Point of inquiry Steve:

"Jones, in contrast, has been obsessed with the structure of decisions -- who is involved in those decisions, what the structure of decision-making should be, and what legal modifications to this process need to be made. He looks at that as the big nut that needs to be cracked -- and that would improve, according to Jim Jones, the President's effectiveness and chances of success at a macro level."

I don't know if you are at liberty to say, but does this mean Jones is interested in keeping everything legal while the other players are attempting to simply act as fast as possible without a legal process?

Is he the opposite of the subvert Constitution and Department of Justice Cheney and Addington style of leadership?

Or do you mean to say that he's just unable to handle the breadth of challenges that the country faces and instead just gets bogged down in strategically irrelevant material?

Thanks,

- Josh

SC: "On the other hand, his critics see him as a plodding, slow-moving, out of touch retired general who was better prepared to think about the last era rather than the one we are moving into."

This is an apt description, minus the general part, for most of the operatives Obama has retained or re-hired, disappointing progressives that really believed his promises of change. Iraq, corporate welfare, Nafta, jobs, economic justice -- the list goes on.

Is it really the hawkish/neocon-friendly/Likudist-hugging part of the Obama administration's foreign policy operation that is engaged in a coup attempt against Jones? Or are they agents of a foreign government intent on undermining the American government and making it behave contrary to its national interest?

Sounds to me like Jones is doing the job exactly as it should be done. Diligent, integrating and structuring while leaving the details to his stuff.

This makes a Bill Lind column from earlier this month, titled "Stop Letting Cheney Frame the Torture Debate," all the more prescient/ominous.

Lind cites the late Col. John Boyd, who said war is fought on three levels -- moral, mental, physical. And the moral is the most important. Cede the moral ground, and no amount of firepower will make a difference in the end.

Money quote, directed at Obama: "First, when this issue comes up again (and it will), go to your NSC director, Gen. Jim Jones, for advice. He is familiar with Boyd’s work. Your political people are not."

Lind's column is here:
http://original.antiwar.com/lind/2009/06/02/stop-letting-cheney/

Scary, scary, scary.

Tom Ricks sez: "I am picking up the vibe that some powerful people want to have Defense Secretary Robert Gates move over to the White House to replace retired Marine Gen. James Jones as national security advisor."
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/11/washington_whispers_gates_to_replace_jones_0

Steve,

I've been waiting to see you do some sort of piece on Jones. He seems to be pretty invisible, even more so than Brent Scowcroft was -- one or our more circumspect national security advisors. What I don't understand is why you're turning this topic, which so far there has no evidence provided (by you or anyone else) that attempts for his ouster are ideologically motivated. Yes we all have our policy preferences, and it may be that when you push for a particular policy position your motives aren't pure (whose are after all). However in this case the few mentions on this topic in the press has been regarding his difficulty transitioning to a staff position and not really taking command of the job that is so critical. If he's ineffectual why would those who wish to keep your supposed "long-knifed" liberal internationalists at bay wish to get rid of him?

Furthermore, if this really is a competence issue, shouldn't the first criteria for moving forward be how to get someone in place who is better suited to the job (in addition to being a judicious presenter of all the various options the president and his national security team need to avail themselves of).

BTW, congratulations on getting the washingtonnote url.

Depressing News from the NYT this morning:

"Some in Qaeda Leave Pakistan for Somalia and Yemen
By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER

American officials say they are seeing evidence that a handful of Al Qaeda leaders are leaving Pakistan’s tribal areas for new havens."

Will that be two more countries to expose to our freedoms?

Eliminating al Qaeda "safe havens" all over the Muslim world is the current rationale for an expanded (call it world) war. Sufficient war locales are guaranteed because the US is hated in every Muslim country, and not because "They hate our freedoms" --George W. Bush, March 18, 2002. What they hate is getting blown to bits.

I'm not a huge Colin Powell fan, but he did say this: "What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?

"I would approach this differently, in almost Marshall-like terms. What are the great opportunities out there—ones that we can take advantage of? It should not be just about creating alliances to deal with a guy in a cave in Pakistan. It should be about how do we create institutions that keep the world moving down a path of wealth creation, of increasing respect for human rights, creating democratic institutions, and increasing the efficiency and power of market economies? This is perhaps the most effective way to go after terrorists."
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5900&pageNum=3

This is the sort of thinking that the US needs in a National Security Advisor, "Marshall-like". Somebody who thinks outside the 'Mo War' box.

The previous administration, especially the first term, was marked by "stovepiping", "angling" and all the other Machiavellian shenanigans that allowed the foreign policy and national security process to be hijacked by a usurping vice president and some allies in the defense department, on the strength of sheer chutzpah and sharp elbows, and exploiting a weak president and weak White House national security operation. I'm reading between the lines here, but it sounds like Jones is catching flak because he is trying to restore some order to this process of coordinating the legitimate operations of the different departments of government, and is trying to lessen the role of naked ambition in the policy process.

The comment about the late hours is also interesting, as is Steve's remark that he often speaks to various NSC officials at 10:00 or 11:00 at night. My guess that in the national security field especially, putting in long hours is part of jockeying for position and influence. If you're the guy who is still at his desk when some late evening crisis blows up, you're in a great position to poke your head up, get noticed and jump over others in your way. Perhaps Jones is just trying to discourage some of this competitive self-promotion. Some of the sniping just sounds like fairly typical tensions between older, experienced hands trying to maintain a balanced and businesslike process in the workplace and younger go-getters on the make, eager to change the world and climb the career ladder several rungs at a time.

