By Victor Davis Hanson// National Review
Choosing military men for top cabinet spots is not unprecedented, nor is it foolish given how Washington insiders have performed.
President-elect Donald Trump is being faulted for supposedly appointing too many retired generals to cabinet-level jobs and “militarizing” the government.
Former lieutenant general Michael Flynn is slated to be national security adviser. Retired Marine general James Mattis has been nominated as defense secretary. Retired Marine general John Kelly is Trump’s nominee for secretary of homeland security. High-ranking officers such as General David Petraeus and Admiral Michael Rogers have been rumored for other positions in the Trump administration.
All are retired as well as seasoned veterans. They have been previously entrusted with the lives of thousands of soldiers, and they have traveled around the world and met many of the key leaders in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.
Most of the criticism of the Flynn, Mattis, and Kelly nominations is politically created hysteria, like past contrived bouts of partisan frenzy over subjects such as the “war on women” or the “climate of hate.”
Why, after reaching a high military rank before retirement, should a nominee earn more scrutiny than an ex-banker, ex-politician or ex-lawyer?
Did anyone complain when Barack Obama appointed five retired generals and one retired admiral to either Cabinet posts or high-ranking positions in his administration? In fact, Flynn and Petraeus were first appointed to high office by Obama.
Under Obama, Petraeus became CIA director. Flynn served as Obama’s director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Retired general Eric Shinseki was head of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Retired general James Jones was national security adviser. Retired admiral Dennis Blair and retired general James Clapper served as successive directors of national intelligence.
Ronald Reagan also appointed a number of retired and acting generals to cabinet positions or other high offices, including Al Haig as secretary of state, Colin Powell (while on active duty) as national security adviser, and Vernon Walters as ambassador to the United Nations.
Retired generals and admirals as administration secretaries, officers, directors and advisers are nothing new. In the 20th century, most of the stars of the American effort in World War II later served in the executive branch.
President Harry Truman appointed General George Marshall (of Marshall Plan fame) secretary of state and, later, secretary of defense. General Omar Bradley was head of the Veterans Administration while still on active duty.
Dwight Eisenhower, without prior elected office, proved a most-effective Republican president.
The chief complaint about Trump’s appointments is that too many generals will mean too great a likelihood of war. Historical evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Generals were not the proverbial “best and brightest” who argued for military intervention in Vietnam, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, or the bombing of Libya in 2011.
In a famous example of a civilian-military paradox, President Bill Clinton’s ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright, scolded Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell in 1993 for not being more eager to send troops into the Balkans. “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Albright asked Powell.
Traditionally, retired generals and flag officers have no desire to see their own troops killed in what they see as optional wars abroad. Traditionally, retired generals and flag officers have no desire to see their own troops killed in what they see as optional wars abroad. Their occasional harangues about building up military power are predicated on notions of peace-through-strength deterrence: The more powerful the military is perceived abroad, the less likely it will be need to be used.
Far more worrisome is the tired presidential custom of relying on ex-senators and politicians with law degrees to fill important executive positions despite their lack of outside-the-Beltway administrative experience.
In 2008, Obama’s résumé consisted mainly of having been a Harvard Law School grad and, briefly, a U.S. senator. No wonder he looked to people with similar backgrounds for some key appointments — former senator and lawyer Joe Biden as vice president, former senator and lawyer Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, and later, former senator and lawyer John Kerry as secretary of state.
Yet the current state of affairs, from the collapse of several Middle Eastern nations to the failed reset with Russia to the outrageous Iran deal, is not exactly evidence of success at the State Department. An Obama appointee with a similar background, former senator and lawyer Ken Salazar, was not an especially successful secretary of the interior.
Lawyers, Ivy League graduates and former politicians usually dominate presidential appointments. How have these stereotypical profiles worked out?
We are currently nearing $20 trillion in national debt, stagnating under nonexistent economic growth and near-zero interest rates, and suffering from record labor nonparticipation rates. We are seeing a failed health-care system, a discredited IRS and VA, and the worst racial relations in half a century. Generals did not compile that record.
Lawyers and lifetime Washington politicians did.
Discussion (16)
Join the conversation. Logged in subscribers avoid the Captcha verification and get priority commenting approvals. No vulgarity, links, or code allowed.
What happened to my comment?
Great article. Didn't seem to bother anyone when we had many veterans in government both in appointed positions and elected ones. Believe this country lost its greatness when the draft was abolished and people no longer had to appreciate this country. We learned a lot when following orders, looking after our company- mates, and getting our hands dirty. There are only a few proud examples, as seen with these current Trump appointees, left that have the courage and ram rod back to stand up and be counted. Liked your book "The Savior Generals". Have followed your political writings and look forward to the next one. Glad you have left NRO. Some of their writers have gone over the top and don't have the knowledge, character or values to author opinions.
