Don’t Go Jimmy Carter

President Jimmy Carter was certainly one of the best intentioned Presidents but as a leader and commander in chief, he was a bust. Carter tried to fix everything and ended up fixing almost nothing while watching the economy go sour. It is very important that President Obama find a way to step away from the whirlwind he has found himself in since his inauguration. The critical issues he inherited as well as the noble goals he has set for his Administration require constant involvement but do not require constant fixing.

President Obama has a competent staff and team of advisors who are quite capable of “fixing” the issue of the day. Be it Iraq or Afghanistan, or the banks or GM. With so many issues with short time lines, President Obama and his team could easily get thinking this is real life and the President’s job is to go from fire to fire and put them out. The real job of President is to see that there are others who mostly prevent fires but are skilled and ready to put them out if they ignite.

A young and vigorous Barack Obama may be tempted to seek the spot light or accept his staff’s recommendation that he do this or that. He needs, however, the insight to ask Secretary of State Clinton or Secretary of Defense Gates to speak about Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan. He needs Secretary Sebelius to speak about health care and others to pick up the baton over GM, immigration, energy, and clean air. His gift should be the behind the scenes dialog with these officials to ensure there is a longer term vision, sensible strategies to achieve the vision, and specific measurable tactics to proceed. Obama needs to see how all these fit together and that they are consistent.

The 24/7 news cycles, however, prefer a strong President who hogs the limelight. They prefer sensational stories and the opportunity to show the President is wrong. This will sell more newspapers and achieve higher audience ratings. The principle role of the President is leadership and not problem solving. President Obama, don’t go Jimmy Carter.

Gates Budget – Good Effort, More Needed

Defense Secretary Robert Gates submitted his first budget under President Obama and although it called for slightly greater spending than this year, it was noteworthy for the number of strategic cuts it contained.  Weighing in at $538 billion, it still contains the prospect of “peace dividends” when the tragic effort in Iraq and the necessary effort in Afghanistan wind down.

While Secretary Gates was making a statement on defense (where the US spending is two times everyone else), his throttling of spending is a message to the rest of the Obama Administration that spending wisely and sensibly is possible and prudent.

The Obama Administration has made the point that healthcare reform and social security are areas where immediate investment (read spending) are needed.  Some argue the point but most all the data points to these two programs bankrupting the government under current rules (both funding and entitlements).  The rate at which a reform program is implemented could be debatable.

The evil ghost in Obama’s budget is the inability to foresee a balanced budget.  While further cuts in defense spending are possible (and probably justified), they can not be foreseen as the route to a balanced budget.  Higher taxes and additional trade offs between government spending are the main routes.

Once more it is refreshing to see a public official of the highest caliber and acting purposefully in the spirit of public service as in Robert Gates.

A Deal With No Losers

In today’s New York Times, Peter Baker writes that Obama Government officials (unnamed) approached Russia in January on the possibility of Russia and the US cooperating in their efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear program.  In return the US offered to halt its deployment of the anti-missile missiles into Eastern Europe.  This is a deal no one should refuse.

• The Star Wars “anti-missile missiles” are unproven technology that represent a hollow (very, very low probability of success) threat towards Russia and a large, never ending expenditure for the US.  This program like the invasion and occupation of Iraq never should have been pursued by George W Bush and putting it back on the shelf would be a wise Obama move.
• Russia has little to gain from seeing nuclear weapons in the Middle East.  Iran with nuclear weapons should be worrisome to even the hardest of right wing Russian leaders.  To not have the US moving into Eastern Europe and to thwart the Iranian nuclear program has all up and no downs for Russia.

The hidden value of this approach towards Russia is that it could represent a first step back from the edge of stupidity that Bush and Chaney gleefully hopped along.  A first step, however, is how all long journeys begin.  I wonder whether I see the fine hand of Robert Gates behind the scenes?

A Time for the Center

Today President-elect Barack Obama announced today the heart of his cabinet.  It was at first blush a brilliant set of selections.  Those filling his cabinet have all the markings of competence and pragmatism accented with a concern for human dignity, hard work, and courage.  Eight years ago, the names of Powel, Cheney, and Rumsfeld elicited a similar feeling competence, albeit conservative.  Over the past 8 years we have sadly learned that they lacked competence and acted in anything but a conservative manner.  What will happen to our new day?

 

Of course time will tell but the odds look very promising.  Here are three of his key appointments.

