President Obama is pushing the reset button on his national security program in order to create a better record for his 2012 campaign but his choice of a new national security adviser dooms the effort from the start.

Evidence of that reset came last week with the early resignation of national security adviser retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones and the announcement of his replacement, Tom Donilon, Jones’ deputy. Although Jones had intended to resign by early 2011, his departure was accelerated by critical comments attributed to him in Bob Woodward’s new book Obama’s Wars, such as his reference to Obama’s political advisers as the “politburo,” a term for the policy-making committee of a Communist party.

Gen. Jones isn’t the only member of Obama’s national security team to leave, which gives credence to the reset opportunity. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen are leaving and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may leave to oppose her boss in 2012 or she might take Gates’ Pentagon job.

These departures and perhaps others like Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano clear the way for the well-entrenched Donilon to revamp Obama’s national security record before the 2012 campaign. That is why understanding Donilon is important and specifically understanding his personality, business practices, and priorities.

Gen. Jones’ personality was an awkward fit in the hard-charging, informal Obama campaign-mode White House. He wasn’t willing to work the extreme hours like others and some aides accused Jones of failing to protect Obama from criticism about his lack of national security experience. 

But Donilon, 55, has the personality and background tailor-made for the Obama White House. He is a long-time Democrat political operative and Washington insider with experience working for three Democrat administrations and a heavy dose of work-aholicism, which translates that he is out of touch with reality despite outward appearances of being busy. 

He also has Obama’s confidence, which Jones never enjoyed. At the news conference announcing Jones’ resignation, Obama lauded Donilon’s job suitability with a somewhat telling tongue-in-cheek comment about the new adviser’s “remarkable work ethic” fueled by a “seemingly endless supply of Diet Coke.”

Jones has reservations about Donilon. Earlier this year Jones confronted his deputy about three foibles which are common among Washington insiders like Donilon, according to Woodward. First, Donilon’s view of national security is like that of the proverbial professor in the ivory tower anchored to theory, not based on firsthand perspectives. That is why Jones reportedly told Donilon, “You have no credibility with the military.”

Jones encouraged his deputy to travel overseas to garner practical experience. This summer Donilon visited Afghanistan and last month he traveled to China to meet Chinese President Hu Jintao but a couple overseas trips cannot make up for years of working in the field nor gain credibility and the military’s trust.

Second, Jones cautioned Donilon about his tendency for making inappropriate comments and snap judgments. Jones said Donilon often made absolute declarations about places he had never visited and leaders he has never met, according to Woodward.

Jones cited the time Donilon demanded the resignation of the commander of the U.S. Southern Command for responding too slowly to the earthquake in Haiti. Jones said this was an example of how Donilon made a snap judgment without knowing the facts, according to Woodward.

Secretary Gates shared Jones’ concerns about Donilon’s tendency to make in-appropriate comments, Woodward wrote. Gates said Donilon’s spur-of-the-moment comments offended him so much that he nearly walked out of an Oval Office meeting.

Finally, Jones said Donilon had poor people skills, according to Woodward. He displayed “too little feel for the people who work day and night.” A related foible was evident in his relationship with senior military leaders.

Gates felt Donilon did not understand the military or treat its senior leadership with sufficient respect. Perhaps that is why Gates told Jones, according to Woodward, that Donilon, a rich lawyer and former Fannie Mae vice president, would be a “disaster” as Obama’s national security adviser.

But last week Gates distanced himself from that comment by releasing a statement welcoming Donilon’s appointment and said he has a “good working relationship” with the new national security adviser.

It is also important to understand Donilon’s business practices which are evidenced by his performance as a technocrat with a politics first mentality. He views national security and foreign affairs with an eye on domestic politics and how they might impact his boss. Jones on the other hand reportedly never caught on to the political side of the job, according to Politico.

Donilon’s political sense quickly won Obama’s confidence even though the two never met prior to the presidential campaign. He is also politically well-connected—close to former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and a long-time adviser to Vice President Joe Biden and Donilon’s wife is Jill Biden’s chief of staff.

Jones complimented Donilon for being an outstanding technocrat. At his farewell news conference Jones acknowledged Donilon “kept the trains running on time, and your energy and your dedication is without equal.” White House staff also praised Donilon as a tireless manager with the ability to navigate among different factions.

One official told the Washington Post that Donilon “has been running the national security council since the start. Jones was kind of a CEO [chief executive officer] and Tom has been the COO [chief operating officer].” He excels at keeping everything focused and coordinates security policy across the government. This is the traditional role played by former national security advisers like Condoleezza Rice and Sandy Berger.

Early in his tenure Donilon carved out the “deputies meetings” as his venue for influencing national security and to keep “the trains running on time.” He has run more than 300 such meetings that include top officials from across the federal security bureaucracy. He uses that forum for making policy decisions and formulating strategy.

Outsiders should also understand Mr. Donilon’s priorities, especially his desire to “re-balance” American foreign policy. That will be music to the ears of those who share Donilon’s skepticism about the Afghanistan war and especially Democrats who want their President to address more pressing national security problems in preparation for the 2012 election.

Last fall during the administration’s Afghan strategy debate, Donilon vigorously opposed the military’s request for more troops arguing the U.S. could not engage in what he termed “endless war.” He strongly defended Obama’s decision to set a timeline for beginning to withdraw from Afghanistan starting next summer.

Now that Donilon is the national security adviser he will oversee the comprehensive review of the strategy in Afghanistan this December. He is expected to use his new power to cement an exit strategy to satisfy Obama’s alleged concern “I can’t lose the whole Democratic party” over Afghanistan.

Donilon’s “re-balance” means not only his intention to disengage American forces from Afghanistan and Iraq but also to refocus efforts on China, an emerging super power with a growing military, the nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea, and other emerging crises.

Secretary Gates’ original assessment was correct—Donilon will be a “disaster” as a national security adviser because he puts his political strategy first, lacks international experience, and has serious personality flaws. This wrongheaded appointment dooms the reset from the start and is made worse by the fact that Obama has no international experience or credibility with national security professionals.

By: – Col. Bob Maginnis

North Korea’s dying leader Kim Jong-Il, 68, last week began laying the groundwork for transferring power to his youngest son. That transition is important because the range of possible outcomes include an atomic war or a nation that abandons its radical past to become a member of the international community.

North Korea last changed its head of state in 1994 when regime founder Kim Song-Il died and his son Kim Jong-Il took over. Kim Jong-Il’s political introduction began 14 years earlier and even with that lead he needed another three years after his father’s death to completely secure control. Those years were marred by a deteriorating economy while millions starved to death.

The plan to usher the Kim dynasty into a third generation comes very late by comparison. Kim Jong-Il just launched a public relations (PR) campaign to make his little known youngest son, Kim Jong-Un, a household name and build-up the youth’s credibility among Pyongyang’s skeptical elite who see the dynastic succession as a contradiction of Communist ideology.

The PR and credibility-building processes began when North Korea’s Central Committee declared in August Kim Jong-Un “the only successor” to Kim Jong-Il which was followed by a flurry of prestigious appointments.

Last week the 27 year-old “crown prince” was elevated to the rank of a four-star general and named deputy chairman of the Military Commission of the Workers’ Party. But Kim Jong-Un will need help before he is ready to lead.

That is why Kim Jong-Il set-up a kind of Communist regency which includes his sister Kim Kyong Hui, 64, who the elder Kim also appointed as a four-star general. It’s not a coincidence that Kim’s sister’s husband, Jang Song-Taek, who handles the day-to-day duties of running North Korea, will work with his wife to guide the young Mr. Kim’s transition. Also acting as a regent is Vice Marshal Ri Yong-Ho who the elder Kim just elevated to the Military Commission’s other deputy chairman position. Ri is expected to tutor the “crown prince” and help curry support for him among the military elite.

Kim Jong-Il’s leadership transition plan faces serious obstacles such as the inevitable dissatisfaction of some military leaders with young Kim’s sudden rise to power. But the most troubling obstacle may be the feeling by Mr. Kim or his regents that he must prove himself militarily by engaging in provocative actions.

The New York Times reported U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed a sobering view regarding this aspect of the succession struggle. Gates ascribed the sinking of a South Korean warship by a North Korean torpedo this March to the succession process. Apparently, Gates agrees, sinking the warship was meant to earn Mr. Kim the military’s respect. What else might the young man be willing to do to earn “the military’s respect?”

