A Progressive Case for Gates

The appointment of Secretary Gates is sure to irk many progressives - and for good reason. Gates was a part of the Bush administration, he oversaw the implementation of the President's "surge" strategy, and has supported missile defense. While many progressives acknowledge that Gates has said some reasonable things (on Iran and Russia) and has been a positive influence within the Bush administration, many argue that this does not justify keeping someone on who was simply not as bad as the rest - especially when you have an opportunity to bring in someone more progressive.

But in keeping Gates, Obama, is actually indicating that he is very serious about instituting significant reform of the Pentagon.

Gates has advocated some very bold progressive reforms during the last couple of years. He has broken with the Rumsfeld emphasis on military transformation and has repeatedly talked about the need for the Pentagon to move away from procuring unnecessary weapons that are hugely expensive and have little strategic role. He also took on the Air Force's "fighter mafia" by firing two top Air Force officials and appointing Gen. Norton Schwartz - a non fighter pilot - to be Chief of Staff. As Slate's Fred Kaplan argues,

In his nearly two years at the helm of the Pentagon, Gates has delivered a series of speeches on the future direction of military policy. He has urged officers to recognize the shift in the face of warfare from the World War II legacy of titanic armored battles between comparably mighty foes to the modern reality of small shadow wars against terrorists and insurgents. More than that, he has called for systematic adjustments to this new reality: canceling weapons systems that aren't suited to these kinds of wars and building more weapons that are; reforming the promotion boards to reward and advance the creative officers who have proved most adept at this style of warfare; rethinking the roles and missions of the individual branches of the armed services; siphoning some of the military's missions, especially those dealing with "nation building," to civilian agencies.

By keeping him on, Obama is telling Gates to start implementing the reforms that he and progressives have been advocating for years. This is true especially on the defense budget. Since Gates is continuing on as Secretary of Defense he will now be empowered to bust out the scalpel and begin a difficult review process. Many had feared that the Pentagon would attempt to undermine a new Obama administration by dropping a $450 billion request for additional spending on weapons systems in the first months of his administration. This would have put Obama in the politically awkward position of being accused of cutting defense spending as one of his first foreign policy acts and would have set the battle lines over any potential reform of the defense budget. Not the sort of confrontational start that one would want. Gates essentially shields the Obama administration from that charge and hamstrings the elements within the Pentagon that would have sought to play politics to undermine a reform effort. Gates, as a Republican holdover in a Democratic administration, has an aura of bi-partisanship that makes him much more difficult to attack.

The question then that remains then is will Gates actually implement the far-reaching reforms he has talked about? I wrote in October after Gates had called for a massive change in the Pentagon's strategic approach toward weapons systems:

why doesn't Gates actually begin the procurement review process now and submit to the next administration his recommendations for what systems are necessary and what are not. He is after all the Secretary of Defense RIGHT NOW.

But Fred Kaplan, once again, makes a fair point,

From the start, he knew that he wouldn't have time to make a lot of headway in these campaigns--which, within the military, represent fairly radical ideas. His intent was to spell out an agenda, and lay the groundwork, for the next administration. Now it seems he's going to be in the next administration.

It seems fairly clear that Gates was kept on (and has agreed to stay) in order to implement the reforms he had advocated. The New York Times this morning seemed to confirm this, reporting that Gates was "selected in large part because [he has] embraced a sweeping shift of resources in the national security arena. The shift, which would come partly out of the military's huge budget."

It is also important to note that Gates' term will also probably be relatively brief, as he will in all likelihood make way for a more progressive leader - like Richard Danzig, a rumored nominee for be Deputy Secretary of Defense - in a year or two. Hopefully by that point Gates will have already done much of the heavy lifting and his successor will inherit a reform process that is already well under way. If that is the case, then Gates will have advanced the progressive vision on military affairs further than just about anyone could have hoped for.

Comments

[harriscrl3]

New polls show 80% of Americans approve of Obama keeping him on.

Carol

[DuPageDem]

This "progressive" post conveniently ignores the fact Gates is and Iran-Contra criminal. I'd worry about where he plans to dispose of all that outdated Pentagon hardware, given he had no problem with trading fighter parts for hostages with Iran.

[cam]

Rumsfeld sang from the same hymnal as Gates and he managed to miss the obvious - that the occupation would engender a committed resistance. American forces have managed incredibly well under the circumstances, but this is hopefully the last engagement of its sort.

In the future, wars will be wars of anhilation, not occupation. It is simply too easy for a committed enemy to control the terms of engagement with explosives.

