Personnel Speculation

One of the odd manifestations of America's new enthusiasm for imperialism is, I suppose, that the capital is now full of gossip and intrigue regarding which generals will be assigned to which posts.

Meanwhile, because of the way these terms play out it's worth noting that dealing with the inherited brass is would be a substantial challenge for a new Democratic president. Since these are theoretically apolitical jobs, a new president can't just come in and clean house. But since the Bush administration will have been in charge for eight years most of which have been occupied by a politically controversial war, many top generals are now de facto political figures. If whoever's running CENTCOM (and this may well be General Petraeus) of MNF-Iraq (or both) in January 2009 disagrees with the new president's preferred Iraq policy, those people will be in a position to make life awkward for the new president. This is a concrete area where I do put some stock in the Clinton/experience argument, as she seems less likely to get rolled, though at the same time I have more doubts that her policy judgment would be the same as mine.

Comments

They need to fire the entire Joint Chiefs, half the civilian staff, and most of the officer corps down to Lt. General, probably, if not down to Colonel.

The State Department is full of corrupt individuals, according to Sibel Edmonds, and needs a thorough cleaning out, along with massive indictments, along with most of the nuclear related agencies, as apparently just about all of them are infiltrated with organized crime figures.

Of course, none of this will happen.

BTW, why would Clinton have any experience in this area? Do we even know what Bill did vis-a-vis the Pentagon when he took over?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 21, 2008 2:46 AM

Bill was rolled every which way on gays in the military. I do not expect her to pick any fights, especially since the media will be even more on high alert looking for tension between the uniforms in the Pentagon and the Clinton 2.0 White House than they would be with a run of the mill Democratic president.

Posted by ChuckE | January 21, 2008 3:05 AM

Matt, what are you smoking? "America's new enthusiasm for imperialism?" There is none. There is the elite's (a polite way of saying ruling class) and its lapdog big media's enthusiasm, or the belief that now they can get away with it. Their kids are not going to be dying for it, after all, and the country's financial ruin won't trouble the investing classes inordinately. Nor will the torture, mass murder and other war crimes necessary to sustain empire.

Doesn't the notion of Petraeus and his ilk setting boundaries for a president bother you just a bit? Have you heard of civilian control of the military? Do terms like Caesarism and Bonapartism mean anything to you?

Posted by Eric | January 21, 2008 4:13 AM

Well, rest assured that whatever choice is made by any potential Democratic President, it will be simply assumed as proof that the Democrats are once again destroying the military, which was the standard myth throughout the Clinton administration -- even blaming him for the Bush Sr base drawdowns.

Posted by El Cid | January 21, 2008 8:42 AM

1) In the later stages of his Administration, Bill Clinton was definitely rolled by the military on the budget and ..er.. other matters which I can't discuss.

2) In part, because Clinton's butt was hanging WAY out in the breeze. A few years earlier, Washington had been roiled by a bitter sex war: Female Democratic Senators, trying to force the Pentagon into accepting women in combat slots, had made a big deal out of Kelly Flinn, female B52 pilot, being threatened with a court martial for adultery.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Flinn

3) The argument was that male Air Force officers enjoyed a double standard -- that Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston was being considered for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff even though he had also had an adulterous affair, albeit a decade earlier. Ralston ended up withdrawing his nomination for Chairman.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june97/ralston_6-9.html

4) Army Major General John Longhouser resigned around the same time as the Ralston blowup after it was revealed that he had cheated on his wife.
(See http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june97/adultery_6-5a.html )

Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen had justified Longhouser's dismissal on the grounds that
"We have very high standards that we insist upon for the military. And when those standards are breached, then there are consequences that flow from it. And so it's not a broad side. It's another example of someone who failed to measure up to those standards. "

5) Which made it kinda awkward when the Commander in Chief himself was caught having his joystick polished by the tongue of a female subordinate. The Corps of retired military officers and the Pentagon kept a restrained silence --for a price.

6) George W Bush has accomplished one thing I would have thought impossible in 2001 -- he has managed to make Bill Clinton look good.

But this pining for the golden years of the Clinton Administration is , in some ways, as much a myth as Margaret Mitchell's bullshit depiction of Southern slavery in "Gone With The Wind". (No pun on the Monica scandal --and the progressive agenda in the Clinton Administration -- intended.)

Posted by Don Williams | January 21, 2008 8:44 AM

Oh good. America could certainly use some more gossip and intrigue.

