Gates: Moderate to a Fault

As secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates has certainly changed the overall tone of civil-military relations from that of his prickly and arrogant predecessor. Friendly and not prone to gaffes or mistakes, Gates exudes Washington moderation.

Given his short tenure (by the end of the Bush administration he will barely have been in the job two years), it will be hard to criticize him for not getting much done. He inherited a multitude of conflicts, a wounded military and a bulging budget. Still, it is possible to find fault with his recent comments about military culture and military-civilian relations.

In speeches this week at West Point and at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., Gates described an enduring and insular institution that he finds timid and passive-aggressive in its insubordination, yet one that is also asked to solve so many of the problems of the world. Many of these problems, he recognizes, aren't military in nature, or have been created by civilian leaders who themselves eschew accountability.

Is America's national security problem today military or civilian? Gates would have us believe -- in a nice way of course -- that the armed services are sluggish and unresponsive and focused on their own interests. In these speeches, Gates talked about "pulling teeth" and military leaders who are "stuck in old ways of doing business." He talked about internal battles and push back from the military in not allocating sufficient resources for Afghanistan and Iraq.

In congressional testimony, Gates has also been blunt about the military's procurement plans, saying that he cannot see the need for spending billions on an F-22 stealth fighter or the Army's Future Combat System when these futuristic systems do not make any contribution to the wars America is fighting right now. Gates said his message to the armed services is this: "We need more, and we need it now."

Gates is right that America may not need a lot of the weapons it is buying, and it may not have the right military for the challenges of the 21st century. He may be right in his argument that the wars that America will face in the future are "asymmetric" conflicts and not big wars.

But he not just some member of Congress. He is the secretary of Defense. Gates has all the authority and backing he needs to order the military to do whatever he wants. He has a gigantic budget and a seemingly unlimited checkbook. If he is so inclined, he can even cancel programs outright.

Gates' problem in the end is not just a military institution that resents being held to task for the sins of the civilian ideologues and amateurs. It is that, if the military were doing all of what he and others wanted, we still would not be "winning" in Iraq. If the military smartly saluted and aggressively implemented all of the civilian plans, the world would not be transformed back in either a pre-9/11 state of contentment or an immediate-post-9/11 age of solidarity.

When Gates lectures the military services and the ranks on their culture and obligations, his tone is reasonable as usual, and he appears to have something to say to an institution. But he seems unwilling to break any crockery with regard to the military issues that will dominate the next presidency: Iraq and Afghanistan and the role non-military factors will play in concluding those wars; Iran and North Korea; how to fight the war against terrorism; Chinese and Russian relations; missile defenses and nuclear weapons; the size (and budget) of the military; and the impact of national security outsourcing.

When Gates is gone, too little progress will have been made in resolving these problems. I predict his tenure will be simply and unremarkably remembered as A.R.: After Rumsfeld. Good luck to the next guy.

By William M. Arkin |  April 23, 2008; 9:30 AM ET Gates , Rumsfeld
Previous: TV Generals Make for a Dangerous Picture | Next: King David at the Helm

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Bush is the commander-in-chief, Gates has no independent authority to change or set policy outside of the guidelines of the president. Where Bush is getting his advice is anyones guess. Cheney probably.

Posted by: hammerdown | May 11, 2008 11:54 PM

I think that Gates will be remembered as doing a very good job. He is from the world of reason & responsibility that the Bush team threw overboard. It is going to take a long time and lots of money to fix this mess.If Bush had less egotistical and more pragmatic responsible adults such as Robert Gates his approval rating wouldn't be below 30% . The again since his tenure in office has revealed the true character of President Bush we are lucky that we did not end up with another Rumsfeld.

Posted by: New Jersey | April 30, 2008 1:46 PM

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.globalresearch.ca
www.takingaimradio.com

Colombia's President Uribe implicated in paramilitary death squad probe

By Bill Van Auken and Ascher Brum
24 April 2008

The arrest of in Bogota of ex-Senator Mario Uribe Escobar, the cousin of Colombia's president, on charges of involvement in the country's paramilitary death squads has deepened the political crisis of Bush's closest political ally in Latin America.

Colombian President Álvaro Uribe has also admitted to the media that he himself is a target of an investigation implicating him in the organization of a massacre by the paramilitaries.

Uribe Escobar, the former head of the Colombian Congress, is not only President Álvaro Uribe's relative, but was also one of his closest political collaborators. He was arrested Tuesday as he left the Costa Rican embassy, where he had sought political asylum.

