Senator Robert C. Byrd, Jr.

The longest serving member of Congress in U.S. history, Senator Robert C. Byrd, Jr. of West Virginia, has died at 92. All those who love the U.S. Constitution, those wise restraints that make men free, and all those who respect the U.S. Senate should honor his memory.

Senator Byrd had his flaws and quirks, but he outgrew his prejudices and became a towering statesman. He steadfastly defended the Senate and its institutional role and responsibilities under the Constitution. While he supported Senate traditions like the filibuster -- as a guarantor of the rights of the parliamentary minority -- he also helped the Senate craft rules and precedents that prevented even greater obstructionist tactics. He also was a consistent defender of congressional powers over war and peace.

He won repeated elections because he served and satisfied the people of West Virginia. He used his legislative positions to channel vast sums of federal money into his state -- a practice many criticize but few would fail to do, given the chance.

It's a shame that there are so few Senators today who understand and defend the institution of the Senate as well as he did.

bad-mouthing the boss

General Stanley McChrystal has been summoned to Washington to apologize in person for remarks he and his staff made to a reporter for Rolling Stone that are highly critical of several senior U.S. officials. It is shocking to see that the famously self-disciplined McChrystal has such an ill-disciplined staff.

I know that bureaucratic sub-units often build their own esprit de corps by complaining about their superiors -- and often the criticisms are quite valid. But to do so in wartime, in front of a reporter, risks undermining the military mission and perhaps costing lives. This is a serious offense.

As I read the quotes attributed to McChrystal, they seem more like tactical complaints and routine frustrations rather than fundamental opposition. But his staff felt free to make comments that cross the line into territory forbidden by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. One of the dysfunctions of military culture, especially in elite units like the special forces from which McChrystal and most of his staff come, is a tendency to disparage the will, the skill, and the patriotism of anyone outside their tight circle. That appears to be the case here.

President Obama would be fully justified in removing McChrystal from his post in order to assert proper civilian control over an unruly military contingent. There are, however, many other factors to consider, including the impact of such action on the war in Afghanistan. It's a shame we have this distraction from that most difficult campaign.

an explanation

Summertime, and the livin' is easy.
Fish are jumpin' and the blogging is slow.

-- with apologies to the Gershwins

generals in civilian posts

Yale's Bruce Ackerman makes a valuable point on civil-military relations in his piece in the Washington Post. While supporting the nomination of retired Lt. Gen. James Clapper as Director of National Intelligence, he notes that more and more long-serving military officers are now being put in key jobs traditionally reserved for civilians.

The constitutional principle of civilian control is losing its basis in sociological reality: Senior officers are talking to (retired) senior officers about high matters of policy on a regular basis -- and then forwarding their advice to more retired military men with privileged access to the Oval Office.

We owe our present situation more to drift than to design. When making individual appointments, presidents and Cabinet secretaries naturally focus on the abilities of particular candidates. It is easy to lose sight of the overall pattern of appointments. Yet it is precisely this pattern that puts the Founders' commitment to civilian control at risk.

That historic principal has been reasserted in many ways. The Constitution makes the president, not any senior general, "commander-in-chief." The 1947 law creating what is now the Defense Department requires that the Secretary of Defense be appointed "from civilian life." [A temporary change in the law was voted in 1950 to allow retired General George C. Marshall to take the post.] The only statutory position on the National Security Council staff, the staff secretary, is required to be a civilian. The law for the CIA used to require that at least one of the top two slots be a civilian.

These laws did not presume that military officers were unqualified for these positions, but rather that a civilian perspective and ultimately civilian ultimate control was necessary to preserve liberty. There were too many historical examples of generals on horseback becoming dictators. Our lawmakers also wanted to guard against an insular military elite that was separate from civilian life and concerns.

