TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 8:20 PM
January 08, 2009 | 8:00 PM
January 08, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 6:31 PM
January 08, 2009 | 4:13 PM
January 08, 2009 | 2:50 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 08, 2009 | 5:12 PM
January 08, 2009 | 3:25 PM
January 08, 2009 | 1:16 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
10.06.2008
More on Gen. Jim Jones, VP Contender

Some insight into why Jones may be moving up Obama's short list, care of Bob Woodward's State of Denial:

Shelton has been [Joint Chiefs] chairman since 1997. His four-year term would be up in the fall. Rumsfeld assigned the sensitive task of helping find a successor to Staser Holcomb, the kitchen cabinet consultant and retired vice admirial...

Holcomb had been asking to see Marine Commandant General James L. Jones, a tough, 6-foot-5 Marine who had a cosmopolitan side. Jones, who had grown up in Paris and was fluent in French, had graduated from Georgetown University in 1966 with a degree in international relations. He had joined the Marines through officer candidate school the next year and served as a platoon leader in combat in Vietnam. He'd had all the right assignments--chief aide to the Marine commandant, Marine division commander and then, in 1997, military aide to Secretary of Defense William Cohen. Cohen and Jones were close friends, going back nearly two decades when Cohen was a U.S. senator from Maine and Jones, then a major, had been the Marine liaison in the Senate. Cohen had seen that Jones was appointed commandant, the senior Marine and member of the Joint Chiefs. Jones knew that the Cohen connection made him suspect in the Rumsfeld Pentagon. ...

Still, Jones was on Holcomb's list as a possible chairman. He was called with no advance warning on a Saturday morning for an interview with Rumsfeld about the JCS chairmanship. During Rumsfeld's first months back at the Pentagon, Jones had found himself largely in the dark about what the secretary was doing. As the top Marine ... he also couldn't get copies of some of the studies Rumsfeld assigned to his civilian staff and consultants.

Jones always had time and showed respect for anyone, whatever their rank or station in life, and he was surprised by Rumsfeld's curt manner. The secretary at times didn't even say hello. Jones felt that Rumsfeld was mostly concerned with his own ideas. He gave the appearance of being deliberate and thoughtful but he often shot from the hip. Rumsfeld's self-importance and arrogance inflected everything, Jones concluded. Who would want to be his chairman and senior military adviser, given that it appeared Rumsfeld didn't really want military advice? He wanted voluminous information and detail from others, but then he would only follow his own advice.

Jones took the unusual step of declining the interview, saying he wanted to remain Marine commandant.

[New passage]

Around this time, General Jim Jones, [now] the NATO commander, paid a call on his old friend General Pete Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It was virtually certain that Pace was going to move up to replace Myers as chairman.  ... Jones expressed chagrin that Pace would even want to be chairman. "You're going to face a debacle and be part of the debacle in Iraq," he said. U.S. prestige was at a 50- or 75-year low in the world. He said he was so worried about Iraq and the way Rumsfeld ran things that he wondered if he himself should not resign in protest. "How do you have the stomach for eight years in the Pentagon?" he finally asked.

Pace said that someone had to be chairman. Who else would do it?

Jones did not have an answer. "Military advice is being influenced on a political level," he said. The JCS had improperly "surrendered" to Rumsfeld. "You should not be the parrot on the secretary's shoulder."

His concern was complete. When Senators John Warner and Carl Levin, the chairman of and ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, visited him at his headquarters in Belgium, Jones told them about all the problems. He said they needed new legislation ... to reempower the service chiefs or make some kind of sense of the crazy system.

"The Joint Chiefs have been systematically emasculated by Rumsfeld," Jones said.

[New passage]

That week Rumsfeld was holding three days of closed-door Pentagon meetings with the combatant commanders and top civilians in Defense. Before Rumsfeld, these regular meeings had been run by the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs. Rumsfeld now ran the meetings.

General Jones, the NATO commander, told Pace he believed that Rumsfeld so controlled everything, even at the earliest stages, that they were not generating independent military advice as they had a legal obligation to do. Rumsfeld was driving and affecting the debates and decisions "politically." They, the uniformed military, should be worried about the "political spin," he said. He proposed that Pace meet alone with the combatant commanders and service chiefs--without Rumsfeld, without any Defense Department civilians. "I've got issues," he said, that needed to be addressed and debated without Rumsfeld present.

