Cutting Cost Centers

Begin With Budget Cuts to Military
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, January 25, 2023, p. A6
Republican Grover Norquist thought government should shrink enough he could drown it in a bathtub.

The current House seems to share that goal. Where should they begin?

Peter Drucker was called the founder of modern management. American and Japanese businesses owe him big time for his proposed reforms. One was the concept of cost centers, tackle the big stuff.

So what’s the largest cost center? That’s easy. Military appropriations.

We want to protect our people and borders. There are good reasons for having a military. The question is: how much?

The administration’s request for $733 billion is more than the defense spending of the next nine nations combined! Might that be figurative and literal overkill? [Photo credit: U.S. Strategic Command; the ultimate cost of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, R&D and construction, was $17.5 billion. See "SOURCES," below.]

We have 750 bases in 80 countries. Programs and operations are so vast few if any know how much money went where or what happened to it. Accountants say it’s simply impossible to audit the military.

As the House’s own website reports, “the founders felt that war should be difficult to enter.” They believed giving the House sole constitutional power “to declare war” would increase that difficulty. Members would be paying the price financially and with their children.

Today? Not so much. There’s no draft. Congress can be generous — $64 billion for Lockheed, $42 billion for Raytheon. In return, defense contractors are generous campaign donors. This year Congress boosted its generosity with $58 billion more than the $773 billion requested.

Defense spending is designed to keep things from happening outside our borders. Civilians don’t use or even touch the weapons.

Domestic spending makes things happen inside our borders. The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of government is to secure our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. These rights not only increase our quality of life with things we can touch and use — education, food, health care, housing, and highways -- they improve our economy.

What’s worse, there’s evidence our defense spending is not doing us that much good.

As Abraham Maslow wrote, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.” How’s that hammer been working for us in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere?

China isn’t perfect. Maybe we aren’t either. But China is helping build other countries’ infrastructure, economic growth — and China’s access to their resources. The U.S. showcasing “my military is bigger than yours” may create more wartime allies — and wars — but few true friends.

Some of America’s “best and brightest” are at the top of the military. They know the human costs of war. They approach it with the analytical rigor of the Powell Doctrine. (Questions like: “What non-military strategies might be better? What’s our exit strategy? Why will conditions become, and stay, better after we leave?”)

We pride ourselves on “civilian control of the military.” There are times when we might have been better off with military control of the civilians.

Defense appropriations. The best place to start cutting cost centers.

Nicholas Johnson, when U.S. Maritime Administrator, had some responsibility for military sealift during the Vietnam War. mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES Grover Norquist. “Grover Norquist,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist (“Norquist favors dramatically reducing the size of government.[12] He has been noted for his widely quoted quip from a 2001 interview with NPR's Morning Edition: "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."[55][56]”)

Cost Centers/Peter Drucker. Peter Drucker, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Drucker ("the founder of modern management." [2] [ Denning, Steve (August 29, 2014). "The Best Of Peter Drucker". Forbes.] . . . "The fact is," Drucker wrote in his 1973 Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, "that in modern society there is no other leadership group but managers. If the managers of our major institutions, and especially of business, do not take responsibility for the common good, no one else can or will."[25])

Troy Segal, “Profit Center: Characteristics vs. a Cost Center, With Examples,” Investopedia, Dec. 07, 2020, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/profitcentre.asp ("Peter Drucker coined the term "profit center" in 1945.")

Sayantan Mukhopadhyay, "Cost Center vs Profit Center," WallStreetMojo, https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/cost-center-vs-profit-center/ ("Cost Center is that department within the organization responsible for identifying and maintaining the organization’s cost as low as possible by analyzing the processes and making necessary changes in the company. . . . Management guru, Peter Drucker first coined the term “profit center” in 1945. After a few years, Peter Drucker corrected himself by saying that there are no profit centers in business, and that was his biggest mistake. He then said that there are only cost centers in a business and no profit center. If any profit center existed for a business, that would be a customer’s check that hadn’t been bounced.")

The USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. Photo from Alexander Timewell, "Making History on USS Gerald R. Ford as Deployment Nears," U.S. Strategic Command, Oct. 4, 2022, https://www.stratcom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3179395/making-history-on-uss-gerald-r-ford-as-deployment-nears/ and see https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/04/2003090918/1920/1080/0/220413-N-OH637-1019.JPG
Cost: Fox Van Allen, "Meet the US Navy's new $13 billion aircraft carrier; The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is the most technologically advanced warship ever built," CNET, Dec. 10, 2019, https://www.cnet.com/pictures/meet-the-navys-new-13-billion-aircraft-carrier/null/ ("The Ford itself will cost US taxpayers $12.8 billion in materials and labor. This doesn't take into account the $4.7 billion spent in research and development of the new carrier class." Total $17.5 billion)

Defense Appropriations. “U.S. Defense Spending Compared to Other Countries,” May 11, 2022, https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison (chart: “The United States spends more on defense than the next 9 countries combined” [$801 B vs. $777 B])

Bill Chappell, “The Pentagon Has Never Passed An Audit. Some Senators Want To Change That,” NPR, May 19, 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/997961646/the-pentagon-has-never-passed-an-audit-some-senators-want-to-change-that (“The Pentagon and the military industrial complex have been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud and financial mismanagement for decades. That is absolutely unacceptable," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who co-sponsored the bill with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, along with Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Mike Lee, R-Utah.

Despite having trillions of dollars in assets and receiving hundreds of billions in federal dollars annually, the department has never detailed its assets and liabilities in a given year. For the past three financial years, the Defense Department's audit has resulted in a "Disclaimer of Opinion," meaning the auditor didn't get enough accounting records to form an assessment. . . . But critics note that all federal agencies, including the Pentagon, have been under the same requirement to undergo an independent financial audit since the early 1990s. Every other federal department has satisfied audit requirements since fiscal 2013, when the Department of Homeland Security had its first clean audit.”)

“FY23 Defense Budget Breakdown; Army, Air Force, and Navy-Marine Corps budget and contracting priorities,” Bloomberg Government, https://about.bgov.com/defense-budget-breakdown/#:~:text=2022%2D2023%20Defense%20budget%20breakdown&text=The%20request%20for%20the%20fiscal,appropriation%20for%20this%20fiscal%20year (“President Joe Biden’s proposed $773 billion budget for the Defense Department . . .. ‘Yearly U.S. Defense spending on contractors; Total defense spending on contractors in the past five years,’ 2021 – $408.8 Billion, 2020 – $448.9 Billion”)

John M. Donnelly, “Pentagon: Hill added $58 billion to current defense budget; Additions included money for disasters, war in Ukraine, ships and more,” Roll Call, July 14, 2022, https://rollcall.com/2022/07/14/pentagon-hill-added-58-billion-to-current-defense-budget/ (“Defense Department appropriations legislation for the current fiscal year funded more than $58 billion worth of military projects that the administration did not request, according to a first-of-its-kind Pentagon report.”)

“Defense Primer: Department of Defense Contractors,” Congressional Reference Service, Dec. 19, 2018, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10600/4#:~:text=As%20of%20October%202018%2C%20USCENTCOM,Afghanistan%2C%20Syria%2C%20and%20Iraq. “List of Defense Contractors,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_contractors

“Military-Industrial Complex,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex

“GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND STATISTICS IN THE US,” Zippia, https://www.zippia.com/government-contractor-jobs/demographics/ (“How Many Government Contractor Are There In The Us? There are over 5,138 Government Contractors in the United States.”)

Military bases. Doug Bandow, “750 Bases in 80 Countries Is Too Many for Any Nation: Time for the US to Bring Its Troops Home, CATO Institute, Oct. 4, 2021, https://www.cato.org/commentary/750-bases-80-countries-too-many-any-nation-time-us-bring-its-troops-home (“some 750 American military facilities remain open in 80 nations and territories around the world. No other country in human history has had such a dominant presence. . . . Washington has nearly three times as many bases as embassies and consulates. America also has three times as many installations as all other countries combined. . . . “These bases are costly in a number of ways: financially, politically, socially, and environmentally. US bases in foreign lands often raise geopolitical tensions, support undemocratic regimes, and serve as a recruiting tool for militant groups opposed to the US presence and the governments its presence bolsters. In other cases, foreign bases are being used and have made it easier for the United States to launch and execute disastrous wars, including those in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya.”)

