 |
 |
Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gnter Grass still thinks reunification was a bad idea.
By Paul Hockenos
Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
By the Editors
How a million surveillance cameras in London are proving George Orwell wrong.
By Jamie Malanowski
With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
By Stephen Burd
The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
By Joshua Green
|
|
|
|
December 7, 2008
Shinseki [In a few minutes, Obama will introduce Retired Army Gen. Eric Shinseki as his choice to head the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Hilzoy's item from last night was perfect, so I'm bumping it to the top. -SB]
From the Washington Post:
"Retired Army Gen. Eric K. Shinseki will be introduced tomorrow as President-elect Barack Obama's nominee to head the Department of Veterans Affairs, a Democratic official familiar with the announcement said today.
Obama confirmed that Shinseki was his choice In an exclusive interview with NBC News, taped for broadcast on "Meet the Press." Obama called Shinseki "exactly the right person who is going to be able to make sure that we honor our troops when they come home."
Shinseki, a 38-year veteran, is best known for his four years as Army chief of staff, and in particular his response to congressional questioning in February 2003 about troop levels necessary to protect a presumed military victory in Iraq. (...)
Notably Shinseki led the Army at the same time that Obama's nominee as national security adviser, then-Marine commandant Gen. James L. Jones. Both questioned Wolfowitz's presumptions, before the war in Iraq commenced, about how the fighting would go, and they argued that Pentagon planning was being too optimistic and should prepare thoroughly for worst-case scenarios."
Some links: Gen. Shinseki's Wikipedia entry; a piece on the kind of changes in Army doctrine and capacities that Shinseki was interested in; an interview with him from 2000 about the future of war; a piece from 2001 about changes he tried to make in Army personnel policies; an interview with James Fallows about his conflicts with Rumsfeld; an article by Fallows on preparations for the invasion of Iraq in which those conflicts figure; three pieces (1, 2, 3) about him on the occasion of his retirement; his retirement speech; and two articles (1, 2) on his subsequent vindication.
Spencer Ackerman:
"To say this is an inspired choice underscores its magnitude. Shinseki's personal courage and virtue are close to unparalleled in the current generation of general officers. He knows the sacrifices of war personally, as he left part of his right foot in Vietnam. The new generation of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans -- already underserved by the country that sent them to war -- can know that he has their backs. After all, before the war began, he all but ended his career (Rumsfeld had announced his successor months before after they feuded over the Crusader artillery system) by telling Congress that the indefinite occupation of Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of troops to keep the peace, far beyond the antiseptic and now-discredited estimates of the Bush administration. At his retirement ceremony, Shinseki gave a prescient and impassioned speech imploring the Pentagon to "beware a 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army."
Last year, an exemplary soldier named Paul Yingling wrote a scathing essay indicting the generals who acquiesced to the Bush administration's inadequate plans for the occupation. It was titled "A Failure in Generalship." Yingling accused the current generation of generals of cowardice, egotism, careerism and dereliction of duty, putting self-interested deference to the administration before integrity, intellectual honesty and service to both the frontline soldier, sailor, airman and marine and the country itself. Ric Shinseki was the man who stood against this unfortunate trend, and he paid for his integrity with his career. To see him vindicated is to witness a proud moment in American history."
I agree. I think it's a wonderful choice, and I can't beat Spencer's explanation of why. So I'll just add three more points. First, it's yet another example of Obama getting a very diverse cabinet without ever seeming to pick someone just for the sake of diversity. Second, Obama served on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, so while there might be some areas where he does not know, in detail, who is good and who is not, this is surely not one of them. Third, Obama is clearly courting the military, not by giving into their every whim, or by ceding to them on matters of policy, but by appointing people whom they trust, and who are very, very good.
I think this is very important -- as I've said before, with all Obama wants to accomplish, he needs strained relations with the military like he needs a hole in the head. But Obama's choices to date also raise the serious possibility that he could end (or at least mitigate) the Republican tilt of the senior officer corps. They have already experienced life under George W. Bush, and by all accounts, they did not care for it. But their distrust of Democrats might easily have prevented them from seriously considering drawing the obvious conclusion from Bush and Rumsfeld's trashing of the armed forces. If Obama can get past that hurdle, he could, just possibly, cause a very significant change.
I don't expect that the senior officer corps would go Democratic the way they are now Republican, nor, frankly, would I really want them to. I think that it's bad for the senior officer corps to be overwhelmingly aligned with either party. I would just like the two parties to be on a level playing field, as far as the officer corps goes. Obama might actually achieve that. And that would be a very big deal.