Pace agreed to hold a one-hour meeting one morning that week with just the service chiefs and combatant commanders.

At the meeting, Jones said he wanted to focus on one issue--the value of forward basing. ... Rumsfeld's idea was to bring as many of the forces as he could back to the United States. Jones argued that this was altering the basic concept and premise of American global presence. They had an obligation to state their views and fight this new theology because it would weaken the position of the United States in the world. A number of those present agreed in principle, but no one seemed willing to  take on the secretary of defense.

As a rule, I'm skeptical of putting someone on the ticket who's never run for office, and I feel the same way here. But it sure doesn't hurt Obama to float Jones as a trial balloon. The mere suggestion that he's considering Jones sends a certain message (leading to blog posts like this one)...

P.S. You obviously have to take this portrayal with a grain of salt, since Jones appears to be a major source for this material. Still, I assume Woodward double-checked it with someone.

Update: Jonathan Martin says no way on Jones, validating the message-sending interpretation:

[Jones] and McCain are close friends and have been for decades.

The two served together on Capitol Hill as military liaisions, McCain for the Navy and Jones the Marines.

Jones is an outside adviser to McCain on national security issues and the GOP nominee has made clear that he'd like to appoint his friend to a top post in his administration.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 6:40 PM with 18 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ndmackenzie said:

"fluent in French" - well, that fries his chances.

June 10, 2008 6:50 PM

jobeek2 said:

"At the meeting, Jones said he wanted to focus on one issue--the value of forward basing. ... Rumsfeld's idea was to bring as many of the forces as he could back to the United States. Jones argued that this was altering the basic concept and premise of American global presence."

Hmm. I havent read the book; it would have been useful if it had been fleshed out a little in the blog post what Jones exactly argued for here. As the sentence now stands, by itself, it seems like Rumsfeld wanted to pull troops back asap, and Jones opposed this, wanting to build a stable basing out in Iraq. I dunno, but that sounds mightily off-message, even if this was years ago, for an Obama campaign.

June 10, 2008 7:31 PM

icarusr said:

nd: Agree with you totally.  Sad to say but in this one sentence: "6-foot-5 Marine who had a cosmopolitan side. Jones, who had grown up in Paris and was fluent in French" there are at least three reasons why he would be a terrible running mate: he's taller than Obama by a hand, is "cosmopolitan", and grew up in Paris.  The man would be swiftboated in the time it takes to say bon jour ...

Any way, one real reason not to select him would be his chat with Levin and Warner.  It's one thing for him to warn Pace, a military colleague.  But to talk behind his boss's back to Senators?  I don't know.  Too much of a "Seven Days in May" quality to it, even if for a good cause.

June 10, 2008 8:07 PM

blackton said:

icarusr, I disagree, talking to Senators is not the same as talking to the press, in fact the Senate has a duty to talk to Generals in a way that the Generals don't fear reprisal. Rumsfeld was about as big a disgrace of Sec. Def as America ever had.

As to his being VP, highly unlikely I agree.

June 10, 2008 8:23 PM

ironyroad said:

The Repugs will just try to prove that he's really French:

"I served under the general and he occasionally spoke to foreigners in a different . . . language, I guess you'd call it -- you know, weird sounds that you can't understand.  All the troops thought that was unamerican."

June 10, 2008 9:25 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

I don't think America is buying that stale "too French" stuff anymore, even the whole painting Obama as an elitist shtick has a tired, kabuki feel to it.  It still has juice, but I don't think anywhere near what it used to.  EVERYone hates Rovism now.

I bet even the most Appalachian of the Appalachian french haters would be fine with this wonderful sounding man as VP, honored.  

June 10, 2008 9:42 PM

timteeter said:

I'm not sure, but I don't think "forward basing" here refers to Iraq.

June 10, 2008 10:31 PM

liberal reformer said:

James Jones will likely not be selected because he lacks experience in electoral politics. He would just be too risky of a pick.

June 10, 2008 11:18 PM

willpastor said:

I have ridiculed those who think Obama can't be president because his middle name is "Hussein", but I have to say that even I have trouble supporting a "Jim Jones" after the events of Jonestown. If he is on the ticket, he better go by "James"

June 11, 2008 12:43 AM

gennitydo said:

Anyone that Rummy does not like is good for me.  And if Obama can peel away a McCain advisor by offering him the VP slot so much the better.

I think Obama should take someone who has no experience in electoral politics.  I think this would keep the Swiftboating and lobbyist ties claims to a minimum and emphasize the outsider message of the campaign.

I also think Obama should pick someone with security credentials.  He will sorely need a close advisor in the White House to help with these issues.

My first choice would be Petraeus (if he would be willing).  Who better to plan for the Iraq withdrawal (and this won't be easy) than the man himself?  This would also nicely wipe out McCain's advantage.

June 11, 2008 3:27 AM

lesserliz said:

Nah I don't think Patraeus would be good-think it would be sorta like Humphey in '68 picking General Westmoreland as his VP after Tet. Maybe Admiral Fallon who was canned for being a percieved obstacle to Bush's coming war with Iran.

June 11, 2008 9:19 AM

lesserliz said:

Also you don't need a military man VP for a withdrawal plan. All you have to do is procure some military film footage of the troop deployments to Iraq and run it in reverse.

June 11, 2008 9:31 AM

J.J. Gould said:

I have to wonder, if they're thinking seriously of Jones, wouldn't they be thinking more seriously about Wes Clark? -- oddly (to me) absent from the "short list" MSNBC is reporting. Clark is well aligned with Obama on policy, he has campaign experience, and he has unity-ticket cred as a Clinton-backer ...

June 11, 2008 9:33 AM

icarusr said:

J.J.: Wes Clark has proven himself inadequate in debate and in campaigning.  Jones is, so far as I can tell, an unknown quantity.  I hope he does not end up like Admiral Whatshisname who ran with Perot.

Blackie: I guess that's one of the odd things about a Parliamentary democracy: the Cabinet sits in Parliament and has to endure daily direct questioning by Parliamentarians; and our Supreme Court Justices act as Deputies to the Governor General in signing legislation when she is not around ... and to "separation of powers" is a far more fluid concept in Canada than in the US.  And yet ... there is absolutely no doubt here that the Army and the Bureaucracy answer to the Executive and not to Parliament or parliamentarians: doctrine of ministerial responsibility.

In a sense, I would mind it less if Jones had spoken out in public, like Fallon.  It is sneaking behind his Secretary's back to Senators that causes me discomfort - as I said, this has shades of "Seven Days of May" in it - or the "gays in the military" fiasco, which was as much about Clinton's incompetence as it was about the military's insubordination.  You would not want the military to undermine a future Obama administration by going around him to the Senate.

June 11, 2008 10:01 AM

cspencef said:

Yeah, but Clark's campaign experience wasn't particularly strong.  He's become somewhat the shorthand for those around here who argue against an ex-military man on the ticket, so I doubt anyone is likely to argue for a second look for him.

And agreed with timteeter: I'm pretty sure Iraq wasn't the subject of the "forward basing" thing above; it is, if I understand it correctly, more about maintaining presences and bases around the world generally.  But I could be wrong...

June 11, 2008 10:14 AM

michael said:

It seems the current crop of retired generals all score high in pissing someone off.  And the 'someone' is likely to be another person of equal or higher rank who may have enough respect to at least cast doubt on General ______ .

How could anyone move through the ranks for the past 20-30 years and not make at least a few enemies so they discover a high-profile private life is asking for trouble?  If Powell was an exception because before he was Secretary of State he left people wondering why he wasn't effective in selling his Doctrine or at least why he didn't  refuse to make the pitch to the UN.

Plus, I think it should be self-evident that the post volunteer generation is clueless regarding a military career so the distinction between civilian and professional soldier is greater than it was fifty years ago.  There's an irony that we prefer elected officials to heed the advice of generals but we aren't quite sure which one...so we may be even more reluctant to have and single officer calling the shots. It's less obvious that a person is an Ike or Marshall and we sure don't want a MacArthur or Patton. Since most people would admit they don't know what they're buying, they don't want to shop from that list.

June 11, 2008 11:18 AM

The Stump said:

Just a quick thought on Obama's VP deliberations per yesterday's post on all the people being

June 11, 2008 2:32 PM

butchie b said:

Our 20th century experience with career military men in elective politics starts and stops with Ike.  I think Powell coulda been a contender, but he didn't run.

But I don't get pairing a general who has never run for anything with a green, inexperienced Senator who has never run against anyone tougher than Alan Keyes. But, hey, it's your party.

June 11, 2008 4:55 PM