The new systems are essentially robotic systems that will surveil, contain, and eventually eliminate the enemy. They will work against Hamas and its ilk if they are foolish enough to try the same tactics twice, but they probably won't work in a conventional engagement.. For that we need the kind of systems that have proven useless in Iraq and Afghanistan, but which need to be funded and developed nevertheless.

[BrettnCalgary]

"In the future, wars will be wars of anhilation, not occupation. It is simply too easy for a committed enemy to control the terms of engagement with explosives."

What exactly are you saying? In my way of thinking annihilation implies complete scorched earth destruction, and everyone dead. Surely you don't mean it that way. As far as the second point goes, you are merely restating the obvious, explosives have dominated warfare since they were invented, hardly an earth shattering surprise.

[cam]

Anhilation means eliminating the enemy in a contested area. It need not mean scorched earth but it does mean terrorising the enemy into flight. In the extreme (as if that weren't extreme enough) it could mean killing every human encountered as an army advances. The neutron bomb was developed to achieve exactly this.

Re the second point, explosives have changed a lot over the years. The kind of high brisance explosives that are used today were not available to non-state players until relatively recently. The triggers have also become vastly more sophysticated - a bomb can be triggered remotely or by a variety of sensors. Bombs today are smaller, more lethal, more configurable, more reliable, and far more available

Attempting to impose embedded martial control over a much larger alien population, which enjoys access to sophistiated explosives, is an impossible task unless the population can be surveilled at suficient granularity or employed against its own insurgent elements. The Iraq occupation force is aided immensly by its surveillance and the internecine conflict, but should the US tread too heavily by, say, trying to sequester Iraqi oil, then one mightg expect to see a united opposition.

[FirstForty]

Yes, I think all the Huffpost angst was illconceived. I think this guys is a reformer and if task correctly can do a lot of good. He has dinged the AF for spending money on frivelous weapons systems etc.

We have to rethink how to get more bang for the buck out of the military spending. I worked as a contractor twice for the AF and I could not believe the money that was spent. These folks can do more with less.

We also need a revamp of federal procurement laws. I hope that is on Barack's radar.

Lets back the PE!

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

Thanks for your insight. This is the typical type of strategy that those on the left complaining about Obama do not understand. Gates and James Jones I might add gives Obama instant credibility in the uniformed ranks to do no what we need to get done this year or even next but to transform the military for years to come. The war in Iraq is ending everybody knows that now. It is no longer the key issue to focus the military just on the war in Iraq any longer. These reforms are desperately need to free up resources for the soft power we need to manage the security challenges of the 21st century.

[Sunset Parker]

What's "progressive" about this sad attempt to spin Obama's imperialism-as-usual foreign policy appointments as other than the same old militarism by the same old cast of militarist characters?

A progressive defense secretary would submit to Congress within a week a proposal to halve the obscenely large Pentagon budget (the US spends as much on the military as all other countries combined) and close the 700 or so military bases the US currently operates overseas.

A progressive President Obama, far from increasing the number of US ground troops as he has declared, would reduce the number of US ground conflicts, starting with Iraq immediately. A progressive administration would understand that the key military and security challenge of this time is to forge an effective global political response to extremist violence and manage America's transition from failed imperialist behemoth to a large but normal country that sees itself as part of the community of nations, not its master. With this line-up of warmongers, however, I'm not optimistic.

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

Cut the military budget in half immediately. That's a great way to lose the next 50 presidential elections. Americans want a strong defense and it will take time to cut the budget but arbitrarily cutting it by half is insane.

[FearlessFreep]

That's the kind of insanity I can get behind!

[RockySoldier]

yeah, i mean, why pay the soldiers a living wage, right?

who cares about them and their families? i mean, we've gone THIS long ignoring the fact that active duty US military don't get paid much above the poverty line... why not a bit longer? I mean, why do we pay those people ANYTHING? They're so EVIL! Just bad, bad, bad!

This is why you're relegated to shouting over the internet and have no voice in public policy.

[Erdgeist]

To be sure, the Pentagon needs to be put on the NutriSystem Advanced budget reduction program by Gates to get rid of the Cold War military fat like the Virgina-class submarine which is $2.2 a pop in addition to dumping the F-22 fighter designed to battle futuristic Soviet fighters which don't exist (in fact the USSR doesn't eixst). All these items are worthless in stopping a small cell of dedicated terrorists. There are other, better ways, of preventing terrorism -- and much, much cheaper.

[Republicrats]

sounds Gates is on to something, although Rummy was too and he mucked it all up, probably mostly from his grating personality. Gates is quietly making long overdue reforms, we need to wrestle back some control over the mil ind complex that we were warned about so long ago. Lets see if we can get our foreign policy to synch up with our doctrine, and slash the budget. Its easier to reform from the inside, some balance going forward would be welcome.

