Tying Obama's Hands?

On Jan. 20, 2009, a small and little-known group will go through the motions of the most sensitive part of presidential transition, transferring the nuclear "go" codes from President Bush to his successor. It is a process so secret that even the name of the operation is highly classified and compartmented.

For the next four years, the president will be accompanied by a military officer 24/7 who carries the "football," a suitcase containing what is commonly called the presidential decision book with the various nuclear war options and associated approval codes and authenticators. Everywhere the president travels, the White House military office will set up secure communications for the commander-in-chief so that he can instantly be in touch with the military to convey his orders.

On inauguration day, a high-level Pentagon civilian, authorized to act on the president's and secretary of defense's behalf, will stay behind from the Bush administration for the hours until a new secretary is confirmed and given the twin briefing and authorities held by the president. Raven Rock Mountain in northern Maryland will be activated just in case. Strategic Command in Omaha, Neb., working closely with the intelligence community, will stay on the highest level of alert.

This exacting continuity process goes back at least to the Eisenhower administration. Even though the nuclear era seems a bit old-fashioned, given that Russian or Chinese intercontinental nuclear missiles could still destroy Washington in 30 minutes, it persists. So when I heard last week at a conference on civil-military relations that national security professionals were fretting about this particular presidential transition because it was occurring during "wartime," I was a bit confused.

I was also a bit suspicious.

Wartime? Yes, we are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and fighting a counter-terrorism war in other parts of the globe. We've been at it for nearly seven years now, so much so that the nation's capital buzzes along normally and even a visit to the Pentagon reveals an institution just going about its business. Most Americans are only reminded that the world has "changed" when they go to an airport.

Without a draft and with only a tiny fraction of the American public personally affected by war, one could just attribute this very un-warlike state of affairs to the professionals in the military and the homeland security complex and the intelligence community for doing their jobs so we can indeed live normal lives. Out there people are fighting on our behalf, and in watch centers from Washington to Baghdad, the bad guys are being closely monitored. Potential domestic terrorism will certainly be added to the alert structure on Election Day and as a new presidency nears, but this has also been the state of affairs since at least 2000.

So when the national security professionals increasingly speak of ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, suggesting that the new president -- read Barack Obama particularly -- be careful not to make precipitous announcements or decisions that might threaten the troops in the field or increase American dangers at home, what are they really saying?

The argument goes like this: An announcement of withdrawal from Iraq or negotiations with Iran or any kind of olive branch fluttering in an inaugural could lead to danger for the troops, "miscalculation" on the part of our enemies, or might embolden terrorists: In short, unless the new president adheres to the national security professional's guidance regarding continuity, he could be endangering America.

There is a subtle two-step process going here. One is about the transition itself and one is about the presidency ahead.

First, if the aura of "wartime" can be highlighted as the election and inauguration near, how the candidate will see options will naturally be circumscribed. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy to use Iran or some other October surprise to manipulate the election or tie the new president's hand. Many in the national security community truly believe that we are in a "war" and that there is some turning point hanging in the balance in Iraq that demands continuity of policy and purpose.

Of course what a candidate says during a campaign always meets reality once he or she takes office. And what President Obama might actually do in Iraq, if elected, is still unclear. But if his own advisers are cautioning him about the dangers of hope-talk and pushing a middle-of-the-road continuity lest the "troops" and America be put into jeopardy, pretty soon it will be clear what paradigm prevails -- and it will also be clear who's in charge.

Yet we act every day, even in this Bush administration, as if we are not "at war." In Iraq and Afghanistan, the "war" goes on more or less on auto-pilot. Thus there appears to be no need for the American public to change its ways, or for the nation to behave in some different manner, or for a new president to submit to the national security imperative. The beneficiaries of this status quo are the custodians of all those never-changing codes and procedures.

Another participant at the conference I attended last week disagrees with the views I express here. "How the transition should be managed regardless of who wins in November made good sense for two reasons," Title Basin writes. "Speculating about who precisely will occupy the critical national security positions in the next administration is still too much of a stretch; and the principles of a healthy civil-military relationship will endure regardless of the next occupant of the Oval Office." In other words, it's not about the policies of the next president.

She also called me grumpy. So she got at least one thing right.

By William M. Arkin |  May 20, 2008; 10:30 AM ET Election 2008
Previous: To the National Security Professionals, It Doesn't Really Matter Who Wins | Next: A Sordid Sea Tale

Posted by: Peter Coates | May 21, 2008 4:02 AM

Posted by: Da' Buffalo Amongst Wolves | May 20, 2008 6:15 PM

Posted by: Da' Buffalo Amongst Wolves | May 20, 2008 6:04 PM

Posted by: SamEllison | May 20, 2008 5:01 PM

Posted by: P. J. Casey | May 20, 2008 3:37 PM

Posted by: Bob Campbell | May 20, 2008 2:28 PM

Name:

Comments: