Undiplomatic Banner
8 May 2009 Charles J. Brown
09:19 am

Mr. Jones: Point, Counterpoint


Spencer Ackerman responds to my suggestion that he was criticizing National Security Advisor Jim Jones’s work ethic:

I wasn’t arguing Jones was a slacker. I was trying to say that he seemed in the WP piece a bit hung up on the generation/cultural gap between him and his Obama-campaign/Senate-experienced staffers.

Fair point — though I think that Jones was trying to sound a bit wry, but I can see where Spencer thinks differently.

Meanwhile, reader Norman Rogers begs to disagree:

Mr. Ackerman, please. You got *punked* again. Aren’t you used to it by now?

General Jones is used to having a professionally organized staff of dozens, not a frenetic, chaotic campaign situation. General Jones is likely used to having a capable chief of staff, and department heads that report to him and take their lesser concerns to his deputy. It sounds to me like he is working a rolling schedule–perhaps 10 hour days and 14-15 hour days as needed, and as based on events. He was expecting professionalism and what he got was a campaign-oriented staffing nightmare.

Pizza boxes are likely spilling into the hallway. General Jones isn’t happy with coming into the office and finding some dude sprawled on his couch with garlic sauce on his shirt and a can of Mountain Dew rolled under the desk. General Jones probably wishes he could right the ship, kick some tail, and clean the place up. Too bad the Obamatrons are running our government like the Indiana primary, with tacky pictures pasted everywhere and with cheese doodles crunched down into the fine carpets.

General Jones, sir–you have our permission to resign. These people don’t deserve your professionalism and your sober judgement.

Sorry Mr. Rogers, but you are way, way off base here.  Late hours do not translate into chaos. The idea that his staff is sloppy or lazy or unprofessional is nonsense — they all are, without exception, experienced foreign policy professionals who have dedicated their lives to making the United States a better place.  You may disagree with their vision, but do not question their professionalism (and for the record, I would make the exact same point about Bush’s White House staff).

The issue here is not professionalism but competing visions of how to work.  As I noted in my original post, only in Washington could someone putting in a twelve-hour day be considered a slacker.  The White House is a hothouse culture that tends to reinforce certain behaviors that are not always useful.  To put it another way, what is a strength — the ability to work long hours and produce results — can become a liability if it’s overused.  Our bodies simply cannot sustain themselves on caffeine and adrenaline.  Sooner or later performance will erode; the key is to keep enough in reserve so that, like a marathoner, you have the ability to give your best when it’s absolutely necessary.

Unfortunately, too many in the White House think they need to run a sub-three minute mile time (to overstretch the analogy) for the entire race.  The reality is that there are times for hard work and long hours (and pizza), and there are times when it makes sense to keep a more regular schedule so that you’re rested when the crisis comes.  What Jones is trying to change is a mindset, not some sort of slacker culture.  The challenge he faces is the exact opposite of what you suggest.

| posted in American foreign policy, politics | 0 Comments

7 May 2009 Charles J. Brown
04:29 pm

Mr. Jones


There’s been a lot of buzz in the progosphere regarding dueling WaPo and NYT stories on  James L. Jones, Obama’s National Security Advisor.  Over the past few weeks, there’s been a lot of rumors going around that Jones wasn’t working out, that he couldn’t hold his own in meetings with the many large personalities in Obama’s national security team, that he wasn’t part of the inner circle.  The two stories appear to be some sort of pushback from the White House — it certainly isn’t a coincidence that the Post and the Times both decided to run the same story on the same day.

In both pieces, Jones comes across as a fairly down-to-earth, sensible guy.  WaPo:

In recent weeks, Jones has been portrayed in foreign policy articles and blogs as too measured and low-key to keep pace with the hard chargers working late hours in the West Wing. Some senior White House officials questioned early on whether Jones, 65, a retired four-star Marine general who barely knew Obama before the election, would succeed among younger staffers whose relationships with the president were forged during the long and arduous campaign. . . .

White House officials who cited early misgivings, more stylistic than substantive, insisted they have now disappeared. But Jones acknowledges that the road has not always been smooth, and he appears more comfortable than some of his administration colleagues in saying they still have some distance to travel.

It is “absolutely” fair to say that it has taken some time for him and his colleagues to get used to each other, Jones said in an interview Tuesday. “From this West Wing, in particular, because this is Obama Nation, right? True? This is where the Obama election campaign came, landed, en masse.”. . .

I’m not only an outsider, but I’m a 20-years-older-than-anybody-around outsider,” Jones said. “I’m a former general. And it took me a while to get the president to call me by my first name. Now, I’m ‘Hey, you,’ ” he said with a laugh.  “But there is a generational thing here. There is a process thing here. I’m used to staffs, and I’m used to a certain order. I’m used to people having certain roles. And so there’s a very natural adjustment period.”. . .

