Clapper Claptrap
Writing in The Washington Post last week Professor Bruce Ackerman worried that President Obama is already getting too much advice from a military man, National Security Advisor, Jim Jones, a former marine Corps Commandant and NATO commander. “Regardless of the abilities of particular advisers, Obama is entrenching a bad precedent. Presidents are in constant contact with their national security adviser and intelligence director — which creates the danger that the nation’s commander in chief may tend to take seriously only those options that make sense to the military mind,” Ackerman wrote in his June 8 OP-ED.
Excuse me? The military mind? This reveals an extraordinary ignorance of intellectual rigor of the typical “military mind,” and perpetuates a stereotype of the military officers as gung-ho advocates of force. In my time covering the Pentagon it always seems like the “diplomats” at State Department were the one who wanted to rattle the saber while the generals at the Pentagon who knew the real risks of war, were the reluctant warriors.
But Ackerman is right about one thing: civilian control of the military is a bedrock principle of American government, and, by the way, it’s a principle deeply respected by our senior military leadership. That’s why so many officers, who may harbor private doubts about the wisdom of military strategy, salute smartly and carry it out when the President orders it.
But let’s get back to the idea that prior military service renders one less desirable as an advisor to the President on intelligence and national security compared to a civilian with little or no prior military background. The argument seems to be that the experience of serving as a senior officer, of rising through the ranks by developing and displaying leadership skills and critical thinking, of making life and death decisions, of having a career of sacrifice and national service can somehow warp a person’s thinking. And therefore such a person should not be the first choice to advice our Commander-in-Chief on the weighty issues of war and peace. (Unless apparently they have been away from service for at least five years, or even better a decade, in which case their mind begins to return to normal then we might start to trust them again.)
I’m always amazed when really smart people think really dumb things. And I have to say that Professor Ackerman, no doubt possessed of great intellect, superior to mine, has displayed an amazing ability to overanalyze a nonproblem, and come to an illogical conclusion.
Ackerman offers the example of the service secretaries, who are the civilian bosses for the various braches of the military, and report to the civilian defense secretary. These secretaries provide oversight to the military chiefs, whose job it is to train and equipment our armed services. The service secretaries do not advise the President, nor are they (or the chiefs for that matter) in the chain of command. The Joint Chiefs do provide advice indirectly through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who is the principal military advisor to both the President and the Defense Secretary. Ackerman argues too many of the recent civilian service secretaries aren’t really true civilians because, “since 1980, 27 have been confirmed, and nearly a quarter have served for 15 years or more, while 44 percent have served for as many as five years.”
Let’s see, we are going to have a civilian oversee a branch of the military, so why would we not want someone with some exposure the realities of military service???
Oddly enough Ackerman grants a dispensation for Brent Scowcroft, whom he judges was “an outstanding national security adviser in the administrations of both Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush.”
Ackerman concludes his essay with the assertion that White House decision making should be “dominated by civilian politicians and policymakers who bring the broader perspectives gained from deeper involvement in democratic politics.” And while acknowledging Gen. Clapper is well qualified “by dint of his 45 years in intelligence operations,” Ackerman nevertheless poses the question, “Does Clapper have the breadth of exposure to civilian life that will give him a deep appreciation of democratic values and aspirations?”
The idea that long military service is incompatible with an appreciation of democratic values is an ugly stereotype, and deeply insulting.
And maybe Prof Ackerman should check out Gen. Clapper’s bio. He’ll discover Clapper retired 15 years ago, and worked in private industry six years, as well as serving as the first civilian director, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
The bottom line is the President needs to pick people he can trust, who are smart enough and brave enough to give him the straight scoop. So President Obama had it exactly right when he said, of James Clapper, “He possesses a quality that I value in all my advisors: a willingness to tell leaders what we need to know, even if it’s not what we want to hear.”
Tags: Bruce Ackerman, Civilian Control, Clapper, DNI
Comments (8)
0
JPMitch19 · 157 weeks ago
I saw a reference this morning to the statute that created DNI
including a requirement that the Director be in the military or have a
military background.
0
SallyAl · 156 weeks ago
Sorry - not so. Public Law 108 - 458 - Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 created the office and only says the
appointee "shall have extensive national security expertise."
0
SSG R · 156 weeks ago
This is idiotic. McIntyre is probably right, but if she had any respect
for our time and intelligence, she would deal with Ackerman's
arguments. This blog just amounts to a rant.
0
James Carafano · 156 weeks ago
That would be if the firing or the hiring had naything to do with
civil-miliary relations and it does not. The professor should rest
without worry. Former uniforms are there only as window dressing,
political types makes all the key decisions.
0
SallyAL · 156 weeks ago
Bravo Jamie - You got it right. Prof Ackerman is one of those who brands all military as war mongers.
0
Abn Engr · 156 weeks ago
I think it is important to note the first Secretary of War (earlier
version of the Secretary of the Army) was Knox, Washington's Chief of
Artillery during the War for Independence.
0
GEORGE BEERS · 145 weeks ago
HOLY HELL GUYS! I LOVE THIS FCKING GUN
No comments:
Post a Comment