, I’ve commented on the relationship, or lack thereof, with McMaster on both the front page and in comments several times.
Just Some Fuckhead
Maybe we need to figure out why Republicans are always the be-all, end-all defense experts.
Ruckus
As an enlisted vet I agree 10000% with Adam.
The chain of command, while not 100%, or sometimes anywhere near that, sacrosanct, in that the UCMJ has a very well taught provision that one is not to obey an illegal order. The issue of course is that you have to have a pretty good notion that an order is illegal, before you can say or do anything. All of which means that even a flag officer has to take orders, the chain of command is pretty well defined and talking back, talking out, disobeying an order, is pretty much not done, except in dire circumstances. And we do have a concept in this country that the civilian government is at the head of the chain of command. Had I been in that room, I would not have expected Mattis to say a word. It is done so rarely in the military up the chain that few would probably ever see/hear it happen in a career, no matter the rank.
debbie
@Adam L Silverman:
I just don’t see a civilian always being better. Example: Cheney.
rikyrah
While I respect the whole civilian over the Department of Defense….
One of the Big Four should be an African American. I didn’t even know that someone Black was being considered.
Adam L Silverman
@Mary G: All of the people Trump put on the board today will be fired on the afternoon of 20 January. These are unpaid positions. I’m really not sure what any of these folks are getting out of this other than a line on their resumes. Perhaps some insider info they can use to goose their investments.
Barbara
@dr. bloor: But pressure to do crazy things can come in different forms, like GWB enlisting Colin Powell to go all in on publicly supporting the invasion of Iraq. More than once I have wondered whether Powell’s status as a military man made it more likely that he would “do or die” as opposed to questioning the mission. So I think it is a valid point even if it’s impossible to imagine Joe Biden treating anyone on his staff with this kind of blatant disrespect.
Adam L Silverman
@Just Some Fuckhead: They’re not. They’re not even close.
The Moar You Know
You either get someone like Mattis, who wouldn’t talk when needed, or someone like MacArthur, who thought he should be president. Neither is an acceptable outcome. SecDef should ALWAYS be a civilian.
Adam L Silverman
@debbie: This is why I wrote:
in the original post.
bbleh
@dr. bloor: @Adam L Silverman: Agree entirely that the personality and intentions of the President are what matter. For Trump, a deeply insecure martinet, having a SecDef acculturated to deference was bad. For Biden, I don’t think that’s at all necessarily the case.
He needs to pick someone he’s comfortable with, in terms of both style and policy. If that happens to be a retired service member, it’s fine by me. His judgment in picking senior staff has so far been little short of superb. I don’t think a categorical prohibition on retired service members would be particularly useful when it comes to THIS President.
Adam L Silverman
@rikyrah: I expect Lt Gen (ret) Vincent Stewart, who was the DIA Director and is part of the Biden DOD transition team, will be named Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. Or, potentially, Director of Central Intelligence.
I understand the need for one of the big four to be an African American, but at the same time you want to make sure if you’re appointing an African American that you’re not setting that person up for failure because you’ve put the wrong individual in the wrong assignment. GEN (ret) Austin may be the right person for this assignment. He might not be.
debbie
@Adam L Silverman:
Let’s hope Trump is a 500-year event.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Adam L Silverman: Mattis and Tillerson failed America. They knew the horrors of the Trump presidency and they remained silent.
Ruckus
@Just Some Fuckhead:
As your comment says, tongue in cheek, they really, really aren’t. But they want what they want and absolutely know that if they want it, it must be the bestest thing ever.
I want someone who isn’t going to believe that every situation can be overcome or best handled by military action and so makes recommendations in line with that. Now any high ranking ex officer may be able to do that but what they know is the military and while they may know it very well, if they have made it to or near the top of the heap, they are very, very likely to think in military terms, like what to do with the military to solve X.
sdhays
This is a valuable perspective because as someone without much connection to the military, it’s difficult to conceive of a celebrated Marine General just taking the kind of verbal abuse described in that passage. It makes sense when you explain it, but I think the popular expectation of military leaders is that they’ll “tell it like it is” and be ready to defend their honor and the honor of their service, no matter who’s doing the trashing.
Adam L Silverman
@Just Some Fuckhead: No argument here.
dr. bloor
@Just Some Fuckhead: We should all be as perfect and wise as you are.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Adam L Silverman: The only commentary about Republican defense “experts” is to point out they are incapable of putting country before the Republican party. Also consider the disaster of Obama making Republican Gates Sec Def.
