My estimate of Obama's three rules: Be cool, let sleeping torture lie, and don't challenge the national security crowd

In a recent conversation with some smart guys, one suggested that Obama
was naïve about national security and so got intimidated by its establishment.
I think not.

Rather, my
estimate on Obama is that he decided on three things during the campaign, and
has stuck with them:

A black candidate for
national office cannot afford to be seen as "angry."




There would be no
investigations of Bush administration actions such as the
use of torture by intelligence operatives
and subsequently misleading Congress about that.




More generally, there is
no upside for a Democrat today to challenge the national security
establishment.

I wasn't
saying he was right to do so -- that's another question. I was just trying to
figure out what he was doing. Even so, I got some pushback from the smart
friends, including:

Actually, not being angry
comes natural to him. He is a cool, stubborn, and solitary man. He doesn't get
mad, he gets remote.




He appears to act
sometimes on national security questions without regard for consequences, as in
his love affair with drone killings.




No, it is naïve to hire
people inexperienced in national security for national security slots, as he
did. This amounted to a challenge on his part -- effectively, a statement that
he would place politics above policy, even overseas.

What
think youse? (And please, don't make this a Bush slugfest. I think we all know
well where everyone comes down on all that.)