Posted by jalmari | January 21, 2008 8:57 AM

I would certainly never portray the Clinton I era as a "golden age," except in relation to the current nightmare; however, Don does give a good list of the kinds of astoundingly petty nonsense which was spouted about how Clinton 'undermined' the military.

Mostly that nonsense paralleled all the other nonsense drummed up by the Newt Gingrich counter-revolutionary types, in which whatever petty or nonexistent subjects were built up into a hysterically urgent crisis of governance and evidence that the Clintons were somewhere between Soviet agents and Martian surrogates.

Actually, I think one of the big problems was that a lot of loudmouth warmongers were unhappy that they had no big glorious war under Bill Clinton. Hopefully they're finally happy they got the manly man's war they needed.

Posted by El Cid | January 21, 2008 9:11 AM

Re Don Williams

Mr. Williams need not worry about Ms. Clinton being too subservient to the Pentagon as she will be taking her marching orders from Haim Saben.

Posted by SLC | January 21, 2008 9:13 AM

Re SLC's comment "Mr. Williams need not worry about Ms. Clinton being too subservient to the Pentagon as she will be taking her marching orders from Haim Saben."
------------
1) Er..you need to learn the proper terminology, SLC. What Mr Saban wants would be conveyed in an "Air Tasking Order" not "marching orders".

2) Remember --from Haim's Haaretz Interview?

[Saban]"Is there a higher price than two nuclear bombs on Israel? So they will fire missiles, all right then. Iran is not Lebanon, where you pinpoint specific targets: this bridge here, that building, half of that courtyard over there. In Iran you go in and wipe out their infrastructure completely. Plunge them into darkness. Cut off their water."
Ref: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html

3) Heh heh heh. God preserve us from bloodthirsty civilians.

Wonder what Haim has planned for Barack Obama, given that Obama is threatening Haim's multi-million investment in the Hillary campaign?
Maybe I should switch the TV channel to Univision and see how the carpetbombing in California is going?

Posted by Don Williams | January 21, 2008 9:27 AM

Matt: if she is elected her policy judgements would count. Yours, unfortunately, will never get the time of day. Get yourself elected. Then talk about how one's judgement gets comprised by a system that requires compromise on most issues.

There is too much of this sitting at a desk and talking the talk and dishing out short pieces as a thought for the moment type of journalism/opinion.

Posted by sentinel | January 21, 2008 9:43 AM

Yeah. Matt's right. The current state of affairs is in stark contrast to...you know...any other time in American History. Like 1776, 1801-1804, 1812, etc, etc, etc.

Twit.

Posted by mike padula | January 21, 2008 9:51 AM

Re Don Williams

1. One has to marvel at how Mr. Williams continues to quote mine the Haaretz interview and ignore Mr. Sabans' appeasement admonitions about negotiating with Syria and Hamas. Maybe Mr. Saban thinks that Syria and Hamas can be recruited for his campaign against Iran.

2. Gee, Mr. Williams again brings up Mr. Sabans' multimillion dollar investment in Ms. Clintons' presidential campaign. It would seem that Mr. Obamas' campaign is also threatening the Saudi Princes' 10 million dollar investment in her husbands' presidential library. But then, of course, the Saudi Prince and Mr. Saban are obviously collaborators in the fantasy world of Mr. Williams.

Posted by SLC | January 21, 2008 9:52 AM

Eric, I think Matt was being facetious.

Posted by Mike | January 21, 2008 10:14 AM

Hillary less likely to get rolled? You're joking right? You mean like the way all her "experience" prevented her from getting rolled on Iraq and Iran?

Posted by Junius Brutus | January 21, 2008 10:18 AM

I remember a pre-Iraq War article in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh about how Rumsfeld was systematically purging the military brass who'd been promoted under President Clinton.

As to the federal agencies, the career posts are probably infested now with right-wing radical cells. What we glimpsed about hiring at the Justice Dept. is the tip of the iceberg.

Posted by putnam | January 21, 2008 10:19 AM

I predict that, if elected, Hillary will cower before the military. She will be so afraid that they will fuck her over that the Pentagon will essentially have a free hand.

Posted by Junius Brutus | January 21, 2008 10:31 AM

1)Re whether Bill Clinton was "rolled" , note that when a DEMOCRATIC President appoints a REPUBLICAN to be his Secretary of Defense, one can assume he's not fully in control of events.
Wild Bill's SecDef from 1997-2001 was Republican Senator William Cohen.