The Moar You Know
@debbie: Cheney was an excellent Secretary of Defense. Ran it well. Made some REALLY tough calls on the acquisition end of things, calls that needed to be made but could have ended his political career. He was an inhuman monster of a vice-president, but that’s because he was allowed to be by a boss who was far too lazy to supervise him properly.
Omnes Omnibus
@DCA: Yes, I have also seen talk that Mattis and McMaster had some issues because Mattis treated McMaster as 4 star to 3 star rather than SecDef and NSA. IOW it was probably an issue because each was inextricably a marine and a soldier.
sdhays
@Just Some Fuckhead: Republican Chuck Hagel didn’t cover himself in glory either, and I had some hopes for him.
I hope the Biden team can at least agree that this time: no Republican appointees, especially to anything to do with National Security. If Obama had followed that maxim, there would have been no Comey as FBI director, and Hillary Clinton almost certainly would have won in 2016.
Just Some Fuckhead
@sdhays: Democrats’ weird obsession with Republican defense experts always make me think of the scorpion & frog parable.
trollhattan
@The Moar You Know:
The speech by Sec Def Cheney detailing why taking the military into Baghdad during the Gulf War was a bad idea and a non starter, remains one of the starkest turnarounds ever witnessed when compared to VP Cheney’s hammer-and-tongs advocacy of conquering Iraq. Everything old Cheney warned about was ignored by new Cheney, and then happened.
Adam L Silverman
@sdhays: Apparently Wray will be allowed to finish his ten year term as FBI Director. Or as much of it as he wants. Provided Trump doesn’t fire him first.
Ruckus
@bbleh:
I don’t think Adam is saying that no human could get to the very upper level of the military and not switch gears when retiring. But the odds of someone having served for 30 yrs or more and being able to switch that off at will is a difficult person to imagine. It’s like asking a retired butcher take out your appendix. They likely could do the the work but there is such a radical different approach to taking out an appendix and removing a cows entire gastro intestinal system, that it likely wouldn’t go well. Or take me, I’ve been doing the kind of work I do now for decades, but I learned different methods from my boss and it’s taken a number of years for us to reach a comfortable truce in how both of us have to adjust to the differences. The result is that we have managed very well to do that, but it’s taken the most of 8 yrs to get there. That’s two presidential terms. That’s OK in our situation, it would be a disaster in federal government.
Adam L Silverman
@trollhattan: One of my teammates was part of Cheney’s personal security detail when he was SecDef. He used to say all the time that Cheney before the cardiac problems and Cheney after were two completely different people.
Goku (Amerikan Baka)
@Mary G:
What’s even the point of this dumb shit? Trump’s loyalists can just as easily be fired by the Biden admin, right?
Omnes Omnibus
Marshall being good as Secretary of State was due to Marshall being Marshall. Generals at the top of state or defense haven’t been particularly good otherwise.
Mike in NC
I’m halfway through “A Very Stable Genius” and highly recommend it. A recurring theme is Fat Bastard wanting to gouge our NATO and Asian allies for as many extra billions of dollars as he could squeeze from them in return for basing forces there. Classic slumlord/protection racket behavior from a two-bit mobster.
Just Some Fuckhead
@dr. bloor: Right? Imagine the world we’d live in if the rest of you could make sound decisions.
cain
@dr. bloor:
I disagree, i think we can all agree that Tillis and Mattis should have spoken up. Mattis didn’t speak up till late in this year. We could have used his voice.
Trump has been a disaster. That said, I don’t now how a civilian would have worked in the Trump admin given that he’d just fire them and find a sycophant.
Omnes Omnibus
@DMcK: I have some doubts about Powell’s general probity. My Lai comes to mind.
caphilldcne
I largely agree with this post but honestly the issue here is the so-called president. I’m not sure a sycophant civilian would have done any better. Also if Tillerson is the hero of the parable that’s really saying something. Those “adults in the room” all went over the cliff together. Also Michael Flynn needs to be run out of town on rails.
Goku (Amerikan Baka)
So Adam, how do you think Nace would respond to your point about military SecDefs being too deferential to the President as a result of the military chain of command?
