Posted on 11/27/2016 5:48:29 PM PST by Kaslin
No doubt Rudi Guiliani, a staunch loyalist and the face of our grieving Nation on 9/11, would make an excellent Secretary of State. That said, he is more Richard Armitage than Colin Powell, more cut to the chase than the 35-year military man, more maverick than mollifier. Mitt Romney? Steady mollifier, a proven manager-in-chief, turn-key source for dispassionate counsel. But is that what the Trump/Pence Administration is hunting, as they prepare to remake America’s Foreign Policy? Or is the best choice General Keane, General Kelly, Senator Corker? Maybe. Maybe not.
Comes now a new name, General David Petreaus. Here is a man heavy on leadership skills, if human, failed in the way men can be, burdened with baggage from the Obama years. But also a man with battle scars. There is something to be said for battle scars. Petreaus is a seasoned strategist, long thinker, former leader of the 101st Airborne, capable of gaining buy-in where none seemed possible, for example by walking into schools and hospitals in northern Iraq (again, center of the storm). That sort of expertise could be handy again.
To his credit, he knows the US military and intelligence communities, their strengths and weaknesses, Central Command to Central Intelligence Agency. He worked well with “The Interagency,” a frustrating confluence of bureaucratic rivers, defined by choppy water. He had to navigate contradictory policies, combat and post-combat decision-making, integrating interests of Defense, State, intelligence, law enforcement, development and “host country” political processes – in America’s national interest.
Beyond four stars, Petreaus holds a PhD from Princeton. He has taught, including counter-insurgency, and rewrote the doctrine with General Mattis, potential Secretary of Defense. He likes creative thinking, flexible and adaptive response to soft targets, which are ultimately the hardest. He knows combat operations, policy making, academics, and has an intuition for diplomacy, a formidable foundation.
More smooth and polished than constructively disruptive and Trump-like, Petreaus can speak the bureaucratic language, even as he unmakes a bureaucracy. He thinks big, often outside the box, even though he came from it – knows chain of command, box of sand, four corners of cut orders. His biggest weakness? Ego, audacity, unforced errors, supreme self-assurance, with a weakness for press – although these can be advantages, and have been tempered by recent events. Biggest strength? Ego, can-do, a never say die attitude until job is done, which helped us win in Iraq, until the Obama White House reversed the win.
Value in picking Petreaus as Secretary of State, is deep. He knows the world. The world knows him – and respects him. He would come to the position in the tradition of George C. Marshall and Colin Powell, former high ranking generals. To that he adds recent combat and post-combat experience, helpful in what comes next. In all likelihood, he would work well with Generals Flynn and Mattis, others in the Cabinet. Confirmation by Congress would be swift. He is well-spoken, candid and likely be grateful for being trusted anew.
The risks are not insubstantial. Petreaus comes with wide knowledge, across several lanes of government, not least military and intelligence leadership; the difficulty for him, in cabinet and National Security Council (NSC) meetings, would be staying in his lane. Powell did this very well, as did George C. Marshall, despite Marshall’s detractors on China policy. But it is hard to do, allowing others to lead in areas assigned by a President. Notably, Secretary Rumsfeld had a very tough time holding his tongue in NSC meetings; he often felt he knew better, and said so. Sometimes he did; often he did not. The habit gets old fast, no matter how smart the talker.
Another risk is the tendency of smart people to abandon team play for seemingly principled abdications or abnegations, especially when they have reason to believe that popular opinion may be with them. In short, the mission – and it is president-elect Trump’s to define – must be all-consuming, no distractions, and no divisions within the national security team.
That said, on both risks, Petreaus must feel humbled. He paid for errors with his reputation and misdemeanor criminal charges, for which Hillary Clinton, for worse, paid nothing. If life is a teacher, President-elect Trump may assess that David Petreaus today is a different man, one steeped in knowledge, clear on lane and team play. His leadership in diplomacy could be path-breaking.
Where does this leave the Trump team? In a good place, actually. David Petreaus would likely serve well, with distinction and resolve. He would be a capable, seasoned, creative, a no-nonsense Secretary of State, powerful team player. Rudi Guiliani would be equally strong, a devil-may-care, been-there-and-done-that leader, no fear of detractors, as he had no fear of the mafia. And Mitt Romney would be a level head, steady voice in all weather, light and heavy.
Two last Petreaus stories, because he does have an uncanny knack for getting it right. As an Assistant Secretary of State after 2003, my job was to make operational America’s international police training aspirations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Kosovo and other locations. In Baghdad, on more than one occasion, I found myself interacting with David Petreaus, who was working hard to train the Iraqi Army.
