my person of the year

January 1, 2008 

Time Magazine chose Vladimir Putin as Person of the Year 2007; an odd choice, but Time may pick whomever they wish. Ollie North, who spent time with the troops in Iraq this year, would have chosen the American Soldier. Bill O’Reilly would have chosen General David Petraeus. Both are excellent choices. For 2007, however, I would have chosen the Department of Defense (DoD) civilian professional most Americans seldom ever read or hear about.

Time’s Man/Person of the year, from Charles Lindbergh in 1927 to Putin in 2007, has included the good (Pope John XXIII-1962), the bad (Nikita Khrushchev-1957), and the evil (Adolph Hitler-1938 and Joseph Stalin-1939/1942). Occasionally it has included the non-human (the Computer-1982 and Endangered Earth-1988).

Putin certainly doesn’t qualify for the good. If Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin are the standard against which we measure the evil, Putin doesn’t measure up there either. He may qualify in the bad category, but I can think of others I’d have chosen before him. Then, who am I to question Time’s editorial staff?

Time has chosen the American Solder twice previously. In 1950, at the onset of the Korean War, it chose the American Fighting Man. In 2003, after 9/11, Afghanistan, and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, it chose the American Soldier. Given the burden, sacrifice, and accomplishments of the American Warrior this past year in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places not so frequently in the news, it would be hard to argue with such a choice in 2007.

A retired US Army officer and a Vietnam Veteran, I greatly admire what today’s all-volunteer warriors have accomplished. They’re a dedicated, well trained, highly motivated group of men and women who have gone on the offensive against al Qaeda and their ilk and are winning. We haven’t been attacked here at home since 9/11 largely because our warriors have been killing the bad guys over there before they can kill us over here. There’s a reason the US Military is the most respected institution in America.

I won’t argue with anyone who preferred General Petraeus as Person of the Year either. He has his detractors, Moveon.org mostly, but he took what looked like a hopeless situation and turned it around. We’re not out of the woods yet, but now we may never find out what would have happened had we been defeated or withdrew prematurely from Iraq.

A loss in Iraq would have devastating consequences for US national security. The effect that would have on US standing and influence around the world, not to mention stability in the Middle East, would be enormous. For this reason alone, General Petraeus may have had a greater impact on world events in 2007 than Vladimir Putin or any other single individual.

So why would I have chosen the DoD civilian professional? Well, first, because I’m biased. Having just retired at the end of 2007 as a DoD civilian after 23 years in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, I’ve watched my friends and colleagues up close. I know what they do and the impact they have on US national security.

The stereotype of the DoD civilian is that of a stodgy, marginally competent bureaucrat. At least that’s how Hollywood likes to portray them. In reality, however, the corps of dynamic men and women who staff the offices of the secretary of defense and the various defense agencies are a remarkable group of people. Their civilian counterparts in the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps are no less remarkable.

They achieved a great deal this past year, under difficult circumstances, that largely went under the radars of the media and most pundits. Specifically, they sustained and maintained critical multilateral and bilateral defense relationships with friends and allies essential to US strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan and our global defense posture around the world.

The President and his department secretaries make grand national security strategy and policy, and here the Bush Administration has its critics, both Democrat and Republican. Directing and managing the execution of that strategy and policy, however, falls principally to the DoD civilian professional.

In 2007, in hundreds of meetings in foreign capitals and in Washington, DC, they negotiated bilateral and multilateral defense agreements, $25B in government-to-government arms sales, and important intelligence sharing and logistics arrangements. Through a network of official and personal relationships they articulated US national security and defense policy, listened and responded to the defense requirements of friends and allies, and strengthened partner capacity to fight the global war against terrorists and extremists.

It is this complex web of mutually supportive agreements and alliances, skillfully negotiated and sustained by experienced professionals, that bind our friends and allies to us in good times and bad. It takes more than shared values and common interests to optimize collective advantage. It takes thousands of dedicated professional civilian and military men and women interacting with their inter-agency and foreign counterparts 365 days a year. 

For all the talk about the Bush Administration's “go-it-alone” defense policy, America’s defense relationships with its friends and allies remain strong. And they remain so because of the professionals whose job it is to keep them that way. 

To be sure, there are many uniformed military men and women who play leading roles in OSD, on the Joint Staff and the staffs of the geographic combatant commanders. I by no means want to discount their enormous and invaluable contributions. But the principal responsibility of guiding and directing these relationships for the secretary of defense falls mostly on civilians. Here I'm referring to a small number of political appointees at the assistant and deputy assistant secretary level and the the larger group of career professionals.

Even with leadership changes in Britain and Australia, reductions in coalition troop presence in Iraq, and the ever-present post-Cold War strains in NATO, US multilateral and bilateral defense relationships are robust and will remain that way. Regardless of who wins the US presidential election next November, the dedicated professionals in the Department of Defense who serve our country in war and peace will continue to nurture and develop friendships and alliances that keep American strong, prosperous and free.

Perhaps this commentary on the DoD civilian professional would carry more weight coming from someone other than myself. But reading Time's article on Putin and about other's preferences for Person of the Year, I thought someone needed to represent them in this discussion.