I tend to agree, especially in light of that tirade by Trump and the nonexistent response from Mattis
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Adam L Silverman: Chaney’s first heart attack was in 1978 when I was in high school. It looks like he had a second in 1988 before becoming SecDef and then another in 2000 after the election.
dr. bloor
@Just Some Fuckhead:
@cain:
Sure, but that’s the fucking premise of Adam’s post, and he went on to compose an excellent essay as to why that happened and how he thought it might be prevented in the future. To drop a “they fucked up” into the middle of an otherwise interesting discussion is as pointless and self-congratualtory as it is obvious.
Benw
There’s no reason a smart, competent civilian SecDef can’t lead strategically while trusting the military experts with the tactics. It would need buy in from both sides.
This post made me think of our ex-Marine tech, who was happy to work for Ph.D. scientists who took him seriously as a pro. I’m imagining Trump dressing him down like that. Freeeyow
cain
@?BillinGlendaleCA:
Didn’t they replace his heart or something? He doesn’t have a heart anymore – more machine than man.
cain
@dr. bloor:
Fair enough – but I consider it further evidence that Adam is correct – it would be a bad idea to have someone in the military in this role and it needs to be a civilian.
Omnes Omnibus
@Goku (Amerikan Baka): I am not Adam, but I would say that would be a question best addressed to Malcolm Nance.
Just Some Fuckhead
@dr. bloor: Look, I read the OP twice and didn’t get that thrust. If you want to pretend that’s the whole issue here, more power to you, dickhead. But the larger issue still remains where we will never know what a Democratic defense policy looks like as long as we act like only Republicans are qualified to determine that.
WaterGirl
@Omnes Omnibus: We have had more than enough Generals in the current administration, and they all failed us. That’s enough for a lifetime.
And by failed us, I mean failed their country.
Adam L Silverman
@Goku (Amerikan Baka): I have no idea. I don’t know Nance. I once tried to make contact, because I had the answer to a question he asked – as in I was professionally involved in resolving the problem he was asking about – and he quite rudely blew off my attempt to make contact. He’s a smart guy, knows his business, but appears to be prickly.
WaterGirl
@Just Some Fuckhead:
What you said.
Omnes Omnibus
@Just Some Fuckhead: Is there any rumor of Biden picking a Republican for one of the top jobs? The names I have seen have been those Adam mentioned – Flournoy, Johnson, Austin, and Duckworth.
Frankensteinbeck
@Goku (Amerikan Baka):
Two points.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Omnes Omnibus: Whoever it is will be on the conservative side of defense policy regardless of whether it’s a Republican or Democrat.
Omnes Omnibus
@Just Some Fuckhead: It sort of looks like that goalpost just moved.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@cain: He had a mechanical assisted heart for a while, it was replaced by a donor heart. This was after his stint as VP.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Omnes Omnibus: Yeah, I get that.
dr. bloor
@Omnes Omnibus: Be nice. It can’t be easy hauling around a cross and goalposts at the same time.
Mike in NC
Not sure how many here know about the Cult of Personality that Douglas MacArthur cultivated before and during and shortly after WW2. People hung his picture on the wall and bought plaster busts. He was Trump before Trump.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Mike in NC:
My dad hated that SOB, and I got the impression that was not an uncommon view of the folk that served during WW2.
dr. bloor
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Ah, but the press fucking loved him. Probably for some of the same reasons they love Trump–great copy, all day every day.
raven
@Mike in NC: My old man called him “Dugout Doug” and hated him until the day he died. He always said “he got the Medal of Honor for deserting his post”. Harsh but he was also in MacArthur’s Jungle Navy so I took his word for it.
raven
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Great minds.
He also never spent a night in Korea when we were fighting there. He’d fly back to his fucking palace in Japan.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@dr. bloor: MacArthur put on a good show.
Omnes Omnibus
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Just like Patton in Europe. Most of the other four and five stars from that war were quieter people.
raven
My dad’s tin can landed the first troops on the Philippines well before Mac’s staged landing and proudly displayed The Philippines First on their bridge scoreboard.
Omnes Omnibus
@raven: That’s quite a list.
patrick II
@trollhattan:
Between Bush I and Bush II stints he became president of Halliburton. War became profitable.
raven
@Omnes Omnibus: Yea, he wouldn’t go to the “D-Day Museum” “goddamn it I was on 27 damn D-Day Landings !!! When they dedicated the Pacific Wing he relented and he and I went for the festivities. Now it’s the WW@ Museum.