The two jobs were fraught with potential conflict, as well as operational challenges, like trying to build a car and win a race at the same time, blizzard landing without instruments. There were no blueprints, unless you went back to MacArthur, post-World War II Japan. We knew there would be blame for handing around, it always happens. But Petreaus did not set picks. Instead, he looked for ways to cooperate, make the process work. Eventually it did. State became a “support command” in Jordan, producing tens of thousands of civilian security officers to buttress needs identified by the “gaining command” in Baghdad, Petreaus.
One more example, demonstrating Petreaus’ foresight, and ability to relook old problems. My first trip to Baghdad, we cork-screwed into the airport, helicopters everywhere launching straight up, just as they did from the Green Zone. At some altitude, they would tip to one horizon or the other. Problem was, shoulder fire missiles; they were bringing American helicopters down. Petreaus immediately changed procedures, pressing helicopters out low and fast, very low and very fast. Shoulder fire missiles could no longer get a bead on us. Immediately, the number of helicopters shot down fell, precipitously. He saved American lives with his mind. If there is one reason for bringing him back, that is it. But net-net, the Trump pickings are good.
The bitch set him up.
My vote for Bolton
Rudy for something in law enforcement related
Absolutely no Petreaus.
Let’s dispense with the celebrity component, and instead select an individual, unknown or otherwise, to best represent the Country.
Col Allen West. I love that man and he loves America.
Whoever the choice, I think the President-elect needs to make it very soon. The situation regarding the Secretary of State is becoming out of hand. Romney would be a huge disappointment to most of us who voted for Trump. Rudy made a mistake by wanting it so much that he publicly campaigned for it. I have no opinion about the other people who have been mentioned.
Why would you say he’d do as he’s told. He is as stubborn as a donkey, has a God complex and is incapable of reality testing.
Agree with G.E. here....Not a fan of the "usual suspects." There has to be some red-blooded, God-fearing men and women who love the country and will work in our best interest, not selfishly.
You are in the minority and for good reason. Mitt Romney is an opportunistic snake. A liar and a turncoat. He signed the pledge and reneged. He lied for 45 minutes on major network TV about the Donald. And, did irreparable damage. Trump won in spite of his sabotage.
Anyone who would support him is a moron or a masochist.
Trump is not in disarray.
Trump is necessarily drawing out the negotiation.
The MSM cries of transition chaos.
Coordinated effort to pressure Trump.
In play is the Mitt Chip for nixing the filibuster.
Trump is weighing the immediate vs. the 2018 plan to crush the GOPe Lindas.
John Bolton’s the Man!
I don’t get why people are bringing up Romney for VA when he was a draft dodger from a family of draft dodgers...going back to the civil war
Would be happy with Petraeus, and Romney seems like the worst possible choice, and Giuliani not much better, but my vote would go to Tulsi Gabbard:
1. Yes, a Dem, but she already sees exactly eye-to-eye with Trump on foreign policy (i.e. opposed to neoconservative endless wars, but ready to conclusively name and end Islamic extremism). By the way, the same can be said for exactly no one in the Republican foreign policy “establishment”, all of whom opposed Trump with their every breath, many of whom went to far as to endorse Hillary.
2. Takes her off the playing field for the Democrats and I happen to think she’s by far the best thing they have going right now.
3. Showed her integrity and courage when she stepped down from the DNC and called them out for rigging the primary, long before Wikileaks proved it.
4. Would reinforce the split between the Clinton and Sanders wings of the Democratic Party, and it’s in our interest to do whatever we can to keep stoking that fire for as long as possible.
5. Military vet
6. Appointing a woman of color to the top Cabinet post, a Democrat at that, would basically demolish a big part of the scaffolding of the “Trump = racist, sexist, bigot” narrative that we all know the left will hinge its opposition to Trump on.
Freeped and bumped.
Leni
Freeped and bumped.
Leni
And these personal loyalty spats appear to be much less important to Trump than to his cultists.
I think Trump will do fine. The country is more important than fealty to one man and that's how Trump seems to be approaching his appointments no matter how you feel about it.
RUDY! RUDY!
Romney pledge.
After eight years of so-called "progressive" ideology and semantics, the world needs to see and hear the real voice of America in its Secretary of State--that voice which can be identified with peace through strength, and, a consciousness of George Washington's Farewell Address warning:
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally."This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another." - Excerpts from George Washington's Farewell Address
“he’ll do as he’s told while trying not to make waves or a name for himself”
Did we miss the whole Never Trump thing? This is the last person I want representing our interests on the global stage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
