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.)