Busy day
Thursday, March 26, 2009 at 10:18AM Got up 0645, suited up, grabbed some joe, and did AV check in ballroom where big Raytheon event held. Then checked bag, grabbed big latte with extra shot, and got psyched. About 30 later I go 55 mins on brief and about 15 Q&A. When I'm done, it's exactly 1000, when hearing slated to start.
I have host check my Mac bag with valet, along with speaker's gift (my world-record collection of crystal world globes grows yet again), and I grab taxi to Rayburn.
Staffer waits with sign and I bypass long security line.
Into cavernous and historic House Armed Services committee room. I take seat in middle of witness table (assigned seat) while retired admiral Bill Houley is reading his statement. Loren Thompson and Ron O'Rourke already there. I sit between the admiral and O'Rourke. I've known Ron professionally for almost 20 years and we like each other. Ron is gloriously sensible. He smiles and we shake. I had no expectation of being recognized by the admiral. I didn't like him much during "From the Sea ..." and he always seemed to return the favor. I don't know Loren Thompson and have no desire to. I don't typically get along with such flexible, inside-the-Beltway creatures.
I get glasses out and sit ready to go through my remarks (short version of statement). I am next. Chairman Taylor says I can go longer than five. I go about six minutes.
Then the other two speak.
Questions from members are extremely specific to their pet causes. I considered that exchange largely to be a showy waste of time.
Only sparks: I raise issue of Navy needing to accept more tactical risk if they want to influence events ashore more, referencing LCS. I get a small lecture about "sons and daughters" from Taylor. I refrain from mentioning my family members now in Iraq, considering that a counter-grandstanding move better avoided.
Instead, I counter with logic of Army-Marine COIN: you accept more risk when you get closer in--plain and simple. The Navy has already perfected its force structure in terms of largely rendering itself casualty-free and irrelevant to the long war, so it's just a question of "whose sons and daughters" bear the brunt.
Taylor thanks me for a response he clearly had no expectation of triggering.
Then Thompson, who panders with a grace bordering on the sublime (decrying costs in aggregate but praising individual systems and platforms), gets pissed when I downplay the intell capture argument offered by Seawolf sub proponents (Oh, to need $2.2B stealthy platforms to spy off Syria's coast! His example, not mine). He laments that it's too bad that the American public can't truly know how value such collection is! This is the classic insider put down: If only you knew the secrets I know! Then you'd not dare to question my porkish logic!
Maybe, Thompson suggests snarkily, Barnett wants to get rid of all spy satellites simply because they're secret!
I feel like I'm arguing with a child now. But the stage demands actors, and Thompson is well practiced in feigned exasperation!
I counter that the real choice is whether or not the super-expensive sub is the most appropriate route to go on intell collection versus other, less expensive choices.
Then Thompson gets truly silly. The future is totally unknowable, he cries. He says that if somebody told him ten years ago that we'd be fighting a land war in Asia, it would have been beyond his imagination!
Hmmm, I guess that tells you all you need to know about Thompson's strategic imagination.
His real point now driven home with--again--practiced indignation: America's military must be able to handle all threats from all actors in all places at all times. This is his definition of strategic thinking.
Your tax dollars at work, my friends.
I consider Thompson's tripe to be the complete absence of strategic thought, decision-making, leadership, and risk management. He epitomizes everything I ridiculed in "Pentagon's New Map." If you want to know why our military--large chunks, that is--refuses to adjust to reality, Thompson's mindset it Exhibit A.
To defend against all threats is to defend against none--Sun Tzu 101.
But clearly, when you career revolves around maintaining your access to powerful people, you say what you know will ensure your continued "relevance."
Me? I couldn't give a f--k if I was never invited to testify again. I lack the discipline to mince my words and find the kabuki-style theater unsettlingly unrelated to useful decision-making. Other than providing Members with appropriate outrage opportunities, you're just there to fill in the scenery and the script.
No sense in disturbing the "unknowable future." Better to fill that vast void with every expensive platform we can dream up and call it a "strategy."
(Insert fingers down throat for clarity.)
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln loved the play.
Gave impromptu interview to defense beat reporter in hallway after hearing.
Then home to do Hewitt taping tonight.
But I doth protest too much.
It was very cool to sit at the table facing the gallery of seats, with the giant paintings of former chairmen on the walls.
I shouldn't let Thompson's industrial-strength shilling sour me on the whole thing.
Reader Comments (7)
Representative governments don't seem useful when they just represent their voters' childish tantrums. And that TV will be seen around the world given the new IT mediums available to public.
Yeah, you're a lot too straightforward and honest for the DC crowd. Not tactless, but appropriately irreverent in the presence of self-perceived greatness by status and position. Congrats on keeping your cool and making your points at the same time. The written testimony is excellent, but still no substitute for your direct contact with the "people" with your columns and books and blog.
I cannot truly judge because I wasn't there but your description of the event was wickedly funny and had me laughing over my red wine and chocolate.
Cordially,
I just read your Great Powers book and found myself agreeing with most all of your anlysis; and, this testimonial experience you describe here makes me believe legislators do not share the same view. Moreover, your contension of not caring about future testimony leads me to ask how we can begin to implement your strategy when those in power refuse to understand.
In other words, haveing a cogent practical strategy that might actually make the world more comfortable does not seem to be enough to get people to put it into practice, so how do we convey this concept and produce action?
Henry Clay, Lincoln and a handful of other stalwart souls who also spoke their minds in those hallowed rooms, would be proud of the way your simple truths rang out with clarity.
It looks different sitting in the room. Dr. Thompson and Dr. Barnett were both intentionally put in that situation to create the kind of arguments that unfolded. Note, this was an important day, Dr. Thompson and even Gene Taylor were challenging the strategic view Tom presented with a tactical counter.
Because that point was not missed on the larger audience, I think the exercise was both important, and useful.
Thanks for sharing!