Top Defense Contractors. “Top 100 Defense Companies for 2022,” Defense News, https://people.defensenews.com/top-100/ (Top 5 with Defense Revenue in billions: Lockheed Martin ($64.4), Raytheon Technologies ($42), Boeing ($35), Northrop Grumman ($31.4), General Dynamics ($31))

Founders’ intentions. U.S. House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives, “Power to Declare War,” https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/ (“Like many powers articulated in the U.S. Constitution, Congress’ authority to declare war was revolutionary in its design, and a clear break from the past when a handful of European monarchs controlled the continent’s affairs. . . . Like George Mason of Virginia, the founders felt that war should be difficult to enter, and they expected congressional debate to restrain the war-making process. . . . For the Members, to declare war against a foreign power is to send their constituents, their neighbors, their family, and even themselves into harm’s way.”)

Constitutional provisions. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” —U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 1

“The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; “To provide and maintain a Navy; “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress” —U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, clauses 11–16

Declaration of Independence. National Archives, Milestone Documents, “Declaration of Independence (1776),” https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/declaration-of-independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .”)

Our hammer. “Law of the Instrument,” Wikipedia.org (“The law of the instrument, law of the hammer,[1] Maslow's hammer (or gavel), or golden hammer[a] is a cognitive bias that involves an over-reliance on a familiar tool. Abraham Maslow wrote in 1966, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail."[2])

The Powell Doctrine. Nicholas Johnson, “The Powell Doctrine” in “Afghanistan: Our Unaffordable War to Nowhere,” FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com, Aug. 29, 2017, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2017/08/afghanistan-our-unaffordable-war-to.html#powell

“Powell Doctrine,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine (“The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States: Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have a clear attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Is the action supported by the American people? Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]”)

Eisenhower’s Military-Industrial Complex. National Archives, Milestone Documents, President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address (1961), Transcript, Jan. 17, 1961, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address (“America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment. . . . there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. . . . only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. . . . this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. . . . [The conference] table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield. . . . Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. . . . To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing inspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.”)

Speech writer Malcolm Moos. “Malcolm Moos,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Moos (“Moos joined President Eisenhower's staff as a special assistant in 1957 and became his chief speech writer in 1958. Among the many speeches Moos wrote for President Eisenhower, he wrote Eisenhower's valedictory speech which warned of the influence of the military-industrial complex in 1961.[3]”)

# # #

Who Let the Dogs Out?

Tell Me: Who Let the Dogs of War Out?

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, August 26, 2018, p. D3
Most Americans and their elected representatives take “ain’t going to study war no more” to heart. They’re neither studying nor upset by war.

Put aside the inability to rationalize continuous wars of choice, personnel in 150 countries, the human slaughter and misery, devastated cities, death and lifelong injury to our troops. Just “follow the money.” When military-related costs exceed a trillion dollars a year, and are put on our grandchildren’s credit card, maybe it’s time to get back to studying war. [Photo credit: By DVIDSHUB - Operation Unified Response - CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22430525]

Conservatives care about constitutional “original intent.” Liberals care about sacrificed infrastructure, education, healthcare and other needs. Both should care why the founders gave Congress power “to declare war.”

The founders knew burdens of wars fall heaviest upon the people, those who fight and pay for wars. They explicitly rejected giving a president the unchecked power to start wars claimed by kings. They wanted the branch most responsive to the people to declare war. [Photo credit: Foreign Policy, WAKIL KOHSAR/AFP/Getty Images]

As the Constitutional Convention Record reports, “Mr. [George] Mason … was for clogging rather than facilitating war.” James Madison later contributed, “No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Pay-as-you-go war meant increased taxes. World War II rationing meant little or no gas and tires for cars or bubblegum for kids. The draft impacted even small towns during the Viet Nam war. Without the draft we might still be there. [Photo credit: Ames Historical Society]

Not only was there no rationing during post-9/11 wars, our president told us to “go shopping.” No burden of increased war taxes. No young marching protesters, fearful of being drafted. Sacrifice fell only upon those 0.4 percent of Americans fighting the wars.

After 9/11, given the lack of public protest the founders forecast, Congress became more complacent and compliant about executive encroachment on Congress’ war powers.

(1) In 1961 President Dwight Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex. Its grip only tightened as legislators became ever more entangled with their districts’ military bases and generous weapons manufacturers.

(2) For-profit private prisons create political support for longer sentences. Similarly, political support for longer wars results when for-profit contractors’ battlefield employees outnumber the military.

