STEVE PIECZENIK TALKS

Three Secretaries of Defense Resigned/Fired on Obama’s Watch !
Now is the time to redefine what a 21st Century Secretary of Defense should be in this changing world.  As you many of you know by now, I will often take a bad situation in our National Security and try to make something constructive out of it or at least, reformulate a new understanding of the problem at hand. America requires a military leader that is competent, powerful and understands that we are operating in a new age but who also can advantage the lessons of the past. Yet we have been witnessing an assortment of good men performing poorly or not at all in overseeing a military of close to 2.2 million personnel.

Now I will redefine the role of a 21st Century Secretary of Defense who must address the protean issues confronting our forces all over the world including: terrorism in general; ISIS in Iraq/Syria; Russia/Putin incursions;  Chinese naval/military expansion in the South China Sea/Indian Ocean;  Middle East nation-state implosions; cybersecurity; space warfare; naval warfare etc. Just enumerating the problems confronting the new Sec Defense is exhausting, if not debilitating. The multitude of these problems implies the notion that no one person is capable of dealing with all of these issues. In reality that may be true.

However, like a Medical Emergency Room, the Pentagon with its widespread military commitments is akin to the diversity of problems that we, doctors, have to treat on a seemingly ad hoc basis, 24/7. I am not suggesting that a physician become the new Sec Defense but the characteristics of an effective ER doctor might apply to the redefinition of what the new Sec Def might require in order to perform his/her job properly, if not magnificently.

This new Sec Def will have to possess the ability and experience to read the personalities and capabilities of the senior military leadership quickly.  No Sec Def had a better assessment of his personnel than George Marshal who dismissed over six hundred senior military personnel and appointed George Patton, [Colonel] Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, and the greatest narcissist of all, Douglas MacArthur, to key positions for implementing a two war strategy. I am not advocating a complete house cleaning because that would serve no purpose, other than instilling massive fear into an already disfunctional system. What I am advocating for is a candidate who has been tutored and experienced in working with a myriad of military personnel in a smorgasbord of combat scenarios from counter-terrorism to cyber-warfare; naval containment of worldwide sea lanes; selective use of Special Forces [which would not open their collective mouths as the SEAL TEAMS have done]; space warfare; submarine warfare; and ‘Regime Change’.

Clearly this is quite a daunting task. Few of our past six Sec. Def. have been good at any of these let alone a multiple of these skills. None of them have been really trained specifically to deal with large groups of different personalities; and equally important, none of them, be they of either party, have experienced combat, let alone understand the dynamics of terrorism, counter insurgence or regime change.

Our current military has some unique qualities. It is now populated by the warrior/scholar which means that the intellectual demands of leadership are far more rigorous than in the past. There will be many challenges to decisions on strategy by underlings. The new Sec of Def must be ready to delineate plans in theoretical terms as well as providing references to past failures and successes.  After the Chairman of the JCS achieves a military consensus, it requires him/her to impose it on the White House and all other ancillary bodies of intelligence, logistics and implementation.

The new Sec Def must be able to pivot back and forth to address the different military strategies and tactics required by the specific regional conflict. What may work in Syria may not work in North Africa. Similarly, cyber warfare may not be appropriate to the penetration of groups like ISIS which may involve an incredible effort on behalf of all types of HUMINT from a variety of countries and esoteric sources.

Most likely, neither academia nor politics will provide this type of individual who is really a polymath of military/psychological/managerial talents rarely found in a political loyalist turned adversary [a la Panetta and Gates]. Our country has always discovered these unusual individuals at times of need. George Marshal was a quiet self-effacing southern military officer, trained at Virginia Military Institute [VMI] and not at West Point.

America needs to identify the Black Swans of International Foreign Security and can no longer rely on the outdated, outmoded military academies [West Point, Annapolis], think tanks [Brookings, Heritage, RAND];  nor non-governmental institutions like the dormant Council On Foreign Relations. New times require new types of leaders who have been versed in all matter of war and its consequences.

Our new Sec Def must first listen, learn and then decide. Then he/she must execute a strategy or different strategies; articulate the Rules of Engagement [ROE]; and most importantly, know how to terminate the conflict and leave without any residue of regret or resurgence of the initial problem. It’s a formidable task for someone that must have unusual skills. The least of which is the need to inject his/her narcissism into the front pages of our newspapers; nor the sadistic need to brow-beat our senior officers into submission of military plan that would never work.

Times are a changing. Now it’s time for a new type of American leader –be it in war, or in peace. For the reality is that war and peace are truly inseparable. In times of turbulence, our Black Swans have often arisen in the past, into the maelstroms of our discontent, and have been able to allay our greatest fears, seamlessly.

Interestingly enough, General George Marshall, later Secretary of State, never wrote of his exploits as the most successful Sec Def. in the history of our country. Modesty and competency are extremely rare virtues in our modern times.

The less the medical doctor explains the complicated procedure of healing the sick patient, the more successful will be the outcome. Titrate expectations! Under promise and over deliver. Can we do that in the 21st Century?