The Only Good Thing About John Bolton in the White House Is That He’s Not a General
Peter Maass, TheIntercept, March 25 2018
America
already loves its generals too much but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster
and Chief of Staff John Kelly nonetheless deserve a special round of thanks for
conclusively demonstrating why it’s foolish to trust generals when they swap
their uniforms for suits and ties.
already loves its generals too much but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster
and Chief of Staff John Kelly nonetheless deserve a special round of thanks for
conclusively demonstrating why it’s foolish to trust generals when they swap
their uniforms for suits and ties.
 |
| National security adviser H.R. McMaster, left and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, right, sit in the front row for a joint news conference with President Donald Trump and Finnish President Sauli Niinisto, Monday, Aug. 28, 2017, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. |
While
Kelly is hanging onto his job for now, McMaster has gotten the boot from
President Trump, in favor of John Bolton, who is a genuinely terrifying
individual, one of the fiercest war hawks of our times. Whether it’s Iran,
North Korea or Iraq, the military option is pretty much the only one for which
Bolton has enthusiasm. His ascension to the White House should deepen our
anxieties.
Kelly is hanging onto his job for now, McMaster has gotten the boot from
President Trump, in favor of John Bolton, who is a genuinely terrifying
individual, one of the fiercest war hawks of our times. Whether it’s Iran,
North Korea or Iraq, the military option is pretty much the only one for which
Bolton has enthusiasm. His ascension to the White House should deepen our
anxieties.
But
that’s not a reason to give a free pass and warm hug to McMaster and other
generals who have gotten top White House jobs. A year ago, McMaster and Kelly,
along with Secretary of Defense James Mattis, were hailed by civilian
Washington as the grown-ups in the Trump cabinet. While Mattis has not yet
tarnished himself, McMaster and Kelly have displayed a range of failings –
proving that generals are often the opposite of the trustworthy hands their
civilian admirers believe them to be. That’s because when generals emerge from
military service, they are black boxes of political and emotional behavior.
that’s not a reason to give a free pass and warm hug to McMaster and other
generals who have gotten top White House jobs. A year ago, McMaster and Kelly,
along with Secretary of Defense James Mattis, were hailed by civilian
Washington as the grown-ups in the Trump cabinet. While Mattis has not yet
tarnished himself, McMaster and Kelly have displayed a range of failings –
proving that generals are often the opposite of the trustworthy hands their
civilian admirers believe them to be. That’s because when generals emerge from
military service, they are black boxes of political and emotional behavior.
The
military enforces strict rules on what its men and women, and particularly the
ones with stars on their shoulders, can say about political issues. Are you a
Christian evangelical who distrusts Muslims and Jews? Do you believe Syrian and
Honduran refugees are a mortal threat to our society? Should North Korea’s
nuclear installations be taken out with a pre-emptive strike? Does Hillary
deserve to be locked up? Generals are not supposed to take positions on issues
like these – which means that few people outside their immediate family know
what to expect when they recover the right to speak freely.
military enforces strict rules on what its men and women, and particularly the
ones with stars on their shoulders, can say about political issues. Are you a
Christian evangelical who distrusts Muslims and Jews? Do you believe Syrian and
Honduran refugees are a mortal threat to our society? Should North Korea’s
nuclear installations be taken out with a pre-emptive strike? Does Hillary
deserve to be locked up? Generals are not supposed to take positions on issues
like these – which means that few people outside their immediate family know
what to expect when they recover the right to speak freely.
There’s
more. The much-admired effectiveness of generals is not automatically
transferable to the civilian world. Soldiers who disobey a general’s orders can
face a court-martial. That’s a reason why sure-handedness, or its
appearance, can be easier to achieve in a top-down military setting than
in the horizontal mess of democracy. A civilian who displeases her White
House boss might have to resign — but there’s always the lucrative consolation
of a book contract or cable news gig; years in a military brig are not a
concern. We might like to believe that generals have a magic managerial
touch but these are projections rather than realities.
more. The much-admired effectiveness of generals is not automatically
transferable to the civilian world. Soldiers who disobey a general’s orders can
face a court-martial. That’s a reason why sure-handedness, or its
appearance, can be easier to achieve in a top-down military setting than
in the horizontal mess of democracy. A civilian who displeases her White
House boss might have to resign — but there’s always the lucrative consolation
of a book contract or cable news gig; years in a military brig are not a
concern. We might like to believe that generals have a magic managerial
touch but these are projections rather than realities.
