Jim Jones channels Donald Rumsfeld

Posted By Peter Feaver Monday, May 11, 2009 - 3:30 AM Share

By Peter Feaver

Politico has a nice wrap-up of the recent "methinks he doth protest too much" coverage of General Jones, Obama's National Security Advisor. Apparently, there has been something of a whispering campaign directed against Jones, and the White House made him available for extensive on the record interviews to push back against it.

My former wingman and current Shadow colleague, Will Inboden, has already discussed the penchant of credulous reporters to credit Jones with instituting major changes in the way national security policy is made with "reforms" that are carbon copies of how the last three administrations ran the interagency. However, one little snippet in the Washington Post's piece on Jones leapt out at me and reminded me of another thing the Bush administration was credited with (or rather, discredited with). The snippet was presumably in response to a question like, "prove to me that you are actually influencing policy and not an empty suit, as some anonymous critics inside have been saying." In any case, here is what Karen DeYoung reported:

As Obama was mulling his first major foreign policy decision in February -- whether to increase U.S. military deployments to Afghanistan this year -- Jones said he intervened with questions about the information supplied by the Pentagon.

The numbers were "out of whack," Jones recalled. Beyond the requested 17,000-strong combat force, the military had included additional "enablers" that it said were required for logistical and other support functions. "I understand these ratios and what they ought to look like, and when they seemed a little high, I pushed back on it," he said. The numbers were reduced.

That sounds eerily like the interactions Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld had
with CENTCOM during the planning phases of both the Afghan and the Iraq
wars. Is this the beginnings of a new Fiasco (cue Tom Ricks)?

Now as a card-carrying civil-military relations theorist, let me stipulate for the record that it is right and proper for civilian political leaders (and in this case, Jones is a civilian political leader, and indisputably acting on behalf of THE civilian political leader) to press the military on these sorts of issues and to decide in ways the military does not like. It is fully within the political competence of civilian leaders to decide they want a heavier or a lighter footprint -- even if it turns out they are wrong about how many forces are needed. Civilians have the right to be wrong.

But when they do intrusively manage like this, they are very exposed if things go poorly. In those cases, the judgment of observers and of history can be severe (cue Tom Ricks again and everyone else who has written a bestseller excoriating Rumsfeld). That is why I was so surprised to see Jones reportedly bragging about his involvement in cutting force requests from the theater commanders. Perhaps he made the calculation that a credulous press would not follow-up with tough questions. If that was his calculation, then he may have been correct, because I have seen essentially no discussion of that issue.

One further point: while I can think of many cases of the Secretary of Defense (and of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) intrusively tinkering with the troop requests of combatant commanders in the past couple decades, I have not yet been able to come up with another example of a White House principal doing so since the controversial involvement of the White House in the planning and implementation of the disastrous Desert One Iranian hostage rescue attempt. I can think of many parallels from the Vietnam era and before, but in general, since Vietnam, the White House has been reluctant to tinker with battlefield requests, preferring to delegate that kind of involvement down to the Secretary of Defense level.

In that one respect, therefore, Jones may really be making policy in a way very different from how his immediate predecessors have done so. A change that dramatic deserves more attention and discussion than it has received to date.

EXPLORE:OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
 

WALKTHEWALK

2:48 AM ET

May 12, 2009

No sense of Irony here--is this the same Peter Fever?

I seem to recall someone called Peter Fever assisted the Bush-Cheyney administration to try to get reelected--so they could continue a war that none of their kids, nor the Rove kids, nor I'd warrant many conservative professors' kids are to be found in, let alone in combat. So could this be the same Peter Fever now knocking Jones for not accepting a major troop surge without making sure it's been vetted? Does he have any experienced military suggesting General Jones is way off base? I don't see any. Mr. Feaver says he hasn't been able to come up "with another example of a white House principal" "tinkering with the troop requests of combatant commanders in the past couple of decades..." Hmm, well if it's tinkering you want, how about Mr. Cheyney overuling commanders on the ground and going along with Pakistan's request to fly out Pakistan Army and ISI instructors of the Taliban (which flights included a number of Al Quaida and Taliban Leaders)? How about a no holds barred assistance package Bush went forward with that armed the Pakistan army and money from which found it's way to the Taliban? And how about dismantling USAID so that any reconstruction work had to be done via KBR and other Bush-Cheyney charities?

 

CHFORBESSR

7:16 AM ET

May 12, 2009

General Jim Jones as National Security Adviser

General Jones has military competence, and success as NATO Commander. That does not mean that he can divine from Washington all that is currently needed in Afghanistan. He does know that European NATO forces are not fully useful as combat troops there. But he also is frequently in discussions with Secretary Gates who today replaced General McKiernan with General McCrystal as commander in that country. The purpose of that change is to put a Special Forces expert in charge in order to transform the effort to the latest small war kind of strategy. Jones is also in constant talks with President Obama, and thus is in a position to influence the President on matters military, with which Obama has had no first-hand experience. It would, therefore be reassuring to hear publicly from General Petraeus, the overall Central Command chief, to get his full opinion on what is appropriate in Afghanistan-Pakistan for the U.S. and NATO forces there. But remember that the military follows chain of command, so that's not likely to be heard. The Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice errors on Iraq strategy should be remembered. Jones is better qualified than that triumvirate but he is far from the battlefield. **************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************************w**************************************************************************************************************************************************at Petraeus thinks, but we have very little chance of hearing about any differences beyond what Washington decides to say. One fact is certain: the President's original idea of sending substantial numbers of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan has been superseded by Washington with the newly announced strategy of using Special Forces and other counterinsurgency elements instead. Jones today reduced the number of noncombat troops, saying that the number was inappropriately high. Between the lines, this may really mean that Washington doesn't agree with the planned use of those troops. Or it may mean that Jones, Gates, and the President simply don't comprehend what the actual local situation calls for. After all, Afghanistan is literally halfway around the world.

 

TYRTAIOS

1:01 PM ET

May 12, 2009

Jim Jones/Donald Rumsfeld - Apples & Oranges

Is your use of the word "bragging" an opinion or was Jim Jones just making a plain statement of fact, to let that five sided building in Arlington know his boss wasn't going rubber stamp anything and everything, to include troop levels in theater?

Unlike former SecDef Rumsfeld. Jim Jomes has a background to make a pretty fair judgment about the information supplied by the Pentagon concerning manning levels - afterall, he is the commander-in-chief's advisor, and may have spotted something that necessiated this unusual hands on display.

I'd remind you, left to their own designs, field commanders are always asking for more troops - something that many, including SecDef Gates, think might be counter-productive in Afghanistan, considering that country's history under occupation.

 

WALKTHEWALK

12:27 AM ET

May 13, 2009

WSJ seems to not be opposed to the idea

As conservative and Bush-supportive a publication as the Wall Street Journal gave favorable coverage today and on Friday to the changes, and their reports pointed out that Gates was a Bush holdover. Note also the article on the transition and links by the editor of Small Wars Journal in the FP update "the war this week #15."

I heard on the radio (NPR) that 21,000 troops were headed to Afghanistan--now this could be ours plus what troops NATO is sending.

Big problem that has little coverage is whether or not the Pakistan army is so splintered with Zia and post Zia supporters of more fundamental islam that there is really not likely to be an effective counterforce to the Taliban. Note
Fareeh Zacariah's piece in Newsweek, Change We Can't Believe In (5/2/09), discussing among other things Husain Haqqani's Pakistan, Between the Mosque and the Military.

Looks like interesting times.

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More