Against Arrows, a Shield of Gossamer : Politics: Clinton needed military credibility. With his thin skin and bureaucratic maneuvering, Inman wasn’t it.

Just about a month ago, Adm. Bobby Ray Inman startled the President and his advisers as well as the Washington political community with his speech accepting Clinton’s nomination to be secretary of defense. In that speech, Inman announced that he did not want the job, but had interviewed Clinton and found him to be a worthy commander in chief.

On Tuesday, Inman again startled the same group by announcing that he was withdrawing because of some rather mild attacks on him during the past month by political columnists, particularly William Safire of the New York Times.

To those who understand the difference between the world views of career military officers and professional politicians, Inman’s actions are not surprising. Career military officers, especially those who rise to the top, are skillful bureaucratic politicians. They know how to maneuver to gain maximum advantage over the other services, other agencies and other branches of government. Their political maneuvering is justified (or rationalized) in the name of protecting their troops and national security. They also guard their reputations jealously; according to their code, officers “do not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do.” Because they can order people in harm’s way, their word must be their bond. Finally, officers must always put their troops first. Their lives depend on it.

In Inman’s acceptance speech in the Rose Garden, he was talking to the troops. His message was, “Despite what you have heard about Clinton, he’s OK. And, since I did not want this job, he’ll have to give me what we (the military) need because Clinton can’t fire me.” But in maximizing his bureaucratic advantage, Inman was unaware that he was undermining Clinton’s political position. Presidents hire and fire. They are not hired.

Similarly, when Inman was accused in print over the past month of being a liar and a tax cheat as well as a poor manager, it undermined the core of his military professionalism and he decided it was too high a price to pay for a job he did not want. But compared with what hasbeen said about political appointees in recent years, the criticism of Inman was mild.

Inman’s withdrawal is probably best for all concerned. Clinton was hoping that the admiral would be a shield for him against the military, but given his declaration of independence in the Rose Garden, Inman, rather than Clinton, would have had the final say over defense policy. Moreover, if Inman was so thin-skinned that he let a Safire column get to him, how would he have handled the criticism that would surely have followed base closings, defense cuts or battlefield casualties? The nation is better off as well because having a career military officer exercising civilian control subverts the concept. Finally, Inman’s resignation may draw attention to the almost absurd level of scrutiny we have injected into the confirmation process.