 

• Secretary of State designee, Hillary Clinton, is a complex thinker and tireless worker who will take advantage of plenty of inputs from both inside and outside the Government.  She does not know it all.  Her time in the Senate showed she was a team player very much interested in positive results.  This should follow her to the White House.

 

• Secretary of Defense designee (and current office holder), Robert Gates, is a proven Republican moderate who serves the country first and party second.  He is the antithesis of the faith based ideologues like Cheney and Rumsfeld, and recommended to President Bush changes in most of the Administration’s defense policies such as closing Guantanamo, ending torture and enhanced interrogation methods, and bringing a close to the Iraq invasion and occupation.  He is as “center” as one can get.

 

• National Security Advisor, retired General Jim Jones, is similarly a proven moderate and center leaning leader.  In comparison to former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice who was a Russian, cold war expert and lacked knowledge and contacts of events relevant to the 21^st century, General Jones is much more broad in his experience.  Jones also is said to be persuasive without being oppressive which should make him also an excellent team player.

 

There is one more critical element in making this team function and that is the President himself.  On paper Obama is everything Bush was not.  Obama seeks solutions that work and can be expected to remain within traditional American values (Geneva convention, due process, rights of privacy).  Obama should be expected to be present and not “on vacation” in Crawford.  Obama should remain engaged without trying to micromanage or abdicate.  Obama should not be expected to stand by while subordinates disagree over approaches to problem solutions.

 

This team has a great chance to “regain the center” and to bring change surely and comprehensively to the mess that Presidents George W Bush and Dick Cheney have left behind.

Iraq Exit

Soon it will be time for President-elect Barack Obama to reconfirm his promise to withdraw US troops from Iraq.  I would assume that this means at least 100,000 and most of the $120 billion a year we are spending.  There could be still some military personnel stationed on bases, providing there is in agreement with the Iraqi Government.  In the best of all worlds, the Iraqis would pay for the presence of US forces as a means of defraying our costs, and to ensure that the Iraqis keep aware of the value of stability.

In any case, even if there is no agreement on a new status of forces arrangement, there will be a period of time (maybe 18 to 20 months) to withdraw all the troops and during this time you can bet there will be misguided hostile actions against our troops.  These sensational actions will be trumpeted through out the mindless news media and blown out of proportion by the right wingers.  The notion of revenge or increasing our presence rather than decreasing it will be on the op-ed and often the front page of most news papers.  How will our next President deal with this?

I would like to join others who have already mentioned the possibility of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates staying on in his current position to ensure there is a steady and reasonable hand on the military establishment.  Making sense out of the foolish attempt to deploy anti-missile missiles (against Iran that has no missiles) and in the process, antagonizing the Russians, or organizing the closure of Guantanamo and the transfer of detainees either to US prisons for trial or return to a third country, Gates has already shown he has a pragmatic vision of history and a recognition of where the US is today. 

Robert Gates could add stature to an Obama Administration.

Af-gone-istan

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullin testified yesterday before Congress.  They drew the short straw and had to deliver the bad news that things were not going all that well in Afghanistan.  Surprise, surprise.  When the withdrawal of a mere 8000 soldiers from Iraq is announced, President George W “please take my picture” Bush is front and center (probably not realizing the insignificance of his words).  When it comes to a failing report card, the task falls upon subordinates.

This pattern has been the hallmark of the Bush/Cheney Administration so it comes as little surprise.  I would think by now that the military should be fully pissed off with the type of policy leadership that has flowed from the Bush White House.  The Military has been stretched thin, sent into battle without full preparations, and undermanned for the tasks that unfolded.  Worst of all is that there is no coherent US policy that applies to Afghanistan. 

The US involvement in Afghanistan began on a sound policy basis.  The then Afghan Government, lead by the Taliban, was a willing host to radical and extemist groups, particularly Al Qaeda.  Following initial success in ousting the Taliban and establishing a semi-authentic Afghan Government, the US Government lost interest.  More amazingly in a totally unrelated escapade, Colonel Rummy lead the charge of the light brigade into Iraq!  With the US Government more concerned about Iraq and the military stretch too thin to mount any sustained initiative in Afghanistan, the decay and ultimate decline has taken place in full view.  This decline is not the fault of the military in any way.  The responsibility lies at the highest levels of the Government and in the closeted rooms of neoconservative think tanks and their friends AIPAC.

