The dangers of a politically rudderless Pentagon

MY PIECE IN THE TIMES TODAY: The Pentagon has three million people under its charge yet is in an unprecedented state of flux as President Trump subverts its established leadership norms. With the departure of Patrick Shanahan, who quit this week as acting secretary of defence for family reasons, there is concern about the level of disorder at the top of the world’s most powerful military command and its waning influence in the White House. Since the departure of General Jim Mattis, Mr Shanahan’s predecessor and a revered Marine Corps “warrior”, leadership of the Pentagon has been in the hands of a man who, while seemingly favoured by Mr Trump, was never officially moved into the top seat. Patrick Shanahan was seen as a makeweight and was criticised for simply doing the White House’s bidding. Although the Pentagon functions militarily, it has effectively been politically rudderless during Mr Shanahan’s “acting” tenure. The Pentagon is supposed to have a civilian head but General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and Mr Trump’s main military adviser, has been a more prominent influence with regard to critical international security challenges than his supposed political master. This is unchartered territory because national security issues are always discussed by the president and a triumvirate of the secretary of defence, the secretary of state and the national security adviser as the key figures in his administration. Mr Shanahan, 56, who had spent 30 years as a Boeing executive before being appointed deputy secretary of defence in 2017 and then acting secretary, was widely seen as a makeweight and was criticised for simply doing the White House’s bidding: for example, sending troops to the Mexico border and assigning defence budget funding for Mr Trump’s wall project, a move that many felt was more a political than a military necessity. For the generals and admirals, what matters is that the views of the service chiefs are properly reflected in White House decision-making. Until his falling out with Mr Trump and his departure in December, many regarded General Mattis as an ideal defence secretary. Mr Shanahan failed to fill his shoes, partly because of doubts over whether he would ever be appointed as his permanent replacement. The defence secretary, not the joint chiefs, has the responsibility of weighing up all the arguments before presenting his options to a president seeking advice on potential action overseas. The absence of a strong secretary is especially acute given the rising tensions with Iran in the Gulf. Mr Shanahan never seemed confident in expressing his own views in public on big issues, so, according to one former military adviser, the generals and admirals have had to step in and “run” the Pentagon in the absence of strong civilian leadership. The relationship between the president and the secretary of defence, and the bond the Pentagon chief develops with the rest of the national security team, including the secretary of state, the national security adviser and the director of the CIA, are crucial for White House decision-making. Mr Shanahan, as a perceived “caretaker”, was always at a disadvantage in building those ties. Previous secretaries of defence, notably General Mattis, Leon Panetta and Robert Gates in recent times, have had their battles with the White House. All had sufficient gravitas, both as individual characters and with Congress, to ensure that their views were heard and taken into account. There have only been two other acting defence secretaries in the 71 years since the post was created: William Taft in 1989 and William Clements in the 1970s. Each had to serve for only a couple of months or so and, unlike Mr Shanahan, neither was waiting to be chosen for the top job. The Pentagon fears being politically sidelined on key issues such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia and China, leaving the way clear for others in the administration to shape policy. Although there is no doubt that Mr Trump makes up his own mind, with the Pentagon neutered politically, policy is being driven more tightly by Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, John Bolton, national security adviser, and their acolytes. This situation is unlikely to change until Mr Trump’s chosen replacement as acting defence secretary, Mark Esper, who has been a well-regarded civilian secretary of the army, is formally nominated and confirmed by the Senate as a permanent appointment. It is unclear when that might be. Mr Esper might not be a retired four-star US Marine Corps general with a storied military record like General Mattis, but he did serve as an infantry officer for ten years and fought with the 101st Airborne Division in the 1991 Gulf War. “I think, under the circumstances, Mark Esper will be as good an appointment as secretary of defence as one can expect from this administration,” a former senior US defence official said. “He has done an excellent job as secretary of the army, has a reasonably strong background with experience on the Hill [Congress], in the department of defence and with industry. He is a West Point [military academy] classmate of Secretary Pompeo’s and has good relations with him and has developed a strong relationship with General Mark Milley [army chief of staff], who will be the new chairman of the joint chiefs in the fall.” The former official warned: “The department of defence always carries weight in US government internal deliberations but it is not a healthy situation to have the chairman of the joint chiefs carrying that burden alone.” Mr Trump is comfortable in the company of the military. He likes their “can do” approach. The military appreciate Mr Trump for his tough style of leadership. However, many believe that having a weak or unquestioning secretary of defence serves neither their interests nor those of the president, let alone the reputation of the Pentagon in Washington and among America’s allies.