Shinseki

by hilzoy

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.)

Comments

[Bob W.]

I offer a somewhat contrarian approach to Shinseki's pending nomination http://acreofindependence.com/2008/12/06/shinseki-to-head-veterans-affairs/>here.

[wonkie]

Goody.

I mean it.

[natthedem]

I like Shinseki for the same reasons that other progressives do and I'm proud to see him vindicated, by this moment and by history, but I'm still a bit weary of the pick for this particular department.

When I think about the challenges that the VA faces--tackling homelessness among veterans, addressing the backlog of 800,000+ backlogged disabilities claims, fixing the woefully inadequate mental health care system within the VA, etc.--I don't know if Shinseki is the best equipped to address those challenges.

[Gary Farber]

"I offer a somewhat contrarian approach to Shinseki's pending nomination here."

This strikes me as criticizing Shinseki as not being a god-like, perfectly perceiving, perfectly objective, anticipator of the future.

If you know of anyone who fits that description, or who escapes equivalent criticism, I'd be extremely interested in which individuals you are specifically suggesting.

[Dustin]

A note on style, hilzoy: no need for quotation marks when using a block quote like that.

[John Protevi]

The way they think about members of the military is the way we think about members of society.

Thanks for this. The sociology of the military is a very interesting and important issue. I've just finished teaching a course on "Evolution and Biology of Morality" (reading Haidt, Damasio, Joyce, and De Waal). Background reading took me to Richerson and Boyd, Not by Genes Alone, which has very interesting stuff on the tensions in the military (and elsewhere) between egalitarian small-group loyalty and hierarchical large-group discipline. See 229-236 especially.

[Bob W.]

My issue isn't so much with Gen(R) Shinseki, as I stated in my post I think his experience leading a large organization will aid him in doing a great job at the Vet Affairs chief. I have a problem with how he is consistently portrayed in the press however, as a prescient visionary talking truth to power.

His pursuit of weapon systems and education priorities, which his office set, were proven wrong by the wars the Army found itself in, cost billions (in the case of the weapons), and subsequently had to be corrected by his successors. One year before the 9/11 attacks, Shinseki's office expended a great deal of effort puzzlingly expended changing the headgear of the Army from a cap to a black beret.

One day of testimony does not erase four years of leading an organization that was pursuing many of the wrong priorities for the world it was operating in.

cheers.
www.acreofindependence.com

[john miller]

Bob W., you do make some important points about his career, although somewhat irrelevant for the position he his going into. And your comment about "the black beret thing" struck a chord ith me, as I remember my son's reaction to it.

hilzoy, regarding the political leaning of the officer corps, if Obama does what I think he can as CiC, that whole perception may well change. It would not surprise me at all to find out that Obama won the votes of the junior officers (major and below) by a significant margin.

I think your reading is pretty accurate in that the senior corps is not Republican per se but votes for the party that it feels is strongr in its regard for the military.

Like most people, military officers are relatively narrow issue voters and party identification is really based upon issue rather than party ideology.

[horace fudpucker]

The next step would be to get the Christian zealots out of positions of authority.

[Anne E]

One other thing- when I was working in aerospace in the early 1980s, I noticed that the military had significant numbers of African-Americans in positions of real authority at a time when most corporations and other civilian institutions did not. I honestly think most military folk, even if extremely conservative, are much less racist than society as a whole- probably because the military experience involves getting to know lots of African-Americans really well.

And I would expect that a person whose Republican voting is not even partially driven by racial resentment is a person who will be much more willing to consider another option.

[Cynic]

There's a lot to be said for Bob W.'s post - the public has a tendency to lionize individuals for a single moment of conspicuously good judgment or brave behavior, when considering the totality of a career might provide a far better guide to future performance.

But in Shinseki's case, as John Miller points out, these criticisms are largely irrelevant to his new role. Sure, he was overly enamored of technology, and fought against the necessary reorientation of the post-Cold War military. I would adamantly impose installing the man in a job overseeing military strategy or procurement - he's been a manifest failure in both of those roles. The very best parts of his tenure in office, though, sprang from his concern for the average grunt. Say what you will about the black berets - it was Shinseki's intent to improve morale across the force, because he cared. He also stressed improving social services on military bases and focusing on quality-of-life issues and retention. These were the arenas in which he was most innovative, as he was a well-regarded chief of staff among the rank and file on account of those initiatives.

Veteran's Affairs is an ideal posting for Shinseki. He can focus entirely on the provision of care. Veterans, for the most part, will trust him. And it's a cabinet post for an Asian-American - another dexterous move by the Obama team, done with such skill that virtually none of the media accounts prominently feature that crucial fact.

[Slartibartfast]

The very best parts of his tenure in office, though, sprang from his concern for the average grunt.

Sure. But in a world where outcomes of intent are considered important, the black beret wasn't all that good of an outcome. I really doubt that it was the intended outcome.