Afghanistan has several terminal illnesses.

1. Afghanistan is the leading world supplier of heroin.  Poppy fields lie in full view and go unattacked by willing Afghan and US governments.  Left to continue this will ultimately bring to power another decadent national government.

2. The Kabul based Afghan Government is an island and controls little of the country side.  Regional “warlords” rule the outlying areas and remain marginally loyal only on the basis of foreign aid funneled to them.  In effect there is no national Afghanistan and the US has watched this happen.

3. The middle and lower level Afghan bureaucrats earn too little money and have returned to taking brides and extortion to augment their livelihoods.  No government can represent it people and earn their support on one hand, if the other hand is always in their citizens’ pockets.

4. The Taliban and remaining Al Qaedas have found a relatively safe base in the area separating Pakistan and Afghanistan.  This region has failed to get proper attention from all parties even though the US has from time to time claimed that Pakistan has not done enough and should do more to hunt down insurgents.

5. Basic services are still lacking in Afghanistan.  From electricity to roads to schools are all lacking.  Afghanistan, as it stands today, would fall tomorrow if the US pulled out.

The moral of this lesson is similar to Iraq.  The US needs a coherent foreign policy that meets our nation’s interests, and is acceptable to Afghanistan and its neighbors.  For the Bush Administation the future is “Af-gone-istan”.  John McCain or Barack Obama will be faced with a situation far more difficult and critical than Iraq.  Pakistan has nuclear weapons and while the country is mostly moderate, there are radical elements who possess extreme views about India and non-muslims in general.  Russia, China, Iran, and India all look carefully at Afghanistan and worry about the return of a radical government.  Their concerns represent both opportunity and concern since they are not likely to sit back and wait if the US fails to lead.

Voting 90% of the time with George W Bush does not make John McCain the likely maverick who will combine State Department and Defense Department policy and look at Afghanistan holistically and within the context of the world.  The luxury of looking at one part of the world as a “one off” was ended during the Bush years (although he nevered realized it).  For my vote, I see Obama as the more likely to bring forward comprehensive policies even though he may lack personally the military experience.  In fact Afghanistan really begs for a “statesman’s solution” and not a sword waving, jet pilot.

Gates Shines

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has shown why George W Bush should have listened to his father more than he did.  Gates who replaced Donald Rumsfeld following the 2006 mid term election has made accountability the watch word for his term in office.  He acted quickly and firmly when Army officials did not react to the human and political disaster of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center substandard housing for returning injured soldiers.  Now he has dealt with a different and in its own way a similarly serious problem, control of sensitive weapons and parts.

On August 30, 2007, a B-52 took off from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and headed for Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.  After it had landed, crews discovered that some of the Cruise missiles attached to the B-52 were armed with live nuclear weapons!  On March 25, 2008, US Government officials confirmed that a shipment of nuclear weapon fuses had been shipped to the Taiwanese Government in error.  Both of these incidents reflect the breaching of Air Force internal nuclear weapons security controls and put in question the safety of our nuclear arsenal.

Gates observed that in both of the nuclear weapons incidents, the Air Force did not act with a sense of urgency and in effect called the events “rare and isolated”.  Air Force spokespeople pointed out that “no danger existed” and “the weapons and fuses were safely in US control”.  Does this sound a little like “ends justify means”?

It is difficult to know whether Secretary Gates could have slowed the stampede into the Iraq War had he been Secretary then.  For sure there was plenty of information about the status of preparation before the invasion.  Gates, however, is a team player and may have carried out the orders of his commander in chief as did Donald Rumsfeld.  What would have been different would have been swift consequences for Military planners when the early days of the insurgency (civil war) showed the American soldiers under protected.  Gates would have never said “you go to war with the Army you got”, in effect telling the families who lost loved ones, “too bad, tough break”.

The place where Gates would have shined even brighter, however, was the Abu Ghraib situation.  He would never have tolorated “a few bad apples” as the reason for this stain upon America.  He would never have allowed only the prosecution of enlisted men and women and a free pass for the chain of command.  If ever there was a need for accountability, it was with Abu Ghraib.

Gates may in his heart of hearts support the Iraq War and consider it necessary.  I do not agree and think it foolish and wasteful.  I can, however, support and respect Robert Gates as a public servant and a professional leader.  I simply wish he had been there from the start.