In the White House, Jones said he has had to adjust to the relatively free flow of advice that Obama encourages. “When I first went into the Oval Office, I didn’t expect six other people from the NSC to go with me,” he said. Now, he said, “I think the president and I are very comfortable with the fact that I don’t have to be the shadow. I don’t have to be there all the time. I really have great people. I want them to be trusted.”

Jones said he is “not used to being in the center of these things. . . . But if I’m not living up to other people’s views of what the national security adviser should look like he’s doing . . . like my hair is on fire all the time,” so be it. “I did that in my life, a couple of generations ago, I was a gung ho major, and a gung-ho lieutenant colonel, and I sacrificed my family life for my career.”

If he can reform the NSC’s structure and process, he said, “then everybody can go home and have dinner with their families. Because they’ll have enough depth and robustness so that we can tee up issues — not constantly in a crisis mode.”

And here are excerpts from the Times story:

In an interview on Monday, General Jones responded that low profile did not necessarily mean low impact. “You can be a leader that takes charge of every meeting and takes charge of every issue and rides it to its conclusion and plays a very, very dominant role,” he said. “For me, that has the effect of muting voices that should be heard.” . . .

General Jones described that behind-the-scenes “teeing up” process as an example of how he could be helpful to the president. He maintained his cool even when asked about sniping from staff members that he went biking at lunchtime and left work early, although he did, at one point, seem about to crush his coffee cup.

“I’m here by 7 o’ clock in the morning, and I go home at 7, 7:30 at night; that’s a fairly reasonable day if you’re properly organized,” he said. What about officials who pride themselves on being at the White House deep into the night?

“Congratulations,” he said. “To me that means you’re not organized.”

Some of General Jones’s critics say that his practice of keeping a schedule separate from Mr. Obama’s suggests that the former four-star general and supreme commander of NATO “thinks like a principal” rather than as a member of the staff of the president of the United States.

But Richard C. Holbrooke, Mr. Obama’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said that General Jones was “a Marine, and he believes in team-building,” an approach that Mr. Holbrooke said had produced “a sophisticated, multilayer decision structure at the N.S.C. that did not exist before.”

I’ve quoted these at length for several reasons.

First, the NSC press aide who pulled off this coup deserves an award of some kind.  The two reporters — Karen DeYoung at WaPo and Helene Cooper at NYT, both very very good journalists — were played.  It’s not just that Jones’s answers are similar — even their questions are almost identical.  This is a textbook example of the strengths of the White House’s message machine.

Second, much of the resulting blog commentary has expressed downright incredulity about Jones’s work ethic.  TNR’s Michael Crowley:

But with all due respect to the general, isn’t that a better argument for not being national security advisor than for working short hours? The big bad world never sleeps, and coup plotters and terrorists generally don’t schedule their activities around eastern standard time sleep schedules, after all.

Spencer Ackerman:

You get the sense that Jones is readying the shuffleboard while longtime Obama aides Mark Lippert and Denis McDonough are plugging in the Metallica edition of Guitar Hero.

Ah, the hubris of the young and caffeinated.  Only in Washington can a man who puts in twelve hour days (7 am to 7 pm, with time at lunch for excercise) be regarded as a slacker “working short hours.”

I respect and honor everyone who works for the President and puts in long hours.  For some, it’s absolutely necessary — if, like Reggie Love, you’re the President’s body man, you’re not going home for dinner.  But for many, it’s largely unnecessary.  As Daniel Drezner wryly observes, the West Wing is not real life.

The frenetic twenty hours a day, seven days a week schedule kept by many young type A Presidential aides is the product of these folks’ desire to look like they’re willing to sacrifice their bodies, their families, and their health to the altar of the presidency. They want to be there so they are there, near the President, and thus will, at least in their own minds, be indispensible to him.

What people seem to forget is that the White House has a sit room, the State Department has an ops center, the CIA has an ops center, and dozens of other departments and agencies have similar operations, each of which is staffed 24/7 — but not by the same people all the time.  Each agency has a regular rotation of staff, each set working eight hour shifts.  And somehow, each and every one of them manages to do their job and get enough sleep.

You want to know what happens when people are crazy overworked?  They get crazy tired.  They get crazy brain-damaged.  And they give the President crazy bad advice.

Does anyone seriously think a retired Marine general can’t handle the pace?  Jones’s approach is exactly the right one:  be there whenever he’s needed, delegate whenever possible, build his staff’s confidence in their own capabilities, and make sure he’s not completely worthless when the real crisis comes.

| posted in American foreign policy, politics, pop culture | 2 Comments

1 December 2008 Charles J. Brown
12:41 pm

The Foreign Policy Team: No Surprises


President-elect Obama named his National Security team.  No surprises.

That extends to the reaction:  the MSM is focusing on the “team of rivals” meme, and the netroots are debating whether they should be concered that “centrists” will hold the three key positions.  I think both are missing the key story here, which I and others outlined last night in reaction to the NYT story on the Obama Administration’s plan to mount the most ambitious restructuring of U.S. national security institutions since the Truman Administration.