(And it's not as far-fetched as one might think. I've always thought that the military and Democrats have some obvious, if unrecognized, bits of common ground. The military believes in individual responsibility, and expects each of its members to do his or her best, but they also believe that if a member of your unit has a problem, you should of course help him or her to overcome it; that just saying "ha ha, deal with it yourself" is neither a good way to end up with a well-functioning unit nor a decent way to act. And they believe in trying to put their people in the best possible position to succeed, and to do the best job that they can possibly do. Above all, they do not leave their people behind.
The way they think about members of the military is the way we think about members of society.)
—Hilzoy 1:55 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (21)
What will they do for Gen. Taguba?
Posted by: dilbert dogbert on December 6, 2008 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK
In Yoo (sic) face, frat boy!
Posted by: captain dan on December 6, 2008 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK
"ha ha, deal with it yourself"
A more succinct description of conservatism I could not imagine.
Posted by: craigie on December 7, 2008 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK
"ha ha, deal with it yourself"
A more succinct description of the way our veterans are treated I could not imagine.
As a veteran, I am thrilled with the choice of Gen. Shinseki to head up this post. Finally, I have some hope that my friends who require care, particularly help with PTSD, will actually get it.
Posted by: Keori on December 7, 2008 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK
Great post! We are proud of General Shinseki in Hawaii, and especially happy that he will serve in the administration of another favorite son, the president elect.
Posted by: DevilDog on December 7, 2008 at 3:58 AM | PERMALINK
Caveat: I'm British, and an outside observer in this.
Why was this article written as if the US military is a separate entity and not actually part of the United States and its government?
"...Obama is clearly courting the military, not by giving into their every whim, or by ceding to them on matters of policy"
"with all Obama wants to accomplish, he needs strained relations with the military like he needs a hole in the head."
That's akin to saying the US "military" is a foreign country, with diplomats shuffling backwards and forwards keeping the peace between two equals. As the elected leader of the United States, President-designate Obama will tell the military top brass what to do and they will say "Yes, Sir" and go and do it. If they don't, that's called insubordination and resignation is the easy way out for the officers involved. That's what happened with President Bush and all the other Presidents before him -- the top brass could offer their opinions but if they were reluctant to carry out the orders from duly elected officials their alternatives were to resign, ask to be reassigned to other duties or carry out the orders given promptly, and that's it.
Is the "them and us" attitude because the US military has a bigger budget than many other countries governmental expenditures in toto? Why do US citizens revere uniforms in a manner usually reserved for banana republics and totalitarian Communist states rather than treating soldiers as fellow citizens pure and simple, as most other democratic countries do?
Posted by: Robert Sneddon on December 7, 2008 at 4:56 AM | PERMALINK
If Clinton fired Powell and the other generals who openly defied his executuve order on gays in the military, Clinton would have been impeached sooner.
Republicans (including about 90% of military officers) operate under two sets of rules. Loyalty to party takes presidence over their oath to the constitution.
And remember our major media outlets agree: compare and contrast the feeding frenzy over a triviality like MoveOn's "Paetreus/betray us" ad, and the silence on General Tabuga's firing.
Posted by: esaud on December 7, 2008 at 6:49 AM | PERMALINK
Have anyone noticed that he is making some thoughtful choices? Isn't it nice to have a PEOTUS that is actually intelligent? Huge change from the last 8 years.
Posted by: Rick on December 7, 2008 at 6:58 AM | PERMALINK
As a member of the military (and a democrat), I can't tell you how excited I am about this pick. I've been arguing with my boss for a couple of months to try to make him see what a pragmatist Obama is, and this might put some umph in my argument.
I will not take the ridiculous whining that occurs when we have a democrat in office (or even when not, as the Clinton gripes extended far past his administration's duration).
Thanks for the articulate support I always can use for these debates. I hope you are feeling well!
Posted by: colleeniem on December 7, 2008 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK
Having had worked within a office of the Department of the Army while this guy was Chief, sadly the most lasting thing he'll be remembered for is putting stupid little French hats on every soldier out of Basic, much to the annoyance of the Rangers, whose stupid little French hats he usurped.
Shinseki told the truth about the Iraq War, and for that he ought to be respected. He may have convinced the President-Elect he's the best man to head Veterans (damn, couldn't get McCain to take it?) in which case he probably is, and will have the President's full support, which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is going to need.
And let me agree that the Bushites have miserably treated both the active and retired military, with the knowing and active support of the Republican't controlled Congress. The simple fact that a honorably (in fact, anyone more than dishonorably) discharged serviceman or woman has to APPLY to get his Veteran's benefits, rather than just having his records forwarded from the Department of Defense is a clear demonstration that Congress-slime want to avoid paying the costs in maimed and mentally damaged Americans that their Boy George II's War of Choice has inflicted on the real people of this country. It is Congress that has failed to mandate the personnel system at DoD work with the systems at Veterans Affairs, in fact probably doing everything they can to see to it that the two systems are incompatible.
And of course it is the Republican'ts who have strived to maintain the U.S. Military as the last bastions of homophobia and theocratic wingnuttery in the country.
