Laura Rozen talks about the buzz over the possibility that President Obama might ask Gen (ret) Colin Powell to be the next secretary of defense. Evidently, there still aren't enough qualified Democrats to consider as potential candidates.
Powell has consulted with Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan including in a White House visit the weekend before Obama rolled out his Afghanistan strategy last December. Indeed, Obama has consulted Powell so often, it has raised the eyebrows of some retired senior Democratic national security figures he has apparently consulted less so. Nevertheless, some Democratic national security hands and former military officials have in the past week raised Powell’s name as a possible candidate for Obama to consider to succeed the exceedingly hard-to-replace Gates.
“It would fulfill George Marshall’s example perfectly,” former Powell advisor Larry Wilkerson told POLITICO Wednesday, explaining that no other person besides George Marshall has served as army chief, Secretary of State and Defense Secretary.
Powell, 74, might be reluctant to take the job if offered, Wilkerson posited, because he is “fairly comfortable out of government, he makes a lot of money and he has made a lot of progress” in establishing a strong economic foundational base to support his extended family.
But if Obama asked him, Powell might be willing to consider it, Wilkerson said, adding that Powell would be mad at him for saying so.
Me, I'm not so thrilled about it. The record of retired generals acting in political appointee slots has not been great (see Denny Blair, James Jones). Not that these aren't highly talented people with a great amount of experience, they certainly are, but (in my mind) the civilian position is more one of smart management (ideally speaking of course), of ensuring that politics are guiding military actions, not the other way around.
And frankly, the February 2003 speech to the United Nations, featuring the faux vial of anthrax, still sits out there. I don't think the SecDef job should be viewed as a path to redemption for Powell. Hamre would be great, Flournoy would be good, Danzig I'm kind of concerned about. But certainly there are enough qualified Dems out there that we might expect the trend of "Republican candidates only for SecDef" to be broken by now.
And, as a technical matter, Powell was never "Army chief." He went from CINC Forces Command to JCS Chairman.
Posted by: James Joyner | 20 October 2010 at 10:09 AM
Um...hmmm.
No.
Mr. Powell has been publicly cashed already by the previous administration, and though I'm sure he would bring a ton of experience with him, he would also be dragging a mountain of political baggage with him too.
No, leave Mr. Powell to rest in a well earned comfort as a former General...I would rather remember him that way.
Posted by: sheerahkahn | 20 October 2010 at 07:28 PM
If Obama want's a former General, why not Wesley Clark?
Though I can understand Powell from a certain point of view. If the Reps take over one part of congress there is no way they will delay Powell's confirmation. Likewise Powell was kind of an anti-Rumsfeld and didn't believe in RMA or that very few troops could win wars. And maybe Obama doesn't want to make the same mistake Clinton made with Les Aspin. Though considered something of a 'military expert' he took the cuts to the Army that Cheney/Wolfowitz were planning, assumed they were hawkishly keeping too many active duty troops and took the cuts even farther. Aspin didn't grasp the hollow 'Total Army' that had over 50% of its combat forces in the Reserve Component. He didn't see the phony Reagan-era shell-game 'build-up' for what it was. He didn't seem to understand that the active-duty US Army even after the call up of the reserves was heavily dependent on allied troops to help it beat a Soviet attack in Central Europe. Maybe Obama doesn't think that any of the available Democrats will get it right. Then again, when was the last time an adult was in charge of the DOD who got it right? Not in my lifetime.
Though Powell has a lot of baggage. The whole trip to the UN was bad. Likewise the 'Powell Doctrine' of a massive build-up, short war and a 'quick and clean break' afterwards is based more on wishful thinking then reality. Panama still hasn't fully recovered from the 1989 invasion. Which makes for great propaganda for Chavez and the likes. And then there is the last 19 years of having to deal with Iraq.
Posted by: Mark Ash | 21 October 2010 at 07:18 PM
Hillary SecDef, 2012 VP, 2016 Prez. It's the DLC's wet dream.
Posted by: exqasas | 22 October 2010 at 12:53 PM