We
shouldn’t be surprised when the shackled become unshackled and betray our
illusions. The quickie version of Kelly’s failures is this: He protected
Rob Porter as his deputy even though Porter’s ex-wives accused him of violent
abuse; he described undocumented immigrants as “too lazy to get off their
asses”; he lauded
confederate general Robert E. Lee as an honorable man; and he smeared
a member of Congress who accurately noted that Donald Trump made insensitive
comments to a grieving war widow.
shouldn’t be surprised when the shackled become unshackled and betray our
illusions. The quickie version of Kelly’s failures is this: He protected
Rob Porter as his deputy even though Porter’s ex-wives accused him of violent
abuse; he described undocumented immigrants as “too lazy to get off their
asses”; he lauded
confederate general Robert E. Lee as an honorable man; and he smeared
a member of Congress who accurately noted that Donald Trump made insensitive
comments to a grieving war widow.
McMaster
was an unexpectedly
reckless
hawk on North Korea until Trump shocked everyone and agreed to meet North
Korean leader Kim Jong-un. McMaster is also reported to have a general’s
impatience with civilians who don’t toe his line. According to Foreign
Policy, he refers to people who support him as patriots while those
who don’t are “reflecting the enemy narrative.” Generals are not known for
their modesty, and while that’s true for a lot of people in Washington,
it’s useful to at least be capable of pretending you are humble.
was an unexpectedly
reckless
hawk on North Korea until Trump shocked everyone and agreed to meet North
Korean leader Kim Jong-un. McMaster is also reported to have a general’s
impatience with civilians who don’t toe his line. According to Foreign
Policy, he refers to people who support him as patriots while those
who don’t are “reflecting the enemy narrative.” Generals are not known for
their modesty, and while that’s true for a lot of people in Washington,
it’s useful to at least be capable of pretending you are humble.
What’s
particularly ironic is that America’s beloved war-on-terror generals hail from
the most lukewarm generation of military leaders since, well, forever. We are
approaching 20 years of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, with no end in sight,
and still no general has had the vision or courage to admit the folly; they
ramble on about degrading the enemy, and after 12 months they collect another
star on their way back home. As Tom Ricks, a well-regarded military reporter,
has written,
“To a shocking degree, the Army’s leadership ranks have become populated by
mediocre officers. … Ironically, our generals have grown worse as they have
been lionized more and more by a society now reflexively deferential to the
military.”
particularly ironic is that America’s beloved war-on-terror generals hail from
the most lukewarm generation of military leaders since, well, forever. We are
approaching 20 years of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, with no end in sight,
and still no general has had the vision or courage to admit the folly; they
ramble on about degrading the enemy, and after 12 months they collect another
star on their way back home. As Tom Ricks, a well-regarded military reporter,
has written,
“To a shocking degree, the Army’s leadership ranks have become populated by
mediocre officers. … Ironically, our generals have grown worse as they have
been lionized more and more by a society now reflexively deferential to the
military.”
Paul
Yingling, who served three tours in Iraq, put his finger on the problem in a
widely-read article
for Armed Forces Journal titled “A Failure in Generalship.” Yingling famously
wrote that “as matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far
greater consequences than a general who loses a war.” The military is a lot of
things, but one thing it is not, at its upper echelons, is a culture of
excellence. Steeped in obedience and a paucity of accountability, today’s
generals are perhaps tailor-made for a Trump administration – but not for
saving us from it.
Yingling, who served three tours in Iraq, put his finger on the problem in a
widely-read article
for Armed Forces Journal titled “A Failure in Generalship.” Yingling famously
wrote that “as matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far
greater consequences than a general who loses a war.” The military is a lot of
things, but one thing it is not, at its upper echelons, is a culture of
excellence. Steeped in obedience and a paucity of accountability, today’s
generals are perhaps tailor-made for a Trump administration – but not for
saving us from it.
What we
are seeing, in the slow-motion failures of Kelly and McMaster, is not the
soiling of good men by a bad president, but the truth of who these men are,
once they take the blinding stars off their shoulders. This was highlighted not
long ago by Kevin Cullen, a Boston Globe columnist who was relieved
when Kelly joined the administration — but now suspects that being immersed in
the sleaze of Trump does not fully explain Kelly’s cruelty and indecency in the
White House.
are seeing, in the slow-motion failures of Kelly and McMaster, is not the
soiling of good men by a bad president, but the truth of who these men are,
once they take the blinding stars off their shoulders. This was highlighted not
long ago by Kevin Cullen, a Boston Globe columnist who was relieved
when Kelly joined the administration — but now suspects that being immersed in
the sleaze of Trump does not fully explain Kelly’s cruelty and indecency in the
White House.
“John
Kelly is no one’s fool,” Cullen wrote
recently. “Which raises a worse scenario … that John Kelly always thought like
this. That the Marine Corps, with its ethos of merit-based, color-blind,
identity-blind judgments, tempered his thoughts, leading him to shun racist,
separatist, and authoritarian ideologies. And now that he is free do to so, in
a workplace overseen by someone where such thought is not only encouraged but
rewarded, he is showing his true colors.”