(3) The old Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines have competitors. The CIA, once an intelligence agency, now has its own military arm. Both CIA and Special Operations, like Delta Force or SEAL Team 6, are outside the conventional chain of command and thorough congressional oversight.

These factors contribute to President Donald Trump’s signing a $717 billion Defense Department authorization bill. Like the banks’ insistence they are “too big to fail,” the DOD is “too big to audit.” Trillions can’t be traced. Add $200 billion for Department of Veterans Affairs, war’s share of $300 billion yearly interest on the national debt, billions for Department of Energy’s nukes, other military-related expenses and the total’s well over a trillion dollars.

Whose fault is this?

Those who wrote the Constitution assumed “we the people” – not the president, Congress, or judges – would tightly leash and not let slip the dogs of war. In response to the people’s sacrifice, their paying the human and financial costs of war, they would speak up, protest, organize and otherwise clog the path to war.

War hawks and weapons makers understand they must eliminate war’s impact on we the people if they are to continue their profits from perpetual war.

However, they have not eliminated our founders’ hope, nor our responsibility to honor their hope that we will fulfill our responsibility to resist.

As Edward R. Murrow closed his documentary about Senator Joseph McCarthy, “We cannot escape responsibility for the result. … Cassius was right. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.”
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, as U.S. Maritime Administrator, was involved with military sealift to Vietnam. www.nicholasjohnson.org Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

Columns of Democracy (2018)
For those interested in more on this topic and others, Nicholas Johnson's latest book, Columns of Democracy (2018), is now available from Amazon, https://tinyurl.com/yama2h3b (scroll to "Books by Nicholas Johnson," click on "Paperback," for "Sort by" select "Publication Date"), Barnes & Noble, https://tinyurl.com/ybjwxuuh (scroll down), Lulu Press, https://tinyurl.com/yd8g47de, and all Iowa City bookstores requesting copies from the author, mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org.

Does Trump Really Want a Chief of Staff?

Updates: August 4, 2017. Glenn Thrush, Michael D. Shear and Eileen Sullivan, "John Kelly Quickly Moves to Impose Military Discipline on White House," New York Times, August 4, 2017, p. A1 ("Among Mr. Kelly's immediate challenges: brokering peace between warring factions in the West Wing; plugging leaks about internal activities; establishing a disciplined policy-making process; and walling off the Rusia investigation. . . . On Capitol Hill, Mr. Kelly is viewed with a mix of admiration for his long military service and disappointment that he has been too willing to embrace and defend Mr. Trump's more controversial policies, especially on illegal immigration."

Leon Panetta, "How John Kelly Can Fix the White House," Washington Post, August 4, 2017 ("The elements critical to improving White House operations are pretty basic: 1. Trust. . . . 2. One chief. . . . 3. A clear chain of command. . . . 4. An orderly policy-development process. . . . 5. Telling the president the truth. . . ..")

August 5, 2017. Although I almost never bring my own (now grown) children into these blog posts, reason for exception has come to my attention. My eldest son caught a line in the post below that encouraged him to involve two of the others as well. If you're curious as to what all of this is about, go down to HERE.

August 7, 2017. Jennifer Rubin, "Kelly Can't Fix Trump's Biggest Problems," Washington Post, August 7, 2017 (which concludes, "In sum, Kelly can improve White House discipline but until he is empowered to can Bannon, prompt the president to replace incompetent secretaries and senior advisers with seasoned hands, instill an atmosphere where truth and integrity are paramount and get past the scrutiny of the special counsel, his changes will be limited and wholly insufficient.")

Contents
Military
General John Kelly
Militarization
Chief of Staff
Executive Office of the President

_______________
It has not been, as Garrison Keillor would say, "A quiet week in Lake Wobegon." Indeed, as Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker described it, "Donald Trump has had . . . his worst week since the last one." [Kathleen Parker, "President Donald Trump's Iceberg Looms," The Gazette, August 1, 2017, p. A5.]

Six months into his presidency, President Trump may have come to the realization a Chief of Staff might be a useful addition to his White House.

Time will tell whether he really wants, and can work with one -- General John Kelly.

The Military Frankly, I think the very best people in our military are among America's best and brightest. Those I'm thinking of are experienced, disciplined, thoughtful professionals, schooled in much more than military history, organization, and operations.