Kent
Kind of late to this thread, but question for Adam as I can’t quickly google an answer.
What percentage of the DOD is actually civilian workforce? I’m guessing it is not insignificant. One link I found says the 2020 DOD civilian workforce is 758,000. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-news/2019/03/dod-plans-civilian-workforce-increase-especially-health-fields/ Friend of mine from college, for example, spent his career as a civilian DOD employee managing hazardous waste cleanup of decommissioned military installations around the world.
The Secretary of Defense is not just responsible for the military command, but also a vast civilian workforce with a vast portfolio that may not necessarily be within the wheelhouse of combat commanders.
Omnes Omnibus
@raven: My grandfather was in Europe, so I’ve always looked that way. One of his younger brothers was a parachute qualified marine who served in the Pacific; one wonders what kind of shit he saw.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Omnes Omnibus: I didn’t get the impression that Patton generated quite the animosity that MacArthur did.
Geoboy
@?BillinGlendaleCA: The first Japanese air attack on the Phillipines was delayed by six hours due to fog on Formosa. MacAuther’s command had 12 hours advanced notice due to the attack on Pearl Harbor. The response was so confused, hesitant and inept that half of the entire air assets of the United States Armyh Air Force was destroyed on the first day. I don’t ever want to hear about Douglas MacAuther being a good combat general.
Omnes Omnibus
Are you saying that Generals aren’t good with chicks and geeks and shit? Because, rephrased, that is actually a big part of it.
Gin & Tonic
I have yet to understand why anyone takes Malcolm Nance seriously.
raven
@Omnes Omnibus: I always found it interesting that there were more airmen killed in Europe that there were Marines in the Pacific.
Omnes Omnibus
@?BillinGlendaleCA: He didn’t get as high up.
Goku (Amerikan Baka)
@Omnes Omnibus:
Probably. Stupid question. Sorry.
@Adam L Silverman:
Thank you. Sorry for not answering your email you sent me.
@Frankensteinbeck:
Thanks
schrodingers_cat
General Theranos didn’t manage to open his mouth during the Theranos fiasco either. Con woman Holmes managed to pull wool over his eyes pretty easily.
Immanentize
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Patton never turned the US Army on US Veterans (the Bonus marchers) like MacArthur did. Many people hated that phony SOB from way back before he wanted to cross into China. My Dad hated “that tin pot dictator prick” as he was referred to in my house.
Villago Delenda Est
@?BillinGlendaleCA: The airheads of the Village were airheads, for the most part, then. There are always exceptions, but entertaining copy trumps thoughtful copy every time.
dww44
@Just Some Fuckhead: Yeah , the same thinking applies on the economic front as well. The unjustified belief that only Republicans are capable of managing the economy.
In 2008-09 I was on the board of trustees that oversaw the endowment funds of a local non/profit. One of the trustees, a retired stock broker, was for getting out of the market mostly because Obama and Democrats were assuming power and the markets would not perform well under a Dem administration. He both said and believed that.
cain
@raven:
Wow, that’s like the first ‘frist!” evah! Rockn.
danielx
@Adam L Silverman:
I have to admit, the cardiac issue always bothered me a little bit. I figured he had a lump of plutonium in there, plus regularly bathing in the blood of babies, children, virgins, political opponents….
Immanentize
@raven: The Judge I clerked for was a B-26 wing commander flying daylight raids over Germany — at age 21. They went through those crews like crazy. Plus all the accidents and crashes not related to combat….
JML
Man, as someone who spent a decent chunk of time working at the Pentagon…I agree with pretty much everything Adam wrote here.
The biggest institutional problem I saw when I was at Army was the inability to speak truth to power; instead of people being willing to stand up and say “Hey, this is a bad idea because of X, Y, and Z.” the response was always salute and move, and then watch staff bend twist and burn trying to find a way to make whatever terrible idea work. Way too many military officers simply can’t make the transition from a field command to a staff puke job and the attitudinal shift needed to do it well, and it’s worse with the generals & admirals who are used to everyone snapping to and hate discussion, which they see as dissension.
Omnes Omnibus
It was only reasonable….