I’ll have more later on ten key posts, beyond the Deputy Secretaries and Deputy National Security Advisor, to watch for as the transition moves forward.

One other note:  Obama’s press conference reflects the reality that the terrorist attacks in India haven’t really percolated to the top of people’s thinking about U.S. national security.  Yes, Obama did mention it, but in the context of terrorism and not its potential impact on Indian-Pakistani relations.  Equally importantly, nobody in the press bothered to ask a follow-up question.

| posted in American foreign policy, politics, war & rumors of war | 0 Comments

1 December 2008 Charles J. Brown
12:09 am

Obama’s Foreign Policy: Turning the Supertanker


The NYT is reporting that President-elect Obama picked his three key national security advisors because they share his view that we need a fundamental shift in the direction of U.S. foreign policy:

[A]ll three of his choices — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the rival turned secretary of state; Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander, as national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, the current and future defense secretary — were selected in large part because they have embraced a sweeping shift of resources in the national security arena.

The shift, which would come partly out of the military’s huge budget, would create a greatly expanded corps of diplomats and aid workers that, in the vision of the incoming Obama administration, would be engaged in projects around the world aimed at preventing conflicts and rebuilding failed states.

Whether they can make the change — one that Mr. Obama started talking about in the summer of 2007, when his candidacy was a long shot at best — “will be the great foreign policy experiment of the Obama presidency,” one of his senior advisers said recently.

But the adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the three have all embraced “a rebalancing of America’s national security portfolio” after a huge investment in new combat capabilities during the Bush years.

Mr. Obama’s advisers said they were already bracing themselves for the charge from the right that he is investing in social work rather than counterterrorism, even though President Bush repeatedly promised such a shift, starting in a series of speeches in late 2005. But they also expect battles within the Democratic Party over questions like whether the billion dollars in aid to rebuild Afghanistan that Mr. Obama promised during the campaign should now be spent on job-creation projects at home. . . .

“This is not an experiment, but a pragmatic solution to a long-acknowledged problem,” Denis McDonough, a senior Obama foreign policy adviser, said in an interview on Sunday.

“During the campaign the then-senator invested a lot of time reaching out to retired military and also younger officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan to draw on lessons learned,” Mr. McDonough said. “There wasn’t a meeting that didn’t include a discussion of the need to strengthen and integrate the other tools of national power to succeed against unconventional threats. It is critical to a long-term successful and sustainable national security strategy in the 21st century.”

This is nothing less than a revolutionary change in how the United States thinks about and interacts with the rest of the world.  Obama’s vision, as I’ve noted before, is both pragmatic and idealistic:  he sees the United States as both a leader and a model, but also recognizes that it cannot be that without the necessary resources:

[A]n Obama administration is likely to pursue a foreign policy based on sound strategic principles and coherent tactics.  Realism should trump ideology, and principles should trump interests. Call it pragmatic idealism, if you must apply a label.

In addition, an Obama administration will repair America’s disastrously dysfunctional foreign policy apparatus:  providing the State Department with the resources it needs; streamlining foreign assistance; reestablishing a robust and proactive public diplomacy; and clarifying the overlapping roles of State, NSC, Defense, and Homeland Security.  It will emphasize both innovation and results, rewarding creativity and encouraging critical thinking.

As the Times notes, both Jones and Gates have gone out of their way to speak out for these kinds of changes.  Clinton doesn’t have a similar track record, but I would be very surprised were she not to share their views.

But make no mistake: this will not be an easy task.  The military-industrial complex and its allies in Congress will resist any attempt to redirect resources away from DOD (in fact, they’re already trying).  Reform of the rest of the national security apparatus — particularly State, USAID, and DHS — will take considerable time and nearly infinite patience.  Reestablishing some sort of public diplomacy capacity with the personnel, resources, and independence necessary to accomplish an extraordinarily difficult mission will take even longer.

This is an enormous undertaking.  To use a popular cliché, Obama is trying to turn a supertanker, and that will take time.  But that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible.

One last observation:  if the NYT story is correct, Hillary’s move makes a lot more sense than it did before.  Obama is tasking her with nothing less than a total overhaul of the way the United States conducts foreign policy — the first such effort since Harry Truman tasked George Marshall and Dean Acheson to modernize American national security policy in the aftermath of the Second World War.

If she pulls it off, she’ll go down in history, along with Madison, Monroe, Seward, Marshall and Acheson, as one of the greatest Secretaries of State in American history.  And in the process, she just might lay the groundwork for a future Presidential run — and do it with a record of accomplishment that she could not have matched had she spent the next eight years in the Senate.

This is going to be fun to watch.

| posted in American foreign policy, world events | 0 Comments

    Add to Technorati Favorites

  • Contact Me

  • cbrown_at_ undiplomatic_dot_net

  • Polls

  • Was Obama's Trip to Asia...

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...
  • Archive