2) SecDef Cohen tried to support General Joseph Ralston's appointment to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but was defeated by female Democrats in Congress determined to avenge Lt Kelly Flinn. General Joseph Ralston decided to "take one for the team" and end the circus by withdrawing his name from consideration. In return, General Ralston was made our proconsul in Europe --i.e, made Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

What happened next is interesting.

3) Upon leaving office in 2001, SecDef Cohen formed an international "business consulting" firm. The Vice-Chairman of Cohen's firm --The Cohen Group -- is ..ta da ..teamplayer General Joseph Ralston -- who came on board shortly after his retirement from the military in 2003.

4) General Ralston has an interesting way of conducting business. In Sept 2006, he was designated Special Envoy for Countering the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) by President George Bush. (The PKK is a Kurdish separatist group .)

Ralston took a very hard line against the PPK -- see
http://istanbul.usconsulate.gov/ralston_091906.html
Ralston told the Turks:

"I want to make one thing clear at the outset: Turkey has no better friend than the United States in the fight against the PKK.

If the United States were not committed to the fight against the PKK, I would not be here before you this evening.

If the United States were not committed to the fight against the PKK, I would not have made two trips to Baghdad in the past month to spark greater Iraqi action against the PKK.

If the United States were not committed to the fight against the PKK, we would not have the high level of diplomatic, military and intelligence cooperation with Turkey that exists today on that problem.

Plain and simple, the U.S. is in this fight with Turkey and will stay in this fight. "

5) The problem is, PKK is deployed in Iraq as well as in Turkey. So Ralston's attacks on PKK makes things interesting for our soldiers and diplomats in Iraq who deal with the Kurds.

6) The Kurdish National Congress of North America -- in a public demand for Ralston's resignation in July 2007 -- gave an interesting reason for Ralston's aggressiveness:

" General Ralston is a vice-chairman of The Cohen Group, a private lobby firm with close
ties to the American Turkish Council (ATC) and Lockheed Martin. According to an
article in the Washington Post in May of this year, Lockheed Martin acknowledged it was
a client of The Cohen Group, and paid some $500,000 to The Cohen Group for services
rendered in 2005. General Ralston is also a member of the 2006 Advisory Board of the
ATC, as well as a current member of the Board of Directors of Lockheed Martin.
Lockheed Martin is also a member of the ATC. Ralston's appointment came at a time
when Turkey was finalizing the sale of 30 new Lockheed Martin F-16 aircraft (approx.
$3 billion) and as Turkey was due to make a decision on the $10 billion purchase of the
new Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF aircraft. The sale for the F-16's was approved by
Congress in mid-October and Turkey's decision in favor of the F-35 JSF was announced
on October 25, shortly after Ralston's recent stay in Ankara, ostensibly to counter the
PKK. "
Ref: http://www.kncna.org/docs/pdf_files/KNC_PR_Demanding_Resign_of_JRalston.pdf

7) Of course, if you sell the Turks Lockheed fighter jets, you have to let them use them --even against Kurds in Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2007_bombing_of_northern_Iraq

Of course, you can console the Kurds by noting that they are no longer being attacked by that beastly Saddam Hussein now that the Great White Father in Washington has taken an interest.

Next, you can ask them if they are SURE that they don't want to sign oil leases with Dick Cheney's buddies in Houston.

But wait --it gets better.

Posted by Don Williams | January 21, 2008 10:44 AM

Hilary Clinton LESS likely to get rolled? Please, check out the records of Hilary's tenure on the Armed Services committee. The basic bargain she has with the Pentagon is: you don't drop any hints I'm a pacifist lesbian witch, I give you whatever you want.

Posted by mq | January 21, 2008 11:17 AM

The political stance of these generals is the only opening any future President needs in order to clean house.

Posted by Bill | January 21, 2008 11:37 AM

Less likely to get rolled, maybe. More likely to agree with the imperialists in the first place. And a proven record (if we're going to judge the Clintons as a couple, which they insist we do) of giving in to pressure from the military at the first threat of "anti-troops" criticism.

Posted by Alan in SF | January 21, 2008 11:48 AM

1) The "American Turkish Council" is a very interesting place -- at least, according to Sibel Edmonds --the FBI whistleblower who translated wiretaps made on Turkish conversations recorded in Washington DC.

2) From a recent UK Times article:
"Edmonds had told this newspaper that members of the Turkish political and diplomatic community in the US had been actively acquiring nuclear secrets. They often acted as a conduit, she said, for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s spy agency, because they attracted less suspicion.

She claimed corrupt [US] government officials helped the network, and venues such as the American-Turkish Council (ATC) in Washington were used as drop-off points.