Of course, many senior officers are highly qualified for national security positions, and they should be assigned to those posts as conscious exceptions to the preferred pattern of civilian appointees. But the Senate and presidents should also monitor the pattern of military appointments and try to re-balance toward experienced civilians.

national security strategy

The White House today released the required presidential report on National Security Strategy. No, I haven't read it yet. [But here are some expert assessments by folks at CNAS.]

With prior reports, I used to ask students to read them, looking for anything they disagreed with. Few found contentious statements, since most of the wording is positive and anodyne. Who could be against "strength" and "promoting democracy"?

While I don't expect anything startling, I am pleased with the process that led to this product. Some friends involved in that review and comment process report that there was good back-and-forth. And that's the real value of such reports. They force interagency dialogue on key issues and sometimes even get decisions on unresolved matters. That process is more valuable than the end product.

Congress has required this report since an amendment by Senator John Warner [R-Va.] to the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act. That far-sighted measure built on one I helped write in 1975 requiring State-Defense consultation on the annual military posture statement, which has always said a lot about foreign policy.

Regrettably, Congress has tended to pay little attention to their presidential reports, despite their importance within the Executive Branch. One of the reasons, I believe, is that no one is qualified to testify on the document as a whole except the president himself, and his national security adviser, who is not allowed to testify. I think this deficiency should be resolved by making the NSC staff director's position confirmable by the Senate -- but that's another controversy.

the team

A lot of the "who's up? who's down?" reporting on administration officials is just gossip. It's fun for us outsiders to read, but not necessarily reliable. Nevertheless, sometimes these stories have nuggets of fact that help to confirm their theses.

Last March the Financial Times ran an excellent piece describing the Obama National Security Council and revealed that the Deputies Committee, the #2's in each department, met 270 times in the first year, which would work out to once almost every single weekday. I still believe the number, and conclude that the NSC process was very active under Obama and General Jones.

That same article made the point that Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton had developed a "strong working relationship" that helped them in dealing with their colleagues. A new article in Politico makes the same point, and cites a congressman as saying that they present a united front and speak "seamlessly and ... on the same page" in joint closed door briefings on the Hill. This, of course, is a sharp and welcome contrast with several previous administrations.

Instead of psychological explanations for why the two cabinet officers work together so well, just remember that it is in each one's interest to do so. Their alliance and cooperation enables each to accomplish more of what they want to achieve.

evocative memoir

If I ever write my own memoir, I hope I can begin to approach the style of Tony Judt, a distinguished historian of Europe, now wasting away with ALS. In a series of short essays in the New York Review of Books, he has told stories of his childhood in England and his astonishment when visiting, and eventually living in America. Read them, for their humor, their insights, and their evocative impact. I don't know whether or when there will be a published volume, but I would buy it in an instant.

Few of his writings are outside the NYRB subscription firewall, but one that is describes life in postwar Britain, a period of great austerity.

"After the war everything was in short supply. Churchill had mortgaged Great Britain and bankrupted the Treasury in order to defeat Hitler. Clothes were rationed until 1949, cheap and simple “utility furniture” until 1952, food until 1954. The rules were briefly suspended for the coronation of Elizabeth, in June 1953: everyone was allowed one extra pound of sugar and four ounces of margarine. But this exercise in supererogatory generosity served only to underscore the dreary regime of daily life."

As a Fulbright scholar in London in the 1960s, I remember puzzling over my colleagues' obsession with chocolate bars -- until I learned that chocolate had been rationed until 1951, making it the denied indulgence which they could at last enjoy without restraint.

Judt goes on to make a point quite relevant to America's I agree.economic circumstances.

"We have substituted endless commerce for public purpose, and expect no higher aspirations from our leaders. Sixty years after Churchill could offer only “blood, toil, tears and sweat,” our very own war president—notwithstanding the hyperventilated moralism of his rhetoric—could think of nothing more to ask of us in the wake of September 11, 2001, than to continue shopping. This impoverished view of community—the “togetherness” of consumption—is all we deserve from those who now govern us. If we want better rulers, we must learn to ask more from them and less for ourselves. A little austerity might be in order."

I agree.