Business, Democracy, Ethics

Business and the Way of Democracy, By ANDREA BONIME-BLANC and MARK BRZEZINSKI, Published: December 26, 2009

The role that integrity plays in the private sector is similar to the role that democracy plays in the public sector.

Much like transitions to democracy over the past four decades transformed governments from mostly authoritarian to mostly democratic, we are currently witnessing a transformation of global corporations from a more or less opaque shareholder-centric model to a more transparent multi-stakeholder model.

President Bush – Interview

Bush On His Record, (Wall Street Journal)…Kimberley A. Strassel, Dec 20, 2008, pg.13

As he sits at his mile-high desk, clad in his Air Force One crew jacket, George W. Bush is as he has ever been: upbeat, focused, confident in his past decisions and in the future.

On Iraq …

The action that will always most define the Bush presidency will be the invasion of Iraq. It is also the decision he remains most visibly passionate about, especially given it was the cornerstone of his broader “freedom agenda” in the Middle East. That agenda, he says, is working, and he remains confident that while it “was widely criticized by some as being hopelessly naïve and idealistic, is really the only practical way to provide long-term security . . .” He is convinced the region is stepping into a new era, and will continue on that path “unless America loses nerve in our belief in the universality of freedom.”

Would it have been easier to just replace Saddam with another strongman? “Early on, I knew we were in an ideological conflict, and you don’t win ideological conflicts by replacing one strongman with another. . . . And frankly, that’s been a big shift in our foreign policy in the Middle East, which is — and this is not a criticism of anybody, it’s a recognition that presidents deal with the realities of the situation. But in the Cold War, to prevent communism from taking root in the Middle East, we promoted stability. Well, it just so happens that over time people became so resentful and so hateful that they were swayed by a group of very smart and very capable ideologues to become their foot soldiers.”

On the home front:

He also counts as an accomplishment his protection of the homeland, in particular that he is “leaving behind tools that future presidents will be able to use — and even though they were controversial when they were implemented, people are going to get in that Oval Office and say, now I understand why this tool is important.”

nKorea: Morality in Negotiations

Moral Surrender To Pyongyang, (Washington Post)…Michael Gerson, Dec 19, 2008

…The negotiations with North Korea were worth a try. But diplomatic engagement does not require moral surrender. And when diplomats such as Christopher Hill are deployed, it does not signify that the adults have arrived. It means that hope is fading.

The argument was simple: In an impossible situation — facing an infantile and possibly ill dictator with a nuclear weapon — Hill’s approach was worth a try. China was skillfully enlisted in an effort to pressure and isolate North Korea. Concessions were made in exchange for the resumption of negotiations, incremental progress and vague promises of future cooperation. Fuel was shipped. North Korea was removed from the sponsors-of-terrorism list.

Some have called this appeasement. It is more like bribery — with a special emphasis on getting North Korea to part with at least 30 kilos (66 pounds) of plutonium. Hill has summarized his approach this way: “If you give up 30 kilos, we will sign a bilateral assistance program.”

The negotiations with North Korea were worth a try. But diplomatic engagement does not require moral surrender.

New National Security Advisor: Gen (Ret) Jones

Straight-Shooting Jones, (Washington Times)…Georgie Anne Geyer

Our new national security adviser to the president-elect is perhaps best known as the supreme allied commander of NATO from 2003 to 2007, but to me he should be heralded as the supreme survivor of the last eight years. Here’s why: …

We pressed him on Iraq, and we particularly pressed him on the responsibility of the military man to speak out. He was very careful in his answers. He finally said there is a law in America that military men have “the obligation to speak their own minds … when they testify before Congress.” There is such a law, although few invoke it.

I always think of that moment as the moment when a man, long put-upon to fight and lead in wars he did not believe in, deftly pointed out to us, by inversion if you will, the military man or woman’s real responsibility.

Leadership and Ethics

Additional opinion on the conflict of interest issue.

POST: Compromised general? by Thomas P.M. Barnett on December 5, 2008

ARTICLE: One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex, By DAVID BARSTOW, New York Times, November 29, 2008

I was stunned by the level of reporting on this piece on McCaffrey. The jump section extended across virtually two full pages, which is a huge investigative effort on the NYT’s part.

Clearly, this is a follow-up to the piece months back on the generals being paid, secret spokesmen for the administration (“message multipliers”) whereby Barstow found enough out about McCaffrey to justify what must have been a huge reporting effort on his part.

It will be interesting to see if this hurts McCaffrey at all. He is sort of a King Kong figure. You read his reports and they always reference his West Point status, but I was really surprised to see how many commercial entities he works for.

The phenomenon of retired generals doing this is well known. Some refuse the temptation of such synergy, and others go whole hog. McCaffrey, on all levels, seems to be in a class by himself.

What constitutes wrong here? Not easy to say. But clearly, McCaffrey loses the perception-of-conflict-of-interest battle here.

Follow-up – "One man’s Military-Industrial Complex"

McCaffrey And Rumsfeld , New York Times, December 3, 2008 , Pg. 26

To the Editor:

Re “One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex” (front page, Nov. 30):Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey makes much of his opposition to former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Whatever General McCaffrey or other unnamed individuals may believe, though, I am unaware of any decision to “cut off General McCaffrey’s access to the Pentagon’s special briefings,” as stated in the article.We held briefings for former senior officials who served presidents of both parties, think-tank specialists from across the political spectrum, and many others. Divergent views were often expressed, sometimes strenuously.Secretary Rumsfeld never suggested to me, the official responsible for the program, that we stop holding the meetings, or disinvite people — including General McCaffrey — because they didn’t agree with our policies.General McCaffrey actually enjoyed special access by virtue of his relationships with senior military officers, yet it seems he benefits from brandishing the bloody shirt of alleged maltreatment by Secretary Rumsfeld.Lawrence Di Rita, Potomac, Md., Nov. 30, 2008The writer was special assistant to the secretary of defense from 2001-06. He also served as acting assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.Editor’s Note: The article referred to appeared in the Current News Early Bird, Nov. 30, 2008.

Retired Generals …

One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex, (New York Times)…David Barstow, Nov 30, 2008.

…Through seven years of war an exclusive club has quietly flourished at the intersection of network news and wartime commerce. Its members, mostly retired generals, have had a foot in both camps as influential network military analysts and defense industry rainmakers. It is a deeply opaque world, a place of privileged access to senior government officials, where war commentary can fit hand in glove with undisclosed commercial interests and network executives are sometimes oblivious to possible conflicts of interest. Few illustrate the submerged complexities of this world better than Barry McCaffrey.