Just Some Fuckhead
@raven: Is this a dick measuring contest? My dad was a Seawolf, Det 5. in ‘Nam, door gunner/mechanic of a .50 cal. gun. He got shot twice, shot down once behind lines (whatever that meant in Vietnam), fixed the chopper, escaped to live.
Kent
What are the other examples of generals raised to top civilian leadership?
Eisenhower and Grant obviously. After that? Alexander Haig? Colin Powell? David Petraeus?
Immanentize
@Kent: Washington. Andrew Jackson.
Doc Sardonic
@Adam L Silverman: That’s not surprising to me in the least. I was diagnosed with severe congestive heart failure brought on by afib about 10 years ago. For a couple of years due to some of the meds I was on I could be borderline psychopathic at best and crazier than a shit house rat if angry.
David ??Merry Christmas?? Koch
I’m hearing Michael Weston has the inside track for Director of the CIA
Kent
Well yes. Managing a civilian workforce is different from a military command in a myriad of ways.
cain
@JML:
‘Huh, that sounds like corporations to me. I’ve seen that same attitude happening there as well. I think anything with that kid of rigidly will ultimately fail.
cain
Oh yeah?! My aunt met Gandhi and gave him a flower!
Omnes Omnibus
@Kent: Aren’t Haig, Powell, and Mattis enough?
Just Some Fuckhead
@cain: That is really awesome.
rikyrah
Which is why their economies are going to rebound
Omnes Omnibus
@Kent: That’s what I was agreeing with.
Adam L Silverman
@Kent: I’m not sure what the most up to date numbers are, but that’s probably close to accurate if not accurate. Between the DOD civilians and each Service’s civilians (Title 5, Title 10, term Title 5, and term appointees under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of Title IV of 1970 – this is what I was) it is one of the largest employers in the US.
Adam L Silverman
@Goku (Amerikan Baka): Since my email was a reply to the email you sent, I’m not sure it required a reply. But if you’re feeling guilty, I forgive you.
Adam L Silverman
@JML: Thank you.
My job was pretty much always telling the senior leaders and the other members of the staff what they needed to know, not what they wanted to hear. Politely, but firmly. I was fortunate that I’ve always worked for senior leaders who appreciate this. But I also get leeway that others don’t because I’m not, in fact, a Soldier.
jl
I’m not cut out for service in the the rarified ether of high command and executive governance. If I were in the room, and target of such asinine BS, I would have been fired before I got up off the floor from an epic RFLMAO.
As for Mattis, I have to wonder how Smedley Butler would have reacted to that shit show from Trump.
Adam L Silverman
@rikyrah: I texted that to my boss the other day and asked if we should be contacting realtors in some of those places to relocate the HQ.
Adam L Silverman
@jl: Butler would have likely bounced him around like a basketball. Butler was also a very, very unique individual.
cain
Right? Thanks, man. I never got to meet the man, but he meant a lot to my family especially my grandfather.
cain
I’m visiting Adam when we’re allowed to travel and buying him a drink.
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: It’s funny that I easily remember the stone-faced, eyes front, but burning inside feeling from being the receiving end of an unwarranted berating from someone senior to me. And the chatter among my peers afterwards and in private. It’s a point of pride to take an ass-chewing when you actually fucked-up, but it burns like hell when you didn’t. Especially since any explanation would come off as insubordination or whining.
Just Some Fuckhead
@cain: Truly a remarkable memory. You are lucky to be a part of Gandhi’s story. Have you done a deep dive into Gandhi and his South African experience that made him who he was?
Bill Arnold
@cain:
The mechanical pump that eliminated his pulse was installed in Cheney in 2010:
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/cheney-has-heart-pump-but-no-pulse/
It was subsequently replaced by the heart of a young male organ donor. (Reasonably sure the donor was already dead. :-)
Goku (Amerikan Baka)
@Omnes Omnibus:
Sounds like a no-win situation
Goku (Amerikan Baka)
@Adam L Silverman:
LOL. Just covering my bases
Omnes Omnibus
@Goku (Amerikan Baka): Yes, that is the point. And that is what Adam was talking about with Mattis and Trump. Mattis, by his nature and training, was in a no win situation. That is why someone like Mattis shouldn’t be there.
VeniceRiley
@Mike in NC: My stepdad called him Dougout Doug. As did a lot of soldiers, I expect.