Such as Napoleon's command and control (C2) organization: "Napoleon had an understanding of concepts in organizational design that would not be realized until they became areas of study in the twentieth century" -- an understanding of which is often relevant to some of General Kelly's challenges. [Norman L. Durham, "The Command and Control of the Grand Armee: Napoleon as Organizational Designer," Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, June 2009.]

They have the kind of comprehension of a broad liberal arts and sciences education that would make any college dean proud.

Rather than civilian restraint on the military, it is these military officers who restrain civilian leaders who believe "whatever is the problem, war is the answer." Their "Powell Doctrine" is analogous, for war, to a banker's insistence on a rational "business plan" for startups.

Here's one expression of the Powell Doctrine's checklist: "What’s the problem, or challenge? What’s our goal? Is it sufficiently important, clearly defined, and understood? Why will military force contribute to, rather than impede, its accomplishment? What possibly more effective non-military alternatives are there? What are the benefits and costs, gains and losses, risks and rewards? What will it require in troops, materiel, lives, and treasure? How long will it take? Are the American people and their congress supportive? How about the local population where we’ll be fighting? Do we know their language, culture, history, tribal and social structure? What are the metrics for evaluating if we’re “successful”? What, then, is our exit strategy? After we leave, will things be better than now, the same, or become progressively worse?" [Six Step Program for Avoiding War," November 11, 2014.]

General John Kelly appears to be such a military officer. At 67, he's enjoyed a 47-year upward trajectory through the military. In addition to a degree from the University of Massachusetts, he has attended the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, School for Advanced Warfare, National War College, and Army Infantry Officer Advanced Course. [Photo credit: Department of Defense.]

A Marine, he has served as an infantry company commander, on aircraft carriers, and in two tours leading troops in Iraq.

He has held chief-of-staff-type positions for the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and Secretary of Defense. He's had more legislative experience than most on Trump's team, including a four-year stint as Liaison Officer to the U.S. House of Representatives (1995-99) and three-years as Legislative Assistant to the Commandant (2004-07).

His last military assignment was Commander, US Southern Command (see description immediately below). When appointed Trump's Chief of Staff he was serving as Secretary, Department of Homeland Security. [For detail see, John F. Kelly, Former Commander, U.S. Southern Command" U.S. Department of Defense, Biographies.]

"The Commander in Chief of SOUTHCOM is responsible for all U.S. military activities on the landmasses of Central and South America, the island nations of the Caribbean, and the surrounding waters south of Mexico. . . . Brazil is larger than the continental United States; Peru is three times the size of California. There are 32 sovereign nations in this theater [with] social and political systems appropriate to its culture and circumstances. SOUTHCOM is a joint command comprised of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine elements. Headquarters SOUTHCOM . . . includes representatives from the Department of State, DEA, DIA, NSA, the Coast Guard, and Customs." US Southern Command

For balance, two points should be noted. (1) There's nothing to prepare someone for the White House Chief of Staff job. The responsibilities of a military officer with specific place and job description in a chain of command are of some but limited value. And a position as the single administrative head of a cabinet-level department also involves a relatively limited mission (even for the Department of Homeland Security, which has one of the greatest variety of agencies), and relatively broad range of personal authority. The position as Commander, Southern Command, probably comes closest, since it requires some knowledge, and ability to deal effectively with, the history, culture and politics of 32 nations while considering the politics of the Department of Defense, Congress, and the White House.

"Any chief of staff must find the tricky balance between serving the president and managing the building, between being an adviser and being a boss -- tasks all the more challenging in President Trump's faction-filled White House. . . . [The task most daunting is] imposing discipline on a president who evidently wants no part of it. . . . 'Whether it's General Kelly or Reince Priebus . . . the reason the White House is failing is not because of staff. It's because of the president himself. This is like rearranging deck chairs on a Titanic.' [Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif, on CNN.] [General Kelly's experience] 'in national security [is] a very different matter than someone who has to navigate all the crosscurrents of dealing with [domestic politics, Capitol Hill, and] dealing with a president who just can't throw his phone away and stop tweeting,' [John D. Podesta, former Pres. Clinton chief of staff, on ABC's "This Week].") [Peter Baker, "Sage Advice From the 'Gold Standard' of White House Chiefs of Staff," New York Times, July 31, 2017, p. A12.]

