April 02, 2006

Next at the DOD: Warner? Coats? Armitage?

Could Rumsfeld actually be pushed out of office once Josh Bolten takes over as White House Chief of Staff? I'll believe it when I see it, but it strikes me as considerably more likely now than at any time in the last year or two. If he does go, Warner and Armitage would seem surprisingly competent relplacements. Neither one would likely raise much of a fight on the Hill, and both would likely lift morale in the department. However, given Armitage's ties to Secretary Powell and Warner's age (he's older than Rumsfeld) I wouldn't bet on either being selected. Still if Warner did get the nod, John McCain would become chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee - and how that would or wouldn't affect the 2008 race could be worth watching.

Posted by armand at April 2, 2006 11:11 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics


Comments

It's nice to speculate, but I'm suspicious. Rumsfeld is so much a figure of this war that I'm not sure that you can get rid of him without taking a huge hit in terms of making Bush (and the war strategy) look like an idiot.

Even if he goes, who would be willing to take Defense at a time like this? Anyone who took it would inheret a massively difficult war (or two, if you count Afghanistan; or three, if you count the war on terror), and a fairly short time (the longest tenure any new SecDef could have would be until January 2009, less than three years) to do it. I think it would be a difficult position to fill.

Posted by: baltar at April 2, 2006 03:23 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I'm with on the this not being super-likely to happen, but it seems to me that it's precisely b/c there are 2 or 3 wars going on that a lot of people would be willing to head DOD now. They'd see it as their duty to fix the mess the country is under - a mess that Rumsfeld's "leadership" has made much more difficult.

Posted by: Armand at April 2, 2006 03:29 PM | PERMALINK

Not necessarily disagreeing with that, just noting that SecDef might turn into a disaster of a position if things continue to deteriorate. Moreover, given this President's committment to "stay the course", how much manuver room will the next SecDef have? This Prez keeps things very close to the vest, and those in his admin (most significantly Powell) who are not in his inner-circle have almost no influence. If Bush appoints Armitage (tainted b/c of his association with Powell) or Warner (tainted b/c of his ambitions and lack of connections to Bush), the new SecDef isn't going to have any friends in the White House (and precious few in the Pentagon, unless you take a broom and push all the Rumsfeld/NeoCon crowd out with Rumsfeld). That's a recipe for failing to get a new SecDef. Did you see today's NYT story on how difficult it has been to get a new head for FEMA? The admin has asked seven people to head FEMA and all have refused. All of them cite various concerns that seem to boil down to "they don't care about it, and it has no resources". I can imagine a search for SecDef going much the same way. DOD has resources, but will the new SecDef have any influence over how they are used?

Posted by: baltar at April 2, 2006 04:18 PM | PERMALINK

Well, the SecDef has more resources than anyone else in the security/fopo side of government - and Rummy has been given a very long leash. Bush requires a few things, sure, but the current SecDef has a lot of room to maneuver (or did have that). Bush isn't exactly a micro-manager. Hell, he's probably too uninterested in reading reports to really be sure his orders are being followed, even if he gives orders.

And I'd expect that any replacement would clean house. Feith's gone already - I'd think Cambone would have to go too.

But your point alluding to Bush's extreme insecurity is a good one. It's tough to figure who he'd appoint. Warner makes more sense the more I think about it. Hasn't fought the administration. Is in his late 70's (one of the last 4 WWII vets in the Senate) so he'd have no agenda/ambitions of his own. Easily confirmed without much fuss. But picking outside the inner circle would be very uncharacteristic of the president. So unless Bolten has influence and really starts staff shake-ups - well, if that doesn't happen, Rummy will probably stick around.

Posted by: Armand at April 2, 2006 05:49 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, that was sort of my point: the SecDef position has a great deal of authority (probably the #2 position in the government, given the wars were in; excepting the VicePrez position, which is the actual #2 because Bush listens to Cheney more than anybody), and Bush won't put somebody in that position that he can't have complete faith in: he can ignore State if he so chooses (see: Powell), but he can't ignore DoD these days.

Warner is good (no ambitions), but not in the circle. Thus, a less likely appointment by Bush. Who else would be acceptable to Bush, and would accept the job?

Posted by: baltar at April 2, 2006 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I guess we're both saying that the likely thing is that Rumsfeld stays. But if not - the post I first linked to said that the president personally likes Armitage - so maybe he's really a possibility. I don't know that anyone currently in the DOD is likely to get named except mayb Erice Edelman, who's pretty new to his post. Naming a current leader there could make the confirmation process more sticky. What about our ambassador to Iraq? The president seems to like him.

Oh, and is this where I insert a Lieberman joke?

Posted by: Armand at April 3, 2006 10:39 AM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?