Who Should Be Secretary of Defense?

Reposted from Foreign Policy In Focus

George Fernandes, the Indian socialist trade union leader and politician, was a prominent opponent of nuclear weapons. That is, until he became India's Defense Minister in 1998. That year, India detonated its first nuclear bomb and officially entered the nuclear club. And Fernandes? The former peacenik had become the country's number-one nukes booster.

Do appointments shape their office or does the office shape the appointment? Imagine what would happen if, improbably, President-elect Barack Obama appointed Dennis Kucinich to head the Pentagon. If he tried to implement any of his excellent plans for demilitarizing the United States, Kucinich would encounter enormous push-back, non-compliance, outright insubordination. To get anything done, even as the head of this powerful institution, Kucinich would have to play by the rules. He would either pull a Fernandes or resign in frustration. Despite all that we are taught in our world of individualism, institutions have a tricky tendency of imposing their stamp on anyone who falls within their orbit.

By this argument, Obama should just stick with Robert Gates as secretary of defense, since the Pentagon would carry on as before regardless of who heads it up. But that would be a grave mistake.

According to the commentaries from the foreign policy establishment, Gates is the obvious pick for the top job in the Pentagon. In The Dream Team, Foreign Policy asked the usual suspects to provide a list of their usual suspects for the next administration. Half of the worthies chose Gates to continue. Gates is popular among the mandarin class because he "inspires confidence in all quarters" (Robert Gallucci), "the so-called surge succeeded under his watch" (Robert Baer) "he seems to be opposed to a strike on Iran" (Gideon Rachman), and "he doesn't seem to have a partisan bone in his body" (Leslie Gelb).

Gates has certainly come a long way from the time when he advocated bombing Nicaragua, exaggerated the Soviet threat, and dipped his toes into the Iran-Contra scandal (probably more than he admitted). In the last two years, he may well have stood between Dick Cheney's trigger finger and various targets in Iran. Of course, he had very small shoes to fill. After Donald Rumsfeld, even Attila the Hun would have looked good at the helm of the Pentagon.

But comparing favorably to Rumsfeld is not qualification enough for the job. Here's why Obama shouldn't keep Gates.

• Gates supports a new generation of nuclear weapons at a time when even George Shultz and Henry Kissinger are calling for nuclear abolition.

• He wants to apply his surge approach to Afghanistan, when we should be thinking about withdrawal.

• Although Gates has criticized the huge budget and influence of the Pentagon - as Foreign Policy In Focus peace and security editor Miriam Pemberton points out in Keep Secretary Gates? This Simple Test Should Decide -- "when he had the chance to fix this, he didn't. In the FY 2009 budget request -- the last he will be officially responsible for -- he made the problem worse by adding $36 billion to his budget. This increase, as former CENTCOM commander Anthony Zinni noted, is roughly equivalent to the entire budget for International Affairs."

• As Robert Dreyfuss argues in The Nation, "by naming a Republican to Defense, Obama risks a concession to the canard that Democrats are ill-suited to handle national security, and he would pass up the opportunity to inject bold thinking and budget-cutting - both of which the Pentagon sorely needs."

If Gates is the wrong person for the job and Kucinich is on nobody's short list, who should take over at the Pentagon? In the aforementioned Dream Team article, The Nation's incomparable Katrina vanden Heuvel, wisely chose Lawrence Korb, who co-authored the Unified Security Budget with Miriam Pemberton.

But here's another suggestion: Antonio Taguba.

Taguba is the retired major general who authored the internal report on the Abu Ghraib scandal that confirmed widespread abuse. He also supplied a preface to a report on torture this year by Physicians for Human Rights in which he wrote, "There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

At this critical juncture, we don't need someone at the head of the Pentagon who is satisfied with the status quo. We don't need someone who promises change. We need someone, like Taguba, who has taken unpopular positions and stood up to the top brass. Unlike George Fernandes, Taguba would have a fighting chance of bucking the odds and profoundly changing an institution notoriously resistant to change.

Subscribe to FPIF's World Beat here.

Comments

[MatthewC59]

Who was the last Defense Secretary who really did this country justice? Who stood out as a decent human being??? I can't remember one either. The Dept. of Defense is really a misnomer--it hasn't defended anybody since WWII. I like the concept of a Dept. of Peace; in which Dennis Kucinich would be a wonderful choice. But since the likelihood of that is about zero, my first choice for DOD Sec. would be Gen. Wesley Clarke, who was highly visible as an Obama supporter BEFORE the Elections.

[katielady]

Colin Powell or John Kerry.. both would be acceptable and it absolutely should be someone who has been on the front lines in battle.. They would understand what killing and death mean.. and what happens to those who are on the front lines...

[GAPeach99]

John Kerry... anyone? anyone?

[mtrav]

I didn't even read the article but agree wholeheartedly.

[mergina]

UHM, Colin Powell? Give him a chance to really function as a Secretary to the Presidency and this nation rather than the lie delivering lackey that the Bush Team of Liars turned him into.

[LeftRight]

No. Not after having been a cheerleader for the war in Iraq. Whether he was right or wrong about the REASONS, he STILL stood up before the UN and tried to get them (unsuccessfully) to pass a resolution allowing us to go to war!

In addition to that, as John says, appointing a Republican to the post would continue the lie that Democrats aren't strong on defense......

[johnie2xs]

I agree, No Powell. Had he redeemed himself by articulating his complicity in "A Lie" immediately after leaving the administration, like maybe the evening of January 20th 2005,
he might have resuscitated his tarnished image. Short of that, no way.

[vippy]

Oh no, no one can make you do what is against your will. Powell made his choice for greed I suppose. No one gets rewarded for making a bad choice!