(2) There has been some concern about his handling of immigrants while Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. "On Capitol Hill, Mr. Kelly is viewed with a mix of admiration for his long military service and disappointment that he has been too willing to embrace and defend Mr. Trump's more controversial policies, especially on illegal immigration." [Glenn Thrush, Michael D. Shear and Eileen Sullivan, "John Kelly Quickly Moves to Impose Military Discipline on White House," New York Times, August 4, 2017, p. A1.] Thomas E. Ricks, "Are U.S. Immigration Centers the Next Abu Ghraib?", New York Times, 28 23 February 28, 2017, p. A23 -- made a little more chilling by the fact he was General Mattis' Deputy Commander in Iraq at the time of Abu Ghraib. See, "Getting Away With Torture? Command Responsibility for the U.S. Abuse of Detainees," Human Rights Watch Report, April 23, 2005.

Militarization Having praised General Kelly, there's an issue deserving of mention: the militarization of a civilian government. The founders of our nation were well versed in history, and the risks of giving too much power to the military. They placed the power to declare war in the Congress, not the president. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.11 (The Congress shall have power . . . To declare War . . ..).] They forbid the creation of a standing army, by granting Congress the power, "To raise and support Armies," while limiting Congress' ability to fund them "for a longer Term than two Years." [Article I, Section 8.12.] They provided that the president, not a general, "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States . . .." [U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2.1.]

As Democracy Now! has reported, "Trump Has Appointed More Generals in His Cabinet Than Any President Since World War II," Democracy Now, December 16, 2016. Notwithstanding the special concern about maintaining "civilian control of the military," President Trump even selected General James "Mad Dog" Mattis as his Secretary of the Defense Department. General H.R. McMaster, Trump's National Security Advisor, replaced another General, Michael Flynn. And now his Chief of Staff is General John Kelly.

That's not to say any of these appointments were illegal (so far as I know), but they are made more problematical by President Trump's seeming total delegation to the military the formulation and execution of military policy and missions. "President Trump has let the military know that the buck stops with them, not him. . . . [W]ith the new freedoms come new dangers for the military, including the potential of increased civilian casualties, and the possibility that Mr. Trump will shunt blame for things that go wrong to the Pentagon." [Helene Cooper, "Trump Gives Military New Freedom. But With That Comes Danger," New York Times, April 5, 2017.]

"Chief of Staff" is one of many titles sometimes assigned to an aide many executives find essential. There are more details and tasks than one person can manage. Hiring a team of assistants simply multiplies the number of persons to deal with -- and can create additional conflicts (either deliberate or unintended). A chief of staff can function as a communications funnel, and impose a management by exception reporting -- bringing to the executive only what is going exceptionally well or badly, and decisions they've agreed the executive must make.

The closest to a presidential "chief of staff," though without that title, began with President George Washington's "Private Secretary." Originally paid by the presidents, in 1857 Congress created a paid position for "Private Secretary at the White House." During the first half of the Twentieth Century there were titles like "Secretary to the President," "Appointments Secretary," "Press Secretary," and "Personal Secretary to the President."

President Dwight Eisenhower's principal secretary was designated "Chief of Staff" in 1961, and the position became a permanent fixture during the Nixon Administration.

How President Trump and Chief of Staff Kelly work together involves an apparent agreement regarding, among other things, controlling others' access to the Oval Office, and perhaps a more disciplined process for policy development than Trump's troublesome early morning tweets. The rest will evolve over time and occasionally come to our attention from media reports.

One of the most important functions I assigned my own "chief of staff" was what we called the "Dutch Uncle" role.

"A Dutch uncle is an informal term for a person who issues frank, harsh, or severe comments and criticism to educate, encourage, or admonish someone." ["Dutch Uncle," Wikipedia, which see for 16th Century history.]

I made it expressly clear that, not only would I tolerate criticism from my chief of staff, I demanded it. Anyone can occasionally drift into self-inflicted wounds, ill-considered ideas, insensitive behavior, or ineffective actions. Unless an executive makes clear a desire for independent judgment and criticism, the default, the presumption by staff members, will be that adoration and enthusiastic praise and agreement is what's desired.

President Trump would have been so much better off six months into his presidency had he been able to encourage someone to play that Dutch Uncle role for him. Whether he will accept it from General Kelly remains to be seen.

Trump's agreement, on Kelly's first day at work, to permit Kelly's firing of Anthony Scaramucci, is a positive sign.

