They Say the Buck Stops in the Oval Office, But It Doesn't
It's the same old Washington ritual. When the nation is caught unprepared by war, terrorism or natural disaster, there is always a bloodthirsty rush to hold a single person ìresponsible. The president will eventually come under fire, but according to timeworn tradition our chief executives typically deflect direct criticism by tossing a high profile political appointee to the wolves.
That person--someone sufficiently close to the president but never the president himself--is held up to public ridicule and humiliation and then purged from government forever. Congress, the press and the administration, sated by the bloodletting, then move on to the next crisis.
Why is the president not held accountable? Why do we consign people like Louis Johnson, George Tenet and Michael Brown to oblivion?
Take Harry Truman, the president famous for saying "the buck stops here." When the nation was caught woefully unprepared to withstand a savage attack by North Korean troops in the summer of 1950, the buck stopped at Louis Johnson's cavernous office in the Pentagon but not at Truman's desk in the oval office.
In a new biography of Johnson my co-author Keith D. McFarland and I reveal for the first time why Truman, whose draconian budget cuts were responsible for the nation's lack of military preparedness when the North Koreans attacked, decided to dismiss his secretary of defense in the midst of war. After Truman was elected in 1948 he asked Johnson, who had been finance chair during the campaign, to serve as his secretary of defense, but only on condition that Johnson would aggressively advocate and implement Truman's drive to dramatically reduce the defense budget. Johnson agreed.
Ironically, Johnson, who had always been an outspoken champion of preparedness, ruthlessly but effectively carried out the president's budget-cutting orders. By mid-1950, Truman's huge budget cuts had been achieved, weapons programs had been cancelled, war material stockpiles had deteriorated and training programs had been curtailed. As General Matt Ridgway later put it, "We were, in short, in a state of shameful unreadiness."
In the opening weeks of the Korean War, as U.S. troops performed poorly and were being driven south to Pusan and the sea, Congress, the press and ultimately Truman came to the conclusion that someone would have to pay a price for leaving the country unprepared. Big, bald Louis Johnson was an obvious target. In helping Truman slash the defense budget, Johnson had arrogantly hacked his way through the military establishment, he made numerous mistakes and he made dozens of enemies. He fought bitterly with Secretary of State Dean Acheson. And perhaps most damaging to his relationship with Truman, Johnson's presidential aspirations caused him to curry favor with Truman's enemies on Capitol Hill and with General Douglas MacArthur whom Truman detested.
Like Michael Brown after Katrina, Johnson, already vulnerable, became a scapegoat. Congress and the press conducted the ceremonial bearbaiting that typically precedes a presidential execution. And then the president--back then Truman, today Bush--delivered the coup de grace.
Mission accomplished?
If the mission is to put a stop to the president's sharply declining popularity, the answer is yes.
If the mission is to fix the problem, the answer is no. Almost always, the lack of preparedness is due to policies advocated by the president. In the case of Korea, Harry Truman was responsible for the budget cuts, not Louis Johnson. In the case of Katrina, George W. Bush, not Michael Brown, could have but did not order federal troops to New Orleans to rescue the thousands of trapped African-Americans. Bush stood by while FEMA was gutted and flood prevention projects were eliminated. He, not Brownie, was responsible for shipping National Guardsmen off to Iraq, far from the bayous of Louisiana where they could have saved American lives.
Our presidents should have the courage to step forward and accept responsibility. When presidential policies contribute to government failures, the chief executive needs to concede complicity and adopt new policies, new solutions. Addressing the maddening complexities and inefficiencies of our government is hard work, but it is a principal responsibility of the president.