Being hard-working is great. But when workaholics with no lives chain themselves to their desks, that puts unfair pressures on their hard-working but more balanced colleagues, in the same department or other departments of government. Jones might be right to suggest some of these folks should get a life, and go home at a reasonable time to spend more time with their families. Despite what they might think, the world probably won't blow up while their indispensable selves are out of the office. The country needs their service, no doubt. But their kids need them to help with homework and show up at baseball games.

I may be a little old-fashioned about these things, but my first question to some of Steve Clemons' sources is what the hell they are doing calling him at 10 in the evening. In the age of the blogosphere, he has to be considered as just another journalist. Officially approved leaks can be provided to him during normal business hours; NSC staffers providing the other kind should be doing something else, with their time if they can forego leaking about their superiors and with their careers if they cannot.

With respect to Gen. Jones, it seems to me that he has recognized that an administration with a foreign policy team composed of strong personalities from disparate backgrounds won't function well over the long haul without orderly procedures. He has taken it upon himself to begin establishing such procedures. Naturally all the White House staffers who would like to see decisions made that bypass the Secretary of State or the Pentagon or the DNI object to this, something I hope President Obama recognizes and thinks is just too bad. His NSC staffers work in the West Wing, not on "The West Wing."

Dan,
Exactly. I'm (more) proud of you, an academic, for picking up on that 'stay-at-the-desk-later-than the-other-guys' syndrome which I saw first-hand during my twenty years in the military. What they mainly do is sit at their desks after the working stiffs leave and network over the 'phones to similar upward climbers, like a bunch of gossiping washerwomen.

Oh -- one of my military anecdotes: A military boss said to me once: "Don't let the door hit you in the ass." I worked hard all day, was productive (sez me), ate lunch at my desk, had a one-hour commute and I had a family, so I was amused. Still am.

For the wonks among us, it might help to take a look at Recommendation Number 3 of the Project on National Security Reform. (See www.pnsr.org) Recommendation 3 called for the strengthening of the national security advisor position away from crisis management toward longer-term, integrative, strategic thinking.

Two thoughts.

First, Steve's "liberal interventionists" remark was interesting. Don't forget that Samantha Power ended up in an NSC position, and knowing someone who was considered for a job under her, Power certainly had no intention of standing back and letting "realists" run the show. Given her propensity for drama and closeness to Obama, I wonder if that's part of what's up...

Secondly, on the long hours, no doubt the "last guy to leave" dynamic is there, but the NSC really does have a tough job. How many people do you think work there? I asked a group of military officers once, and they figured at least the size of a combatant command, like CENTCOM -- 2,000 or more. The correct number is about 100, even as low as 75 at points under G.W. Bush. That absolutely astonished those colonels -- it is not many people to coordinate that much activity among so many departments.

Steve Clemons is so dead on in this post; fair; balanced; smart;
judicious; compelling. I just saw this via Politico and think the blog
is very smart. Why don't we have other such nuanced and fair
reporting on these issues in the blogosphere. My hat is tipped to
Mr. Clemons. Whether Jones stays or leaves, Clemons has
articulated better than anyone I have read, and I have read a lot,
what the trade-offs are for the President. Thanks Steve.

re: "the hawkish/neocon-friendly/Likudist-hugging part of the Obama administration's foreign policy operation may be engaged in a coup attempt against Jones."

Talk about burying the lede!

Why not state the obvious upfront and name names?

The Zionist traitors within the (nominal) Obama administration are pursuing an Israel-first agenda; Jones is standing in the way.

What? Is AIPAC throwing a hissy fit?

"Back in 2008, when Jones served as then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's special adviser on Israeli-Palestinian security issues, he authored a report calling for the US to assess what Israel's 'real' security interests in Judea and Samaria are and to limit US support to Israel to filling those necessarily minimal interests. Jones's report, which rejected all Israeli claims in Judea and Samaria and underplayed the strategic significance of Palestinian rejection of Israel's right to exist, was viewed as deeply hostile toward Israel, and the Olmert government prevailed on the Bush administration to set it aside."
Caroline Glick, JPost, Jun 12 2009

People find Jones very impressive. But he doesn't actually get the job done. As SACEUR, he allowed his General Officers to run amok and put their personal agendas ahead of mission accomplishment. This resulted in foreign policy efforts that were uncoordinated, inconsistent, and left allies confused and unwilling to cooperate.

His talkaholic intel chief (Gen Fast)went on to head intel in Iraq, bringing torture to Abu Graib, etal.

He failed to reduce our force presence in Europe, which was his mandate, leaving us tied to expensive bases that were, and will continue to be, difficult to deploy from in time of war.

ho hum... just passing on stuff to add to the gossip pile.

Jones vs. Ross - Knock Out In The Third Round
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2009/06/jones-vs-ross-knock-out-in-the-third-round.html#more

If you're the guy who is still at his desk when some late evening crisis blows up, you're in a great position to poke your head up, get noticed and jump over others in your way. Perhaps Jones is just trying to discourage some of this competitive self-promotion. Some of the sniping just sounds like fairly typical tensions between older