Posted by: Lance on December 7, 2008 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK
'they also believe that if a member of your unit has a problem, you should of course help him or her to overcome it; that just saying "ha ha, deal with it yourself" is neither a good way to end up with a well-functioning unit nor a decent way to act.'
Er, I realize it's difficult to make generalizations, but have you not heard all the stories of the military leadership, from the generals down to the sergeants, refusing to acknowledge PTSD as a real problem? "Suck it up and deal with it yourself" doesn't even begin to describe how it's treated; it's more "What the hell is wrong with you, you f*cking pussy?!". Harassment over PTSD or other mental illness is, to hear the news tell it, fairly common, if not routine.
Posted by: Chris D on December 7, 2008 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK
and yet the first report i heard on the liberal media was how – once again – obama was "naming another high ranking member of the bush administration to his cabinet."
Posted by: mellowjohn on December 7, 2008 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK
Marvelous appointment - Kudos to President-elect Obama
To Mr Sneddon, our Commander-in-Chief is not a Drill Sergeant - He doesn't yell at DOD to assemble for Police Call -
Calling those with PTSD "cowards" is reminiscent of scenes from "Path of Glory" and "Patton" - We need, neither Generals or viewpoints of such, in our military and post-service care.
But, VA is still limited - Three years ago, it took me almost 9 months from applying, to be granted a Primary Care physician - If you do not have a PC, then, you can't use the VA's pharmacies, unless, the prescription has been written by ER. Plus, Senators Larry Craig and Double Talk have both attempted to kick non-combat service vets off the rolls. As the job market has diminished for older workers, many former service men and women, without health care, have gone to the VA for medical care.
Craig and DT want them all to vanish.
Posted by: berttheclock on December 7, 2008 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK
To Mr Sneddon, our Commander-in-Chief is not a Drill Sergeant - He doesn't yell at DOD to assemble for Police Call -
It is a common misconception that the main management method used in the military is the direct order. Although one always has that as a last resort, final-foot-down option, using the Lawful Order in the face of firm "principle"-based opposition is likely to lead to many more problems than it immediately solves. Undermining of personal authority, subtle sabotage, etc., are all likely outcomes, and it is very difficult to "order" someone to stop despising or distrusting you. it is infinitely better to gain your people's trust, PERSUADE (or at least mollify) and thereby LEAD your subordinates to cooperate with your agenda.
Making use of so-called "soft power" (of which the most powerful is just being Damn Good) is actually just as important in military management as it is in civilian life.
--former US Air Force officer
Posted by: Julia Grey on December 7, 2008 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK
"he needs strained relations with the military like he needs a hole in the head."
You know, sometimes you really do need a hole in your head. I needed one once. It happens when you have severe head trauma and fluid builds up, causing extreme pressure on the brain. They drill a hole in your head to drain the fluid. Amazingly, the procedure is fairly painless.
Posted by: fostert on December 7, 2008 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK
Amazing. a really good nomination.
However, Obama has military policies of his own. He has said he would be willing to use military force if necessary to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. He has said he would order raids/incursions into Pakistani territory to get persons of interest if in his judgment the Pakistani government were insufficiently energetic in getting them. He wants to boost American military strength in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban there. Whatever he orders, there will be respected members of the military who oppose whatever he orders, and those opponents will rally at least 30% of Americans in their support, as Shinseki did. Then it will be his turn to overrule them, as Bush overruled Shinseki, Truman and FDR overruled MacArthur, and Lincoln overruled the opponents of Grant. When that happens, the military will do its duty and obey the civilian government. At that time, Democrats will rediscover the value of military obedience to civilian authority.
I think that the Shinseki nomination is very smart. It demonstrates memory for and respect for a man whose judgment probably informed Obama's judgment about the war. Obama's nominations have been very smart (possible flaws of Clinton and Holder notwithstanding). I hope he can keep it up.
Posted by: MatthewRMarler on December 7, 2008 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK
Definently a poke in the eye with a sharp stick for the neo-conzis.
Posted by: POed Lib on December 7, 2008 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK
Good choice, and a poke in the eye to the idiot neo-con cabal is all well and good, but I was really hoping for Tammy Duckworth.
Posted by: Grandjester on December 8, 2008 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK
I took my dad to the local VA hospital 30 miles away for his outpatient care until he had a couple of bad falls a year ago and we had to take him to the local for profit hospital. Given my druthers we would have used the VA facility for all of his care. Even though he had Blue Cross backing up his Medicare and the local hospital's rep is what passes for good in our society their care was all geared toward what pays not what's healthy.
Posted by: markg8 on December 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK
!!! , . , , ;)
Posted by: Olechka-persik on December 9, 2008 at 4:00 AM | PERMALINK
|
|
|