Shadow Government

A Review of Obama's Africa Tour

President Barack Obama's tour of Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania -- his longest trip to Africa -- is winding up, and there is something to praise and a little bit to criticize.

What is to be praised? First, simply that he went. It is good for U.S. presidents to travel, show the flag, and demonstrate U.S. interest in and influence on various countries around the world. While much was made of the cost ($60 million to $100 million), security concerns trump every other concern. If the trip is important (this one is) and terrorists want to kill the leader of the free world (they do), then the Secret Service must prepare appropriately. It's a good thing those sequester cuts were not as devastating as we were told. I know there are critics who say that the president took the trip simply to escape his administration's scandals, and maybe that is partially true. But the fact that he nixed the controversial safari for his family shows that the president dropped the fluff and kept the substance. And the visit to Nelson Mandela's former prison is most worthy because having the first African-American U.S. president do it makes a profound symbolic gesture as Mandela appears to be slipping his earthly bonds.

Another praiseworthy element of the trip is that the president appropriately focused on democratization, or what George W. Bush called the "Freedom Agenda" (though I'm sure Obama would not draw such a direct comparison). Obama's brief trip to Ghana in 2009 found him extolling the virtues of good governance, noting that without it economic progress is fleeting and imbalanced. One would have wished then that he'd gone the next step and noted that good governance is impossible without democracy in that dictators are rarely ever smart enough or good enough to provide good governance. Just ask the crowds protesting in any square during a revolutionary moment what they think of the notion of competent and noble autocrats. On this trip, however, the president made a speech at the University of Cape Town and included some very important points about democracy, human rights, and good governance. He put considerable emphasis on the fact that the people must be in charge, not the government. The "Power Africa" initiative to further electrify several sub-Saharan African countries is important, but I'm most interested in his comments that get at the root of what will really transform and prosper African countries: liberty recognized and maintained through democratic culture and politics. Here is a quote that could have come from the mouth of his predecessor:

Now, I know that there are some in Africa who hear me say these things -- who see America's support for these values -- and say that's intrusive. Why are you meddling? I know there are those who argue that ideas like democracy and transparency are somehow Western exports. I disagree. Those in power who make those arguments are usually trying to distract people from their own abuses. [Applause.] Sometimes, they are the same people who behind closed doors are willing to sell out their own country's resource to foreign interests, just so long as they get a cut. I'm just telling the truth. [Laughter and applause.]

Finally to be praised is that Obama gave some advice to Africans, whether it was requested or not, to not accept every country's interest in Africa as altruistic. Africans, he said, should be equal partners in fair dealing for resources, the price of labor, and in general what is best for Africa. Good advice, though mostly when this issue is on the table we are mainly asking, "What is China up to?" We should be asking, "What are China and the regime up to?" To be sure, the best way that citizens can be protected from predation is democracy: Governments that have no fear of the ballot box have no fear of citizens' anger at being pawns in a game between corrupt governments and foreign investors.

But there has been a low point to the trip: namely, his comments in South Africa during the press conference with President Jacob Zuma. The president made what I consider ill-thought-out comments, probably meant to be humorous, regarding the press. He referred to the American press corps as "my press," and he chided them for asking too many questions. Normally, perhaps, this wouldn't be a big deal. But in that he was visiting three African countries whose press is judged by Freedom House to be "partially free," I think it is not just bad form but harmful for his administration's support for democracy. Of course I would not expect the president to use his trip as an occasion to criticize his hosts directly. But I would expect that while he, himself, is under scrutiny for his administration's treatment of the press (the AP phone records and Fox News's James Rosen), he would not make light of such matters. He missed a chance to not say something, but four years' experience with him in power has led me to believe the president is too thin-skinned when it comes to dissent and being held accountable and too quick to assume a bit of a royal air. At home, he can mix it up with reporters in the great political game, but once he's abroad, more decorum and circumspection is called for.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Shadow Government

Military Advice and Military Indiscretion

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, made news last week by admitting some doubt about the reconfirmation of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey. "I'm hopeful … but you just never know."

One obstacle that might be denting Levin's confidence is Sen. John McCain's disdain for Dempsey. McCain characterized Dempsey's Benghazi testimony as "simply false" and has frequently berated Dempsey's claims about the strength of Syrian air defenses. In rebutting Dempsey's opposition to involvement in Syria, McCain derisively said, "One thing I've learned about some of our military leaders: [If] they don't want to do something, they can invent lots of ways not to do it."

Interestingly, Dempsey showed none of the affronted dignity he'd taken 15 months ago when Rep. Paul Ryan alleged the chiefs were not giving their honest opinion to Congress in supporting the president's budget. But, of course, in the intervening time period, the chiefs have been raked over the coals by Congress about opposition to gays serving openly in the ranks, sex abuse scandals, poor leadership judgment toward subordinates (including by Gen. James Cartwright, then vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David Huntoon, the superintendent of West Point), and hyping the threat of budget cuts. It is not too much to say that the chiefs have a credibility crisis.

Dempsey's pliancy in support of administration views does seem rather poorly camouflaged across a range of issues. But that doesn't make him wrong, nor does defending the president's choices in public mean he isn't giving different advice in private. And he would not be the first senior military officer to bend his military judgment to what he believes the political leadership will bear. In fact, finding ways to make what is militarily sound politically acceptable is an important qualification for the job of being the president's senior military advisor. 

McCain's insistence on accountability is admirable, and rare. He memorably also voted against Gen. George Casey's confirmation to be chief of staff of the Army after commanding in Iraq, because he felt Casey had failed to successfully grapple with the challenges of the war. Still, Dempsey is almost sure to be reconfirmed; few in Congress would vote against a military pay raise, keeping open needless bases, buying unwanted equipment, or a senior appointment (unless there were a whiff of sexual scandal).

But presidents get the military leadership they deserve. If the president punishes dissent, as President George W. Bush allowed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to, the military will tell the president what he wants to hear. Maybe not at first, but you will see the promotion and selection of yes men (and women). If the president rewards creativity and honesty, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates did, it will bring forward better military advice. If the president doesn't want to hear unwelcome truths, as President Barack Obama doesn't, you will see the culling of military leaders who tell them, as well as their replacement by blander men. And those blander men tend to be less help when things go badly.

And the military shouldn't complain too much about the quality of those blander men, since if they didn't promote them to four-star ranks, they wouldn't be eligible for selection to political postings (even in the case of Al Haig, who went into the White House as a lieutenant colonel and emerged as a four-star general, the Army had to agree to promote him). In fact, the military bears complicity for military leaders who aren't willing to give their unabashed military advice.

But to complain about the chiefs being political is to complain that they are striving to find the means to fit military sensibilities into the broader political objectives of the person elected to the nation's highest office. And that's no bad thing in a free society.

The revelation that Cartwright is under FBI investigation for leaking classified details of cyberattacks against Iran's nuclear programs is a different and much more serious matter. If there is any basis to the allegations, Cartwright should go to jail -- because an Army private who violated the terms of his security agreement would go to jail, and we should hold leaders to at least the same standard.

Stuxnet may not have been the dawn of the cyberage, but the operational details compromised will make more difficult future operations. Having been the commander of Strategic Command and a leading proponent of high-tech asymmetries in warfare, Cartwright knows better than most how damaging such leaks are.

Some may argue that, close as Cartwright was to the White House, he may have had its authorization to disclose the great success of the Stuxnet program. This White House has in numerous instances revealed classified information -- but even if the White House encouraged him to do so, it would in no way excuse Cartwright, if in fact he is guilty.

Alex Wong/Getty Images