The only really bad part of having Shinseki in charge of Veteran's Affairs would be lingering resentment from the black-beret thing, and I have really no idea how big a deal that is, at this remove.

[Bob W.]

I concur with commenters who say that my criticism of Gen(R) Shinseki is not relevant to how well he will perform as VA secretary. I have full confidence that he will take care of Soldiers and their families, as I wrote originally in my post.

My main point remains that his tenure was as Army Chief of Staff was four years, but the traditional media narrative focuses on one day of testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, not the other 3 years and 364 days where he was one the wrong side of many decisions that impacted the force.

I do not think most people in the military really care about the beret thing, actually, which is why I did not really address it in the post as more than a footnote. No one lost pay or had hard feelings after the fact. But whatever the original intent of introducing the black beret was, it turned into a public relations disaster, both within the force as well as with the media. The headgear change ended up being implemented, and people simply stopped talking about it, and now the Beret is largely symbolizes nothing, it's just a hat like the baseball and garrison style caps it replaced.

[Jason]

The shift to the center is happening. See:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=bdd3d40a-6302-43df-899a-091761a71e96

and-

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_army_vote_the_military_tim.php

[Bob W.]

News that the military is fairly centrist shouldn't shock anybody.
The military is largely a reflection of socety in general, with a few caveats. It probably skews a bit more southern than a rep sample of the rest of the U.S. Probably a bit more pro-gun, and slightly more religious than secular, and overwhelmingly married-with-kids, too.
But it is all over the map on social issues, much like the rest of American Society.

On a similar subject, it is important to mention that the incoming administration has done a great job of establishing rapport with the military, largely due to the efforts and statements of the President-Elect himself and Mrs. Obama.

Contrast that with President Clinton. President Clinton, whose hard fought Presidential campaign found him defending charges of being a "potsmoking draft dodger", probably needed to do a great deal to establish a relationship with the military. Instead, his administration became involved from the start in the Gays-in-the-military debate, developed the controversial don't ask don't tell policy that didn't really satsfy anybody, had a staffer tell a four star general not to wear his uniform to the white house, etc. President Clinton eventually developed a cordial relationship with people in uniform, and also approved large pay raises for the services during his Presidency. But for a Commander-in-Chief who relied heavily on the military to advance his foreign policy objectives, the initial years of the Clinton Presidency were pretty rocky ones for the military. It didn't have to be that way, and I am almost certain President Clinton did not intend it to be that way, but it probably needed a little more work on his administration's part, especially in the beginning.

SO, kudos for the new administration working right from the start to establish a good relationship with people in uniform. This is a win-win deal for everyone involved.

[Bob W.]

Excuse my typos, it is hard has all hell to type coherently into these comment boxes!

[mark]

"I do not think most people in the military really care about the beret thing, actually, which is why I did not really address it in the post as more than a footnote. No one lost pay or had hard feelings after the fact."

I served in the airborne infantry, i ill go ahead and label that statement as speculation. Because anyone who had ever EARNED the right to wear a beret was and is still pissed about it. The beret, wether maroon, green, or black used to show that you had done something above the basic requirement. Shinseki decided that it would boost the morale of the kinder, gentler, feel good army he was creating by handing the black beret out to everyone...that way everyone could feel elite like the rangers.

Unfortunately, it wasnt the beret that made the rangers elite, it was the training, dedication, and esprit de corps that made them that way. Now you have "couldnt pass a PT test without being pencil whipped" fattys bitching about the beret they have to wear because they never had to sweat and suffer to earn it.

The criticisms may not apply to the position he is currently nominated for directly, but perhaps they paint a more realistic picture of the man. Liberal camps will idolize anyone who criticized the bush administration, but when you look at the broader scope, i dont believe shinseki was all that visionary. He enacted alot of "feel good" measures thinking they would make soldiers better. They didnt. It just created worse soldiers who felt better about themselves. As a current recipient of VA care, lets hope he does not follow suit. The va needs real change in direction, not policies that will make the VA feel better about the horrible job they are doing.

[Bob W.]

Mark,

Fair enough, I certainly did not conduct a survey with a representative sample of the Army or anything, my comment was anecdotal. I would add that I received a bunch of emails about the beret issue based on some comments I responded to in my http://acreofindependence.com/2008/12/06/shinseki-to-head-veterans-affairs/>original post, from Soldiers past and present. They were a mixed bag, with a surprising number saying they dug the black beret, amazingly enough.

But I did say in the previous comment above that the Black beret, once a symbol of excellence, now symbolizes nothing. It is just a "thanks for being there" hat now.

[Dale Elizabeth]

I just wonder if Secretary-elect Shinseki ever knew my uncle, General Jonas Platt. He was sent to Japan shortly after I was born in 1957 and was dearly loved by the people there. He also taught me to treasure Japan. He rose to a 5 star general while on different missions in Vietnam. He passed away at the turn of the century but know that he would celebrate this appointment so very much.

Best wishes!

Dale