[superlive]

Installing a Republican as Secretary of Defense is a win only for the Republican Party. It proves two things:

01) Democrats are weak on Defense issues

02) Despite his rhetoric Obama is no agent of change

[MBryant]

Actually, Hillary would have been a good choice - a better Sec of Defense than Sec of state - but she wouldn't have left the senate for Defense... soo....

1) Clark
2) Nunn
3) Hagel

[JulieSA]

If you are tossing around Dennis Kucinich's name for this position, you have automatically disqualified yourself from the debate. Spongebob Squarepants is a more realistic candidate, and I'm not exaggerating.

[mairs]

Did you understand why his name was used in the above blog? Probably not. It was not to toss around his name as a candidate, it was an an example of a bad fit, and an explanation of how an institution shapes the person who heads it. Oh never mind.

[LeftRight]

Did you read this post? He said that Kucinich would not be able to perform his demilitarisation, and then said that no one would place Kucinich on a short list.

And in addition to this, there is no "debate"! There is ONLY President-Elect Obama's choice. But if there WAS a debate, anyone would be allowed to participate, even if they recommend Dennis Kucinich or Spongebob Squarepants! That's the beautiful thing about the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech!

[zitlight73]

I would like to see Kucinich as Secretary of the Interior or Energy but definitely not Defense.

[zitlight73]

My first pick would be Sam Nunn, but if he feels he too old for the job I'd give Chuck Hagel a look and maybe Jim Webb.

[ChicagoDMT]

Nunn is too old, and you can't pull Webb out of a senate seat in Virginia, but I think Chuck Hagel would be the perfect candidate. He has military bona fides, and he's a republican, so he knows where the G.O.P. buries all its bodies. He has been the most critical republican voice in regards to Iraq, and as Secretary of Defense, you pretty much keep him away from social issues. The one question I would ask Hagel is where does he stand on "don't ask, don't tell".

[GayGrandpa]

GOOD POINT, BUT I like the idea of Antonio Taguba, why not mix it up...anyone who wouldn't follow, fire them...it is time to make changes and why not mix it up...a Filipino-American who has already stood up to the brass is a worthy candidate.

[LeftRight]

But again, as John pointed out, appointing a Republican to SecDef would merely continue the lie that Democrats cannot handle national defense!

[BCubedReg]

Nunn is too old, Hagel is a Republican and feeds the argument "democrats are weak on defense" but Webb.... now that pick has some merit.

[PitBull6]

Webb is interesting but he recall that he was Secretary of the Navy for Reagan and resigned in protest because the SecDef didn't want to grow the Navy as much as he did.

Gates is a decent enought pick if for nothing else but continuity.

[Bitsko]

(Antonio) Taguba is best known for authoring the Taguba Report, an internal U.S. Army report on detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, leaked and published in 2004.

Taguba again made national headlines in June 2008, when he accused the Bush administration of committing war crimes, in a preface to a report by Physicians for Human Rights on prisoner abuse and torture in U.S. military prisons. (Wikipedia)

[schatsie]

I sure agree with this article and would love to see someone like Taguba put in charge...I am sorry, but after 8 years of ''''''Plausible Deniability''' from Reagan's son and heir, I am sick of any one who is connnected to so many semi-legal issues in such a negative way... I don't know how anyone would trust Gates any farther than he can be thrown...(Do you think the California electric bills going up by a factor of 20 from 6 billlion to 60 billion (and they cut utilization in half) was just a fluke and the feds knew nothing about it and the 8 billion that went missing in Iraq)

We need change, trickle down was a myth of the ruling class for the last 30 years and it did not work any better than it did under the French....We want a bloodless revolution...but with Truth regarding this administration and the others... ALL PRESIDENTIAL papers should be published at the most 4 years after the incumbent leaves office....

[vippy]

Isnt it sad though that people never change. I just saw the movie THE COUNTERFEITER and it was about how Germany treated the Jews and I thought about Abu Ghraib. So sad that people
don't change, especially when the government tells you whom to hate!

[SShaw490]

He definitely shouldn't keep Gates - not so much because Gates is bad but because Gates is too closely associated with Bush. If I was king, I'd say Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense.

[Hawka]

You have to weigh how much that would shake up operations on the ground though. Too risky, keep him for a year like the reports seem to be indicated to bring his replacement up to speed later on I say.

[LeftRight]

Nah, you bring in a former General/Admiral who actually handled men, and you don't really need to worry about it that much!

[emjay1954]

Taguba would be a superb choice.

Letting Gates continue would be disastrous, not so much because of Gates himself but because of his team that surrounds him--dead enders from Rumsfeld.

The Pentagon needs to be swept clean and detoxed. Taguba would do that. Gates, Powell, and their ilk from the last eight years would not.

[superlive]

Taguba would be a lame choice. His reputation in the Army was as a pencil pusher and his post-retirement press coverage reeks of backstabbing to the senior military staff. Obama would have to retire just about everybody over the rank of Lt. Colonel in order to clean out potential character assassins. Besides, I don't think Taguba wants the responsibility for letting the Gay GIs out of the closet. Obama would need either a SoD with a clean combat and command reputation or a total outsider in order to push that through.

[LeftRight]

And lets be serious, someone from the outside...... Remember McNamara??

[loper2008]

I think Bill Gates is a good choice. He is not a registered Republican and a lot of people say he is very competent. If he agrees to Obama's agenda in Iraq and Afghanistan I see no reason why he cannot stay.

[mozeovr]

Andrew Bacevich.

[editorjuno]

A truly great soldier-scholar, but I doubt he'd be interested in the job.

[editorjuno]

Any recently retired general officer heading up the DoD as a civilian is problematic enough, but somebody whose career ended with only two stars is probably untenable politically.