Last week’s flurry of activity surrounding the generational transition news captured most of the attention but there were other actions that sent mixed signals about the regime’s intentions—some positive and others decisively negative.

Pyongyang demonstrated positive interest by re-engaging South Korea. Last week North Korea joined the first inter-Korean military talks in two years—although nothing was resolved—and on October 2 North Korea proposed government-level talks to resume South Korean tourism to North Korea’s Mount Kumgang. It also agreed to hold reunions of families separated by the Korean War on October 30-November 5.

Pyongyang renewed its decisively negative war-like rhetoric last week as well. A North Korean spokesman at the United Nations General Assembly vowed his country would strengthen its nuclear arsenal because of the perceived U.S. military threat. The regime also blasted a just completed U.S.-South Korean joint naval exercise in the Yellow Sea. Pyongyang said the exercise proved the U.S. and South Korea are preparing for a “real war” and added Pyongyang will “wipe out” any provocateurs.

Those tough statements keep tensions high and explain why South Korea’s defense ministry seeks a 10% budget increase for 2011. One-third of that increase is intended to buy an anti-missile Aegis destroyer, submarines, and anti-submarine torpedoes to detect and destroy North Korea’s unconventional threats.

Finally, Pyongyang may be positively signaling interest in a new direction for its economy. Stratfor, a U.S. intelligence think tank, indicates Pyongyang reinstated former premier Pak Pong Ju, “who had flirted with Chinese-style economic ideas for North Korea.” Stratfor states that opening special economic zones in North Korea was discussed during Kim Jong-Il’s most recent visit to China.

Stratfor also reported the elevation of three men with significant negotiating experience with the U.S. Kang Sok Ju, who helped negotiate the 1994 Agreed Framework which earned considerable largess from America for Pyongyang’s failed promise to shut down its nuclear program, is now vice premier. The regime also elevated two nuclear negotiators with experience with the U.S. These elevations may signal that Pyongyang is ready to resolve the nuclear issue and move to one of economic development and international integration, according to Stratfor.

What should the U.S. do during the transition period?

First, we must standby our allies. We acted appropriately by conducting joint naval exercises with South Korea to demonstrate resolve against Pyongyang’s warship attack in March. More exercises are warranted and we should also sell Seoul sophisticated capabilities it needs to defend itself.

Second, we must lean on China to keep Pyongyang in check. China, which enjoys a special relationship with North Korea, must help stabilize that country. Beijing has consistently taken steps to aid Pyongyang with food and energy supplies in the past and this must continue to prevent a repeat of the economic distress that occurred during the 1994 transition.

China should also help shape the emerging political situation. Reportedly Kim Jong-Il made two visits to Beijing in recent months to bolster China’s support and solicit its endorsement of the transition plan. Beijing should use its influence to wean Pyongyang’s new leadership from its combative ways and seek to bring it into the international community.

Finally, the U.S. should cautiously pursue a relationship with North Korea’s new leadership. It is possible Pyongyang’s renewed interest in talking with South Korea and the elevation of those with the most experience with the U.S. will lead to something positive. However, preconditions must be satisfied before re-engaging North Korea.

We must insist on no more empty promises. We’ve been consistently burned by Pyongyang’s promises to dismantle its atomic programs for aid. Our aid arrives then Pyongyang reneges, which is followed by something provocative like testing an atomic device.

There are many ways North Korea’s new leadership can demonstrate its sincerity. It can stop threatening its neighbors; sign a peace treaty ending the almost 60-year-old Korean War; stop proliferating weapons across the globe; develop economic zones like those in China to diversify its failed economy; abandon its nuclear weapons program; dismantle its ballistic missile arsenal; distribute its massive army-controlled rice stores to the starving to name but a few.

North Korea faces a very uncertain transition. It is not clear that Kim Jong-Un, the “crown prince,” will take the reigns of power. But whoever is the new head of state must choose whether to continue Kim Jong-Il’s combative strategy that threatens nuclear war or reject intimidation for a course of action that brings North Korea into the international community. While the world waits to see which path the new leader takes, America’s prudent strategy should be to upgrade South Korean capabilities and maintain a strong deterrent.