The Costa Rican government rejected the appeal as "inappropriate." Protesters, who had gathered outside the embassy hanging the names and pictures of death squad victims on its gates, jeered and jostled the ex-senator as he was led away.

Colombian prosecutors announced that Uribe Escobar is wanted in connection with a probe into his meetings with paramilitary leader Salvatore Mancuso in advance of the March 2002 elections that brought his cousin to power. The former senator played a key role in getting Álvaro Uribe elected, and apparently mobilized the country's death squads to help secure political victory.

In an interview with Colombia's Radio Caracol Tuesday, President Álvaro Uribe confided that he had "spent Easter week talking with lawyers" defending him against charges made by a paramilitary in custody. The death squad member has testified that the Colombian president helped plan the infamous 1997 El Aro massacre in the state of Antioquia, when Álvaro Uribe was governor there.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/urib-a24.shtml

Posted by: che | April 24, 2008 3:46 AM

America should just get rid of its military, and trust in the goodness of world opinion, and the inherent kindness of world leaders...like Putin...

Posted by: Dimitry | April 24, 2008 3:23 AM

America should just get rid of its military, and trust in the goodness of world opinion, and the inherent kindness of world leaders...like Putin...

Posted by: Dimitry | April 24, 2008 3:23 AM

The world has, in the words of Stephen King "moved on" and people in America have changed. It's sad to admit but the changes have not been for the betterment of our country.

Skip,

You are on to something my man. To encapsulate with respect to the current Administration in Washington:

1). President Bush made it clear that all that mattered to him during his tenure was 'his base', (not the will of all of the American People). And where is his support base now? He had a chance to become what only a few have had the opportunity to become, and to be great at it, however, he blew it.

2). Vice President Dictator Dick Cheney, said what he meant before: I don't care what the (American people) think,or anyone else for that matter. He made no bones about the fact that he was never a servant of the people. Punk!

3). Donald Rumsfeld made it clear that he did not care about (America's allies) old Europe, or the military leadership under him for that matter - he often disrespected both groups!

Clearly the Republican voters placed power in the hands of a dangerous triumvirate, a triune godhead that took the power of the Republic and wielded it as they saw fit and in deference to the will of the American, non-Republicans, the military or America's allies.

Power was concentrated in the wrong hands and this administration that was never a representative of the people's will - and we won't require future historians to tell us that!

The Military leaders who served under them excercised excellent restraint and shewed their mettle given the lack of civilian leadership at the top. As we have witnessed, they have had to play both military and civilian roles for the security of this nation.

When all 3 of these anal retentive bobble-heads are out of office they will not be missed!

Actually my career overlapped with Condi's at Stanford, I don't agree with her politically, however, she really is a caring, astute and articulate individual - I will give her a pass!