One of the toughest challenges will be the children's currently unlimited access to the Oval Office. Ivanka Trump's tweet is troublesome: "Looking forward to serving alongside John Kelly as we work for the American people. General Kelly is a true American hero." Ivanka Trump Tweet, 31 July 2017, 12:00 PM. "Serving alongside"?

When I was in a position to do so, it never occurred to me to designate my own children as "advisers," have them apply for top secret clearances, and let them wander in and out of my office. But then, were I there now, it wouldn't occur to me to announce new policy through 140-character bursts in a Twitter account either. That Ivanka thinks her position in the organization chart is "alongside" the Chief of Staff may not end well.

There is much more that could (and has) been written about the potential tasks of a White House Chief of Staff.

"The duties of the White House chief of staff vary, yet traditionally encompass the following, such as: select and supervise key White House staff, control access to the Oval Office and the president, manage communications and information flow, and negotiate with Congress, executive branch agencies, and external political groups to implement the president’s agenda." [Rick Mathews, "White House Chief of Staff Isn't the Position You Think It Is," Mic Network Inc., January 24, 2013.]

Leon Panetta, "How John Kelly Can Fix the White House," Washington Post, August 4, 2017 ("The elements critical to improving White House operations are pretty basic: 1. Trust. . . . 2. One chief. . . . 3. A clear chain of command. . . . 4. An orderly policy-development process. . . . 5. Telling the president the truth. . . ..")

"In sum, Kelly can improve White House discipline but until he is empowered to can Bannon, prompt the president to replace incompetent secretaries and senior advisers with seasoned hands, instill an atmosphere where truth and integrity are paramount and get past the scrutiny of the special counsel, his changes will be limited and wholly insufficient."Jennifer Rubin, "Kelly Can't Fix Trump's Biggest Problems," Washington Post, August 7, 2017.

The White House, and its adjoining Executive Office of the President building staff, amount to a government within the government. Some of the most significant and powerful Executive Branch units are located here. The EOB has a budget of about $700 million, with a total payroll that usually runs between 2000 and 5000 personnel. (At 5000, that is larger than the population of 90% of Iowa's communities.) ["Size of the Executive Office of the President," The American Presidency Project.] This includes some 26 major units variously called "Office of," "Council of," and other titles (e.g., e.g., "Office of Management and Budget" and "Council of Economic Advisers"). [List at, "What Is the Role of the White House Chief of Staff," Education, Politics & Government, Dummies.com.]

For now, "Bow our heads and let us pray."

# # #

Having Fun With Dad: A Family Challenge to My Memory
My eldest son, Sherman, whom I can usually count on to ensure that at least one person besides the author reads my blog, discovered the following line in this blog post (questioning the wisdom of President Trump's using family members as advisers):

"When I was in a position to do so, it never occurred to me to designate my own children as 'advisers,' have them apply for top secret clearances, and let them wander in and out of my office."

He fired off the following email to two of his siblings:

Did you catch this quote?:

"When I was in a position to do so, it never occurred to me to designate my own children as "advisers," have them apply for top secret clearances, and let them wander in and out of my office."

It 'never even occurred to him'.

Petty cold, huh?

I for one, think we would have made fine advisors. For example, on policy:

1) Staff can stay up as late as they want.
2) Ice cream for breakfast!
3) Boring meetings must be limited to 20 minutes, followed by cartoons!
4) Field trips, and lots of 'em.
5) Stuffed animals in every office.
6) Bowls of candy
7) Everyone gets a new bike!

To which Gregory replied:

In the 1970s, when Dad was at the FCC, I was an advisor to him. I'd go to the office with him every day — or maybe it was just one visit, I don’t recall clearly — and anyway, he’d ask me for all kinds of advice.

“Gregory, what television frequency would you recommend?”

“Frequency? Ummm. How about daily?”

Sometimes he’d leave me working at his desk, usually on important matters, but mostly just scribbling with a coloring book.

People would come to the door saying, “I’m looking for the Commissioner.”

“That’s me!” I’d say gleefully.

“Good. Can you please sign this…” they’d reply and give me some kind of papers.

I’m not even sure what I signed into law.

One time I tipped over the water cooler.

I don’t remember going back after that…

Julie, the eldest, who was working for the National Resources Defense Council at the time, closed out the exchange with:

Those are just great. Of course I was too old and experienced at the time to be an assistant. I was already hard at work for a national environmental law firm in DC. 😁"