As for the topic, I am agnostic. It’s important to hire the person with the best skillset for the job. As it was with mattis, Trump went for looks and a butch name/nickname just like he did with Dr. Scott Atlas. I saw a reference to anon quotes from CDC I think that said he is a great radiologist and I’d totally trust him to read my cancer scans. So yeah…. It’s the same fail that Silverman points out. These jobs require a specific amount of knowledge and a set of skills that are not common. And the consequences of the wrong pick can be just as bad as the Dr. Atlas pick.
Everything is better than any Trump pick, of course. He’d put the MyPillow guy in the Pentagon if there was a percentage in it.
Villago Delenda Est
@JML: One of the things Marshall DEMANDED of his subordinates is that they do precisely that…honestly critique Marshall’s ideas and offer recommendations for alternatives. Marshall had no time for “yes men” unlike Donald.
Villago Delenda Est
@Omnes Omnibus: You just stand there and take it. I made the mistake of walking into division HQ when the G3 was in a mood about the state of his vehicle, and the communications equipment therein. It drew the attention of a lot of people in the building. One former co-worker in G1 asked me what I did to set the G3 off, and I could only reply “I walked past him wearing crossed flags”. The G3 SGM apologized to me for taking the heat, and the HHC Commander (who was a very good friend of mine) also apologized.
I could have told the G3 that I was the Wire Officer in Division Signal, not the Radio Officer, but thought better of it.
The irony here is that the G3 only went on rages like that with subordinates that he liked.
Ruckus
@JML:
I didn’t get very high up in the military, wasn’t in long but I saw a lot of shitty officers, about the same number of decent and a few good. It wasn’t necessarily the good that made it up the ranks, it was the ones who could fit in well. Those that actually were really good were rare. On the ship I was on for 2 yrs we had 5 captains, and only one was good, one should never have been in charge of anything and 3 were acceptable. My scale is based upon them seemingly actually being able to command a moderate sized ship well. The commander of the flotilla – a group of ships, was so crappy he was side promoted at the time he was supposed to go up another rank, to captain of a ship. Even the pentagon knew he was shit. But they wouldn’t fire him so they assign him to a lessor post that requires his old rank without promoting him, hoping he’ll quit, because he’s never getting promoted. In a lot of ways it’s an old boys club and you don’t move up unless you fit in properly. That doesn’t mean you have to be good, it means you don’t fuck up, at least not often and you have deference to those above you.
Wapiti
One thing I’d love to see from Biden is dispensing with the salutes. Eisenhower apparently did not return military salutes when he was President; Reagan brought that tradition in. Maybe Biden can retire it.
I seem to recall a picture of Pence using a military salute, and hope I’m mistaken. VP is not in that chain in any way.
Adam L Silverman
@cain: Thanks…
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: I’m tracking. I’ve seen it happen.
Jay
@jl:
@Adam L Silverman:
Butler followed every order he received while a Marine.
It was only after he retired, that he bucked the system.
Jay
BTW, I totally agree with Adam here.
sadly, since 2001 at least, “The Generals” have proven time and time again not able to deal with the “modern world” or prevent the “stupid”.
Another Scott
You make some good points, as always, Adam. But I dunno. (Haven’t read the other comments yet.)
SecDef is a huge job, with many facets. People outside of the lifelong-military have made a mess of it (at least in some important aspect) as well (McNamara, Weinberger, Rumsfeld), also too.
Biden’s been around a long time and knows how things work. If he thinks he needs a career guy, I’m inclined to cut him some slack. But I really, really hope he picks someone who has been out of the DoD the required 7 year period. Granting yet another exception to the period mandated by the National Security Act of 1947 is a bad idea. It’s clear that Mattis (the previous exception after Marshall) wasn’t up to the job.
Cheers,
Scott.
Original Lee
@Mike in NC: One of my great-uncles served as one of MacArthur’s mail clerks during WWII. As an enlisted man, he didn’t have a very high opinion of officers, including MacArthur. He surely didn’t buy into the cult of personality, except to call it bullshit. However, he would occasionally opine that perhaps they needed someone like MacArthur for the occupation of Japan.
ETA: That is to say, MacArthur was no Trump.
Dirk Reinecke
@Just Some Fuckhead: Well I had lost an ancestor on the opposite side of the battle to Gandhi and Churchill (Battle of Spioenkop).
Robert Sneddon
@trollhattan: Gulf War 1 was fought by a UN coalition tasked to do a specific job, get Saddam’s forces out of Kuwait. Sec Def Cheney was political-smart enough to understand that after that had been achieved, the limited US forces on the ground couldn’t take and hold Iraq by themselves and the rest of the coalition wouldn’t follow their American masters to Baghdad. I would say that any flag-rank officer would have agreed with him, they’re the kings of “what can be achieved” with decades of learning behind them but telling the President “Sorry Sir we can’t do that” is, as Adam says, difficult to impossible for someone like that.
pluky
@sdhays:
Such types tend to max out at Lt. Col. or Cmdr.
MomSense
The only thing that might be better than watching Biden become President would be watching the trial, conviction, and sentencing for trump, his horrible spawn, and members of his administration. They could pay per view those events and even cheapskate me would cough up the money to watch.
Now we all just need to live long enough to see it happen.
Nobody in particular
I listen uncritically to what very few people have to say about most things, with two notable exceptions: Malcolm Nance, and Adam, obviously. I first encountered Malcolm at Greenwald’s second blog at Salon. That was about the same time I bumped into Adam at SST. 2005-7ish, if memory serves. I witnessed Andrew Sullivan call Malcolm a “fabulist” live on MSNBC – perhaps one and a half to two years ago. Sullivan hasn’t appeared on that channel since. I wish they’d drop Hugh Hewitt also. Greenwald eventually banned me from that blog. I could tell Greenwald was a nutball vulgar libertarian even back then.
Nobody in particular
@Adam L Silverman:
If you are not a “soldier,” you must be a guerrillero – or an insurgent. The line of demarcation is only in one’s head — and quite fuzzy, I think. It’s a 2020 thing.
Born on 6/14: Trump, Che Guevara, and me. Although there is some confusion about Che’s correct DOB, it was either May or June, but most accept it is on the 14th of June.
Nobody in particular
@Original Lee: True enough. Mac would have nuked the NorKs and Chi Coms. Trump has no cajones for it. Just bluster.
JML
@Villago Delenda Est:
It’s not even about being “yes-men” per se, at least from what I saw at Army. It’s the “can-do” attitude taken to the extreme that they just can’t get away from. There’s an ethos where no one wants to admit that Army can’t actually accomplish something at the end of the day.
I worked with a wide variety of officers in my time there, ranging from brilliant to average to “how the fuck are you still in uniform, let alone promoted to Major?!?”. It’s like every large organization in that way. And there are loads of people who get promoted into positions that have no ability or affinity for. There are also loads that rise on merit and deserve to keep rising. But despite the fetishization of military service that has arisen in the last 20 years, it’s not immune the same organizational and managerial problems that exist in every large corporation.
Nobody in particular
@cain:
What does Adam drink? If he even does. I gave it up for the most part. But I’ll chip in to buy him a bottle of his choice. It will get there quicker and we all could use a drink about now, waiting for the run-off in Jan. in Georgia. The smoothest Irish Whiskey you can get for a reasonable price: Tullamore Dew.
But Jameson has “Caskmates” now, aged in barrels used for Guinness and another one aged in IPA casks. Smooth. Like Ambrosia. I no longer bother with Single malts now. And I’m a Scot.
Nobody in particular
@JML:
Very true. A recursive, even cyclical set of phenomena, and not just observed in the military, but very pronounced in that milieu — and LE. Perhaps 40 years ago the “Masters of the Universe” and other corporate raiders and mavens were all reading Sun Tzu. It was “fashionable.” “Patriot” and “patriotism” were at times terms not always considered in a favorable light historically.
In fact, the terms were occasionally insulting.
Samuel Johnson called patriotism “the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Not to be outdone, Ambrose Bierce settled that debate with some finality. And Johnson, having passed on to his final rest, remained silent.
way2blue
Adam, your post touched on something I’ve long surmised—that Trump placed military officers into senior positions because he knew they were hardwired to defer to him. And those that didn’t were shown the door…
cwmoss
So he was good in his 30s and bad for the 40 years that followed?@Adam L Silverman:
Jack Hughes
Silverman is wise.
Nobody in particular
@Jack Hughes:
Wisdom comes with experience – and interest. If Biden were a “bomb” he’d be a fire and forget “smart bomb” to Trump’s dumb bomb. Competency in the delegation and administration of the executive functions of government.