Posted by: The Rev | April 23, 2008 6:44 PM

The military in the US is in a weird sort of position and that is where we have always wanted them. We have been taught since infancy that we have civilian oversight of the military in the US so nothing untoward can ever happen like happens in other countries (coups).
This was all built on the 1940's belief that in spite of all the politics that American Presidents and their staffs were basically honorable people and if mistakes were made they would be honest mistakes with no real fault attached. The world has, in the words of Stephen King "moved on" and people in America have changed. It's sad to admit but the changes have not been for the betterment of our country. It's not just in government that these changes have taken place. Look at the media for instance. Generals in WW II often times told war correspondents where the next campaigns were to be fought and when. They relied on the honor of the press (?) and their common sense not to divulge any information that would hurt the war effort or cause US casualties that were not necessary. To their eternal credit, the press never broke that trust during the entirety of WW II! Try that now and watch what happens. Robert Novak released the story about the identity of a covert CIA intelligence agent and then took the moral high ground when he said the people who leaked the information were wrong but he felt "duty bound" to report the story. See my point about the changes? If our military refused to serve or resigned enmass because they didn't like the orders they received how long would it be before they got more proactive and particular about who gives them their orders? It's been a game played inside the beltway since Truman fired McArthur for insubordination. The political leadership will get us into a shooting scrap and then complain that the military did not win. However, the politicians want to micro manage the war and don't have the foggiest notion of what they are doing. If we keep backing the wrong horse, as we so often seem to do, the victories are gonna be few and far between. The world has moved on. The conflicts are not of the same character as those in the past. We can't build the most powerful military force ever seen and then deploy them as policemen and/or social workers in some rathole part of the world without bad results. I am not so sure that the political leadership of the US has any concern at all about the military or it's welfare. It seems like they keep making the same dumb mistakes and getting people killed and never, never, never take responsibility for any of the carnage. This country is suffering from a lack of honorable men. I believe that Colin Powell would make the best president this country has ever had. He is a combat soldier so he is in no hurry to deploy anyone. However, if he deploys the troops the other guy is gonna get hammered hard and the troops will come home. He would not run because his wife feared for his life(?) What kind of statement is that on the condition of America? I got a thought that Colin Powell could get the nomination and then get elected NO MATTER WHICH PARTY ticket he chose to run on. Am I the only one who sees that? Must be. Right now we have one candidate who will call the flying monkeys if she doesn't get the nomination running against a guy with absolutely no experience of any kind at this level and the Democrats are having a meltdown trying to pick one or the other. On the other hand, the Republicans have a military veteran alright but one who is just a bit to cozy with GWB and his nonsense. I am apalled that the slate we have before us in this election year is so seemingly barren of any clearcut leadership and is another election where the US voters will choose the person they think will do the least amount of harm. Obama is a racist and Hillary, well, Hillary is just Hillary. At any rate, the military makes it's share of mistakes but don't pin the blame completely on them. They get lots of help from the Puzzle Palace and all the minions inside the beltway. I saw in the news last week that Spain had a new Defense Minister. She is a 31 year old, pregnant lady with ZERO military exposure or experience. The powers that be decided that they wanted more women in the process so they plugged one in as defense minister. Now I wish them luck but I sort of resent them doing such a bonehead thing! Those type moves have been reserved for the occupants of our Whitehouse for a long, long time. I resent the Spanish working our side of Dumb Street.

Posted by: skip Meadows | April 23, 2008 5:04 PM

Oops!! Mr. Arkin isn't getting a lot of responses over the past 2 days, topics, even though what he has been commenting on for the last 2 days may or may not be accurate - I've been impressed.

Having said that, and as hard as I have been on the Military in the past, Mr. Arkin may be missing the larger point.

He may be overlooking the respect that Americans have for the military in comparison to the Administration in Washington DC (and its former cabinet members, General Powell being the exception - despite the UN faux pas)!

Most people, I suspect, believe that the Military and all of the troops are victims of the Bush Administration (and formerly Rumsfool) just as Saddam, the nation of Iraq, Iran and the American voters...have been, and we still are!

We recall what Cheney said recently, he doesn't care with 300 million people think. I'm a minister.., I can't call a person an a-hole, but I can think it!

Posted by: The Rev | April 23, 2008 3:58 PM

The heros were the ones who stood up to Bush, told him the truth about Iraq and were promptly fired. If the military doesn't want to be held responsible when the civilian leadership does stupid things, they should resign, en masse if necessary.

It will take years to repair the damage the Republicans have done to the Military.

Posted by: thebob.bob | April 23, 2008 1:02 PM

really the question that begs asking is "what can gates do?" he has the power but all the higher ups in the white house are going to be against anything that would be the right choice. they have their plans and nothing is going to change that. we will spend billions of the F/A-22 raptor while we are fighting an enemy that does not fly sorties. for what? so we can indiscriminately drop bombs on "insurgents"? and all this business of winning in iraq, we dont know what victory looks like. sun tzu said "the victorious army is first victorious and then does battle the defeated army does battle and then searches for victory" which is exactly what we are doing, searching for victory. any thoughts on that?

Posted by: plamonica | April 23, 2008 12:58 PM

Perhaps Gates is a wise old soul...

and he recognizes the damage that has been done to the military psyche, and that it is not the time to make any major changes, other than to repair the damage that has been done to the military by you know who!

Somewhere between Rumsfool and Gates lies the truth, and I suspect that the truth is a lot closer to Gates than it ever was to his authoritarian and egomaniacal predecessor who wouldn't cooperate in the fight for American national defense.

Please recall that his predecessor wouldn't cooperate with other cabinet members with regard to America' national defense! And as a result, on 9/11 the nation, the military and the Pentagon (he couldn't protect) were literally caught with their pants down.

I suspect that it will take time to repair the incremental damage that has been done over the past 7 years, and Gates has begun the first step in the repair process! The remainder cannot happen until Cheney, Bush and the remaining diseased scourge and blight on civility and justice are history!

Posted by: The Rev | April 23, 2008 11:21 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company