The anonymous letter names a high-level government official who was allegedly secretly recorded speaking to an official at the Turkish embassy between August and December 2001.

It claims the government official warned a Turkish member of the network that they should not deal with a company called Brewster Jennings because it was a CIA front company investigating the nuclear black market. The official’s warning came two years before Brewster Jennings was publicly outed when one of its staff, Valerie Plame, was revealed to be a CIA agent in a case that became a cause célèbre in the US. "
Ref: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece

3) What's interesting is that the affair General Joseph carried on in 1985 -- at the War College and which destroyed his chance of being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs -- was with a female CIA officer.

Anyone know where Valerie Plame was at the time?

4) What makes Sibel Edmonds' account interesting is the Bush Administration's response to her whistleblowing : A blizzard of gag orders and State Secrets claims that have left the ACLU's lawyers gazing on in ..er.."shock and awe". See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds#Litigation

Posted by Don Williams | January 21, 2008 12:16 PM

The most likely outcome is that whoever is nominated and then elected, s/he will follow the traditional Dem (since about 1992) course of abject deference to the Pentagon. As usual, s/he will paint it as an example of "realism" and or "toughness".

Posted by sglover | January 21, 2008 12:17 PM

Hmmm. Evidently Valerie Plame was too young to have been Joseph Ralston's paramour in the 1980s.

However, it is interesting that Valerie met Joseph Wilson in 1997 at a party at the Turkish
Ambassador's house. Counting the silver spoons? heh heh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame#Marriages_and_family

As you can see, when it comes to "gossip and intrigue" in Washington, young Matthew is a babe in the woods.

Posted by Don Williams | January 21, 2008 12:25 PM

Since these are theoretically apolitical jobs, a new president can't just come in and clean house.

It may be politically dangerous to do it, but a President definitely has the authority to come in and clean house, if by "clean house" one means "dismiss a lot of people who serve at the President's pleasure."

There have been some very senior people who have retired early because, allegedly, they had problems with the way the current administration did things. (This was the rumor about General James L. Jones' retirement.) A new President who wishes to clean house will have some good names to choose from.

I'm not sure whether dumping Petreaus is a good idea, though. A lot of people seem to think he's yet another Republican apparatchik thrown at the problem (Repubs, Dems, and others) but I don't think that's what motivates him. He was arguing for the same strategy in 2003 that he put into place in command, and Mosul, under his command, was a much better place than the rest of Iraq was. I suspect he's not as partisan as people think-he certainly wasn't drinking the Kool-Aid and announcing everything was fine back when the official line was that anyone who didn't say that was akin to a traitor.

There are other senior officers, by contrast, who were very associated with the Bush admin at its dumbest. I hope a new President can leave General Ralston, for instance, in the retirement he so richly deserves.

Posted by Nemo Ignotus | January 21, 2008 12:44 PM

Don Williams: Nice recap of the connections between Plame and the Edmonds case.

For those wishing to follow up, Sibel Edmonds Web site is here:

http://www.justacitizen.com/

And the documentary "Kill the Messenger" is here:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1991080575212848283

I've sent Matt info on the Times Online article, but like most of the pundit blogs, he apparently doesn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. Not even Josh Marshall, with his "All Republican Corruption All The Time" blog, is willing to touch the Edmonds case, despite it being the biggest criminal case of treason in US history which would put several Republican Congressman, such as Dennis Hastert, in prison for not just corruption, but treason, not to mention most of the neocon names we know so well, such as Doug Feith, Richard Perle, Marc Grossman, and many more.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 21, 2008 9:17 PM

Don Williams: Nice recap of the connections between Plame and the Edmonds case.

For those wishing to follow up, Sibel Edmonds Web site is here:

http://www.justacitizen.com/

And the documentary "Kill the Messenger" is here:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1991080575212848283

I've sent Matt info on the Times Online article, but like most of the pundit blogs, he apparently doesn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. Not even Josh Marshall, with his "All Republican Corruption All The Time" blog, is unwilling to touch the Edmonds case, despite it being the biggest criminal case of treason in US history which would put several Republican Congressman, such as Dennis Hastert, in prison for not just corruption, but treason, not to mention most of the neocon names we know so well, such as Doug Feith, Richard Perle, Marc Grossman, and many more.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 21, 2008 9:17 PM

Sorry about the double post - I was trying to cancel the first one and edit the word "willing" to be "unwilling".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 21, 2008 9:19 PM