"Learned" men and women with Ivy League degrees have steered our once great nation into the proverbial ditch. Well past time to try out some new folks with some real world experience. Trump's Cabinet nominees are encouraging: Mattis for SecDEF is inspired. Mr. Rex Tillerson for SOS is an enlightened choice. Rex is a civil engineer by training and many of the most formidable leaders the US has ever produced had engineering backgrounds: Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacCarthur, Jack Welch just to name a few. Engineering-based problem solving skills married to business acumen can make for an ultra-effective executive performance. Rex has a 40+ year career at Exxon then Exxon-Mobil (1999) that saw him negotiate complex multi-decade deals in some of the most remote and politically unstable areas on the planet (Venezuela, Equatorial New Guinea, Russia) among others. Kelly and Flynn are also damn fine choices from all I can see. Generals who have strategic thinking chops can only help restore and ultimately burnish the USA's credibility and reputation across the globe. I wouldn't mind seeing Jack Keane, David Petraeus and Stan McChrystal involved and supplying counsel to President Elect Trump. Keep up the terrific work Mr. Hanson, you are a rare bird: a public intellectual that adds useful input to the pressing issues of the day that the layman (me) can understand.
At least since the time of U.S. Grant has only one professional military man been elected President. That is in a period of well over one-hundred years. That one military man too perhaps the most prepared to be President. And at least during my life time the best President we ever had. You could count on him to do nothing foolish.
Spot on!
I suppose that I am preaching to the choir, nevertheless... The second-guessing of the president-elect's tentative appointments is disheartening, since it seems to indicate that nothing will shift the nay-sayers out of their obstructionist mind-set. Donald Trump won the election. He has the consent of the governed. The foot-draggers only make themselves appear irrelevant. If their actions extend to stone-walling on important matters of policy, they might be reminded that the members of congress, on both sides, have taken an oath to protect the constitution. All of it -- not just the parts they happen to like.
The brain dead liberals would be happier if Trump appointed kindergardeners. How stupid can you get?
I enjoy your work immensely. Minor repeated sentence error, "Traditionally, retired generals..." Whenever I get annoyed at the left complaining, I remember, "Liberty won, the people won. Let the losers whine, self-destruct and self-immolate if they really want to make a statement. Not soon enough for my tastes, and I am prepared to donate 20 gallons of unleaded for the task."
Not so much a comment, as a question. Have you by chance read "The West's Last Chance" by Tony Blankley ? I just finished it. As you have said from time to time - those who ignore history ,live to regret it. Sooo much in this "old" 2005 book needs to be required reading fore everyone today. Thank you for your insight.
Spot on! If only your points would be published by main stream media!!!???
With the Orwellian Democratic Party there is one rule for them and one rule for us.
Professor Hanson, It is also worth remarking that in the 50 years since Ike military service has been a poor predictor of quality in our Chief Executives; but that all of that experience has been in the junior officer ranks. JFK was a lieutenant and bumbled both the Bay of Pigs and our escalation in Vietnam. Nixon likewise was a lieutenant and had to resign the Presidency. Carter was a lieutenant and was one of our worst Presidents. Reagan served in auxiliary roles in the service and wasn't truly a soldier, yet his exercise of military power typified peace through strength, with the exception of Beruit. GHW Bush was, like JFK, a lieutenant and military hero. He won his war, but he lost his presidency and history is so far inclusive about his standing. Clinton was a draft-dodger and was wary of military engagements; luckily he served in the halcyonic interval between the end of the Cold War and 9/11. Bush 43 was a reservist and had an administration of very highs and very lows. Obama had no military background whatsoever and his administration has been characterized by diffidence in foreign affairs and overreach in domestic matters. As is becoming more common Trump has no military experience. But given the records of the junior officers above and Trump's comfort-level with generals and admirals, we may have hit upon just the right combination.
When I was working as a mudlogger and consulting geologist in the oil fields I worked a well for Exxon. I look on Trumps choice of secretary of state with a very skeptical eye.
These are people who have no idea how to lead from behind. Thank God for that!
Dr. Hanson, I enjoy your comments and find them insightful as well as entertaining. Thanks you. I have a request. The format is somewhat difficult to read. Could you do a couple of things to make it easier? Space between paragraphs, a serif typeface, and possibly a more narrow column would be good. Thank you, Steve Toms
excellent article mr. hanson .