Chuck Hegal v The White House

For John, BLUF:  If you can' trust your subordinates, you need new subordinates, but if you never trust any of them you might need to look in a new location for the problem.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Fortuna's Corner we have "Why Former Pentagon Chief Chuck Hagel’s Coming Out Against The White House Matters".

Here is the lede:

When Chuck Hagel resigned as defense secretary last year, the narrative was clear: President Obama and he did not see eye-to-eye on how to prosecute the war against the Islamic State, so Hagel needed to go. White House officials, speaking anonymously, said at the time that the president had lost faith in Hagel’s ability to lead – a charge that Hagel’s advisers brushed aside.

The article ends with these two paragraphs:

Hagel, for his part, told Foreign Policy that he got “the hell beat out of him” figuratively at the White House for delaying in signing transfer orders to release detainees from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, when he had concerns about the individuals involved. He also said he felt micro-managed – something that Gates, Panetta and other defense officials have all expressed. 

“There is a danger in all of this,” Hagel told Foreign Policy, referring to White House micromanagement and the administration’s expanding national security staff. “This is about governance; this isn’t about political optics. It’s about making the country run and function, and trying to stay ahead of the dangers and the threats you see coming.”

The thing about micromanagement is that it suggests a lack of confidence and also suggests an over-centralization.  Micromanagement works well when one is dealing with a single crisis.  But, if there are several crises running concurrently, something is going to be missed or messed up.

  

Hat tip to the blog Fortuna's Corner.

Regards  —  Cliff