Kelly is no one’s fool,” Cullen wrote
recently. “Which raises a worse scenario … that John Kelly always thought like
this. That the Marine Corps, with its ethos of merit-based, color-blind,
identity-blind judgments, tempered his thoughts, leading him to shun racist,
separatist, and authoritarian ideologies. And now that he is free do to so, in
a workplace overseen by someone where such thought is not only encouraged but
rewarded, he is showing his true colors.”
The
general-as-savior delusion is not solely a Trump-era condition, of course. When
the D.C. elite speculated in the 1990s about Gen. Colin Powell turning to
politics, there was a guessing game
about whether he was a Republican or Democrat. It was the same with David
Petraeus – whose side
was he on? It kind of boggles the mind that so many people placed their faith
in military figures about whom this basic question had to be asked. The answers
emerged, and these two generals, the most famous of their generations, suffered
world-class failures once they shed their stars (Powell, as George W. Bush’s
secretary of state, falsely told the United Nations that Saddam Hussein was
developing weapons of mass destruction; Petraeus, as director of the CIA for
Barack Obama, had an affair with his biographer and gave her notebooks filled with
military secrets — and lied to the FBI about it.)
general-as-savior delusion is not solely a Trump-era condition, of course. When
the D.C. elite speculated in the 1990s about Gen. Colin Powell turning to
politics, there was a guessing game
about whether he was a Republican or Democrat. It was the same with David
Petraeus – whose side
was he on? It kind of boggles the mind that so many people placed their faith
in military figures about whom this basic question had to be asked. The answers
emerged, and these two generals, the most famous of their generations, suffered
world-class failures once they shed their stars (Powell, as George W. Bush’s
secretary of state, falsely told the United Nations that Saddam Hussein was
developing weapons of mass destruction; Petraeus, as director of the CIA for
Barack Obama, had an affair with his biographer and gave her notebooks filled with
military secrets — and lied to the FBI about it.)
The thing
we need to understand is that a military career might very well be the worst
incubator for civilian leadership (with the caveat that there have been
exceptions, though you have go back a ways
to find
them.)
What was the origin of Kelly’s unusual sympathy for Porter despite the domestic
abuse accusations — and for a Marine colonel, Shane Tomko, on whose behalf
Kelly vouched
in 2016 during his court martial for sexual harassment? (Tomko, after being
thrown out of the military, was arrested for child abuse.) It’s hard to ignore
the fact that Kelly spent most of his life in an institution that has a dismal
record on sexual harassment and violence against women.
we need to understand is that a military career might very well be the worst
incubator for civilian leadership (with the caveat that there have been
exceptions, though you have go back a ways
to find
them.)
What was the origin of Kelly’s unusual sympathy for Porter despite the domestic
abuse accusations — and for a Marine colonel, Shane Tomko, on whose behalf
Kelly vouched
in 2016 during his court martial for sexual harassment? (Tomko, after being
thrown out of the military, was arrested for child abuse.) It’s hard to ignore
the fact that Kelly spent most of his life in an institution that has a dismal
record on sexual harassment and violence against women.
As the
military website Task & Purpose has pointed out,
data from the Defense Department shows that 14,900 service members were
sexually assaulted in 2016. The issue catapulted to public awareness with the
1991 Tailhook
scandal, in which 83 women and 7 men were assaulted during an annual Navy
conference in Las Vegas. “In the decades since Tailhook, more high-profile
incidents have come to light, steadily revealing the cultural and systemic
problems that have enabled sexual harassment and assault to persist across all
branches of the military,” Task & Purpose noted. Is this the well
of experience from which we should draw civilian leaders in the
#MeToo era?
military website Task & Purpose has pointed out,
data from the Defense Department shows that 14,900 service members were
sexually assaulted in 2016. The issue catapulted to public awareness with the
1991 Tailhook
scandal, in which 83 women and 7 men were assaulted during an annual Navy
conference in Las Vegas. “In the decades since Tailhook, more high-profile
incidents have come to light, steadily revealing the cultural and systemic
problems that have enabled sexual harassment and assault to persist across all
branches of the military,” Task & Purpose noted. Is this the well
of experience from which we should draw civilian leaders in the
#MeToo era?
My
argument is not anti-military. For what it’s worth, I’ve spent years covering
military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other war zones, so I’m more than
familiar with what the military does and how it does it. It’s not an
anti-general argument either, because the U.S. military needs generals (though
probably not as many
as it currently has). Rather, it’s a specific argument that while generals can
do lots of good things once they leave the military, running the government
probably is not one of them. What comes after McMaster and Kelly (the
clock is certainly ticking on the chief of staff’s tenure) could be quite a bit
worse because of Trump’s dreadful inclinations, but for the collateral
gift of exposing the misbegotten mystique of our top soldiers, we might have at
least one thing for which to thank the Donald.
