The Wall Street Journal contained an interesting piece today profiling a retired Marine General, James Jones. As former Marine Corps commandant, and NATO commander, he has acquired the respect of many declared Presidential candidates- Hillary, Obama Bin Baden, and John McCain.
Allegedly, Hillary has claimed she'd like him in her cabinet, perhaps as Defense secretary.
Here's where I am confused.
According to the article, Jones is for winning in Iraq, closing Gitmo's terrorist prison, restoring the image of the US around the world, and being engaged in dialogue with even our enemies. An interesting, somewhat centrist combination of stances, which are not surprising, given his Midwestern background.
How will someone who wants to stay and win in Iraq possibly be of use to Hillary and Obama? If he caves in to their views, he's useless to them as an objective ally. If he doesn't, he's not a team player.
Whether he's a Democrat or Republican, when forced to declare, doesn't really matter. It seems to me that his views are already more reasonable and reasoned than any candidate can tolerate down the home stretch, or in their first administration.
Truth to tell, General Jones sounds more at one with Republicans. Thus, his allure to the Democratic candidates- capturing a credible member of the opposition. But I just don't see either party being able to actually live with a strong-minded, experienced, thoughtful team member like this ex-Marine.
Sure, everyone wants the part of him they covet. But will any of them really be capable of swallowing the parts of him they don't want? If General Jones is as tough and principled as is generally believed, how can any of these candidates expect him to back down when their views contradict his?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment