The Collapse of Michèle Flournoy’s Hopes for Top Pentagon Job
By challenging Flournoy while posing those questions -- and answering them in the negative -- activism succeeded in changing “Defense Secretary Flournoy” from a fait accompli to a lost fantasy of the military-industrial complex.
She is “a favorite among many in the Democratic foreign-policy establishment,” Foreign Policy magazine reported on Monday night, hours after news broke that Biden’s nomination will go to Gen. Lloyd Austin instead of Flournoy. But “in recent weeks the Biden transition team has faced pushback from the left wing of the party. Progressive groups signaled opposition to Flournoy over her role in U.S. military interventions in Libya and the Middle East in prior government positions, as well as her ties to the defense industry once she left government.”
Of course, Gen. Austin is a high-ranking part of the war machine. Yet, as Foreign Policy noted: “When Biden pushed to draw down troops from Iraq while vice president, Flournoy, then Pentagon policy chief, and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen opposed the idea. Austin did not.”
Video of war-crazed Sen. John McCain grilling Austin several years ago shows the general willing to stand firm against zeal to escalate killing in Syria, a clear contrast to positions that Flournoy had staked out.
Flournoy has a long record of arguing for military intervention and
escalation, from Syria and Libya to Afghanistan and beyond. She has opposed
a ban on weapons sales to Saudi Arabia. In recent years, her advocacy has
included pushing military envelopes in potentially explosive hotspots like
the South China Sea. Flournoy is vehemently in favor of long-term U.S.
military encroachment on China.
Historian Andrew Bacevich, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and
former Army colonel,
warns
that “Flournoy’s proposed military buildup will prove unaffordable, unless,
of course, federal deficits in the multitrillion-dollar range become
routine. But the real problem lies not with the fact that Flournoy’s
buildup will cost a lot, but that it is strategically defective.” Bacevich
adds: “Strip away the references to deterrence and Flournoy is proposing
that the United States goad the People’s Republic into a protracted
high-tech arms race.”
With a record like that, you might think that Flournoy would receive very
little support from the leaders of organizations like the Ploughshares
Fund, the Arms Control Association, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
and the Council for a Livable World. But, as I
wrote
more than a week ago, movers and shakers at those well-heeled groups
eagerly praised Flournoy to the skies -- publicly urging Biden to give her
the Defense Secretary job.
Many said they knew Flournoy well and liked her. Some lauded her interest
in restarting nuclear-arms negotiations with Russia (a standard
foreign-policy position). Many praised her work in high-ranking Pentagon
posts under Presidents Clinton and Obama. Privately, some could be heard
saying how great it would be to have “access” to the person running the
Pentagon.
More traditional allies of militaristic policymakers chimed in, often
vilifying the left as it became clear in late November that progressive
pushback was slowing Flournoy’s momentum for the Defense Department’s top
job. Notorious war enthusiast Max Boot was a case in point.
Boot was evidently provoked by a Washington Post
news story
that appeared on Nov. 30 under the headline “Liberal Groups Urge Biden Not
to Name Flournoy as Secretary of Defense.” The article quoted from a
statement
issued that day by five progressive organizations -- RootsAction.org (where
I’m national director), CodePink, Our Revolution, Progressive Democrats of
America, and World Beyond War. We conveyed that a Flournoy nomination would
lead to a fierce grassroots battle over Senate confirmation. (The newspaper
quoted me saying: “ RootsAction.org has a
1.2 million active list of supporters in the U.S., and we’re geared up for
an all-out push for a ‘no’ vote, if it comes to that.”)
Reporting
on the joint statement, Common Dreams aptly summarized it in a
headline: “Rejecting Michèle Flournoy, Progressives Demand Biden Pick
Pentagon Chief ‘Untethered’ From Military-Industrial Complex.”
Such talk and such organizing are anathema to the likes of Boot, who fired
back with a Washington Post column within hours. While
advocating
for Flournoy, he invoked an “old Roman adage” -- “Si vis pacem, para
bellum” -- “If you want peace, prepare for war.” He neglected to mention
that Latin is a dead language and the Roman Empire collapsed.
War preparations that increase the likelihood of war may excite laptop
warriors. But the militarism they promote is madness nonetheless.
_______________________
Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author
of many books including
War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death
. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020
Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the founder and executive
director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.