Party On!: The War Party Ascendant

[marmar]

from TomDispatch:


Party On!
The War Party Ascendant

By Tom Engelhardt


It was the end of the road for Chuck Hagel last week and the Washington press corps couldn’t have been more enthusiastic about writing his obituary. In terms of pure coverage, it may not have been Ferguson or the seven-foot deluge of snow that hit Buffalo, New York, but the avalanche of news reports was nothing to be sniffed at. There had been a changing of the guard in wartime Washington. Barack Obama’s third secretary of defense had gone down for the count. In the phrase of the moment, he had “resigned under pressure.” Sayonara, Chuck!

With a unanimity that crossed political lines, the accounts read as if written by a single reporter. The story went something like this: two years earlier, President Obama had brought in Hagel, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and former Republican senator with a reputation for being leery about the overuse of American military power, to wind down the war in Afghanistan, rein in military critics, and put the Pentagon budget on something closer to a peacetime footing. After a bruising Senate confirmation hearing from which he never recovered, he proved poor at “messaging” the president’s policies, had a “crappy relationship” with National Security Adviser (and Obama buddy) Susan Rice, proved a weak manager at the Department of Defense as well as a “weak link” in the Obama national security team, and could never break into the president's tight-knit circle of insiders who -- everyone agreed -- had a nasty habit of “micromanaging” America’s wars (rather than, it seemed, letting the military do what needed to be done). In the end, the president “lost confidence” in him. It was a “mutual” firing or at least Hagel had advanced somewhat voluntarily toward the edge of the cliff before being pushed off.

A subcategory of Hagel reports also bloomed, again adding up to something like a single story. In them, various journalists and commentators offered instant speculation on whom the president would invite to fill Hagel’s post. Topping everyone’s “short list”: Senator and former Army Ranger Jack Reed of Rhode Island, war fightin’ liberal and former Pentagon official Michèle Flournoy (much beloved by neocons and Republicans), and hawkish former Pentagon “weapons buyer” Ashton Carter (the ultimate nominee). Unfortunately for the press, Reed and Flournoy promptly made mincemeat out of the collective wisdom of the moment, emphatically removing their names from consideration. Politico reported the Flournoy rejection this way: “Flournoy’s withdrawal comes amid speculation President Barack Obama is looking for a candidate who would be deferential to a White House that’s increasingly exerting control over Pentagon decisions.” Nothing, however, could stop the march of the news, whose focus simply switched to other potential job applicants. Striking was the eagerness of assorted journalists and pundits to act like employment agency headhunters vetting exactly the same list of candidates for the president.

Such journalism, of course, qualifies as the very definition of insiderdom and it led, implicitly or explicitly, to the crowning of Barack Obama as a “war president” for the final two years of his term. In the end, however, the media was less reporting on developments than reproducing them. The result: a record as collectively claustrophobic as post-9/11 Washington itself. ........................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175930/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_war_to_the_horizon/#more

[merrily]

1. The notion that a US President and Commander in Chief should keep

hands off the military and let the military decide what, according to the military, "must" be done is contrary to our system, which places importance on an elected and civilian commander in chief of the US armed forces. If you think of Washington having just been commander in chief of the revolutionary forces, leading them into battle and fighting with them, then you will think of what the Framers and those who ratified the Constitution had in mind.

The D of D and the Pentagon can go fuck themselves with two missles each. Theirs is to give advice, if and when asked, then do what they are ordered to do, period. Macro manage, micromanage, my ass. None of it is up to them, or even to the Secretary of War (yes, I said War). It's up to the Commander in Chief.

[GeorgeGist]

2. Imagine for a moment a lab that ran a series of experiments for 13 straight years ...

in almost every imaginable combination through one disastrous failure after another and then promoted the experimenters and agreed to let them repeat the process all over again. This would defy logic or simply good sense anywhere but in Washington.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Interesting, but I disagree that Hagel was forced out because he was

some sort of dove (at least that's what the article is saying to me). That said, I also am not sure I buy the other excuses why he was fired--that he somehow mismanaged the Pentagon (never saw anything that suggested that during his tenure, and the Pentagon wasn't trying to force him out) or that he was "too quiet" or didn't override Gen. Dempsey and grab the spotlight enough, or supposedly wasn't a good enough public spokesman for the President's policies (who in the general public pays any attention to Defense Secretaries?). Or that he didn't offer good enough solutions for the Middle East--the President can get all the advice he wants from just about anybody, at any time. It couldn't have been anything really bad, because he's still in office until the next guy is confirmed. Maybe it really was just a form of scapegoating for Obama's foreign policy, in which case it would be really disturbing for Obama to discard him that way, but the attacks on Hagel's competence were really awful--almost seems like the WH is trying to wreck his reputation on the way out so that anything he says later will be discredited or chalked up to sour grapes and bitterness. I was utterly shocked by that.

[bemildred]

5. I think Hagel left BECAUSE of McCain.

McCain is going to be armed services chair, right?

[TwilightGardener]

6. No, I don't think they were that much at odds on military matters.

Once you get past Iraq and the Surgetastic Surge.

[bemildred]

7. That's not what I said.

I think it's personal.

[Octafish]

4. More Money Trumps Peace Crapola

Obama to name Ashton Carter as Pentagon chief

By Patrick Martin
World Socialist Web Site, 4 December 2014

EXCERPT...

Carter stands on the right wing of the Democratic foreign policy establishment. He was a supporter of the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, as well as an advocate of preventive war against North Korea, which he advocated in 2006 in a notorious commentary co-authored by his long-time mentor, former Clinton administration Defense Secretary William Perry.

Senate Republicans who will conduct confirmation hearings immediately praised Carter as a nominee likely to receive a near-unanimous vote. He was confirmed unanimously in 2009 for the post of chief Pentagon purchasing officer and in 2011 for deputy secretary of defense. In that capacity, Carter effectively ran the Pentagon’s day-to-day operations under Leon Panetta and Hagel, both longtime legislators with little administrative experience.

In policy matters, Carter is identified much more with the global priorities of the Obama White House, both the “pivot to Asia” and the more recent provocations against Russia over Ukraine, than with the ongoing wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

He began his Pentagon career in the Reagan administration as a civilian analyst in the nuclear weapons program. He was involved in studies on missile defense systems and programs to ensure “continuity of government” in the event of nuclear war—essentially the establishment of military dictatorship in the United States.

CONTINUED...

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/12/04/pent-d04.html