[SamEllison]

Secy Gates was part of the Iraq Study Group and as far as I know P E Obama and V P E Biden have both embraced its policy goals. Secy Gates has so far implemented the Bush/Cheney agenda, he will now be able to fully follow some more of the ISG policies.

[ShephDJ]

I'm willing to keep Gates for a little while. Continuity, in itself, is a bonus, but can Gates help us get rid of the ridiculous accumulation of (unsupervised) private contractors doing military work? The hidden cost of those contractors is unmeasurable, and our lack of control over them is indefensible.

[Yermammy]

I think you're right (correct, NEVER "right"), Max. I'm a fire breathing Liberal, but Gates is a solid, good guy who isn't sucking up to anybody. He's not trying to be political like Betrayus. Good choice-for now...

[F150]

And many conservatives agree. The third Clinton administration isn't shaping up too badly.

[RockySoldier]

uh, and without screeching, please- how exactly is General Petraues 'betraying us'? Other than re-writing the counter-insurgency manual for the US military and actually being successful in tamping down the violence in a country many in the military did not want to invade?

oh, and i opposed the invasion, so good luck trying to label me as a 'evil, bad, bad boy neo-con'.

[Ramus]

Yea well if he proposes that the "Pentagon to move away from procuring unnecessary weapons that are hugely expensive and have little strategic role." , he will cut many American jobs since weapons are one of the few viable products Americans are making these days. So first get some infrastructure jobs going so our hoards of weapons makers won't be out of jobs. If world wide peace were to break out now the economy here would be even worse. There need to be jobs ready for all those Americans now employed in making devices of death.

[FearlessFreep]

This reminds me of the Brookings Institution's "progressive" case for the death penalty.

[Hawka]

I'm not against that BTW. I'm against abused rulings for it, but not actually against it as a form of sentence myself.

[Alex02139]

Yep. Power corrupts, now they'll say anything, including defending Gates.

[Rule Of Law]

Gates carries so much baggage from his CIA days under Bush 1 with his involvement in the Iran Hostage Crisis and Iran-Contra that is seems inconceivable that he be kept on. He worked against his own president in order to get Reagan elected. How can we expect loyalty now?

No, I won't provide links. Google Gates and Iran Hostage and do the homework. Freedom of Information act is a great thing.

[vinny]

f/ wiki

Gates consistently testified that he first heard on October 1, 1986, from Charles E. Allen, the national intelligence officer who was closest to the Iran initiative, that proceeds from the Iran arms sales may have been diverted to support the Contras. Other evidence proves, however, that Gates received a report on the diversion during the summer of 1986 from DDI Richard Kerr. The issue was whether the Independent Counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates was deliberately not telling the truth when he later claimed not to have remembered any reference to the diversion before meeting with Allen in October.

[Rule Of Law]

And I wanted to say that Gates has carried so much baggage that he could apply for a job as a Re Cap at any major airlines--but I forgot :)

[Dimikats]

The problem with Gates (admittedly, according to my father) is that in his vision, the military is on the ground and in the water. He has been decidedly anti-air during his tenure, to the point of taking funds from the Air Force to support the Marines and Navy. Let's hope Pres. Obama keeps Gates around no more than a year and hopefully much less than that.

[Dystopic]

the USAF (I was in the AF during Gulf 1, brother was a fighter pilot in Nam, and Dad was in WW2 in a B17), is currently run at the top level by a bunch of jesus freaks. Their procurement is out of control and has been for years, and has been reform-adverse.

I hope that the JSF and the F22 programs are not shelved - the F16 and F15 are getting too old to maintain, and are in no way stealthy.

[Alex02139]

The problem with the Air Force is that their looney tunes programs like Star Wars could bankrupt the country unless some adult says no. the cost of one B-1 or B-2 aircraft could fund the entire Northern Command for a year, and the Air Force insists it needs more and more and more.

In truth, Gates has done nothing about Defense procurement, has done nothing to stop Bush madness, and nothing will change so long as he is in charge.

[OldLeatherNeck]

1. The Army owns Star Wars not the Air Force.
2. Only Congress can implement the necessary changes in military procurement.

Gates was influential enough to prevent Cheney from starting a war with Iran. Gates was smart enough to select Admiral Mullen as JCS.

(More posts to follow on other threads)

[OldLeatherNeck]

Gates is not anti-air!. The stark reality is that the future of manned fighter aircraft is being superceded by advanced technology. UAVs are far more manueverable and affordable than manned aircraft. No human being can withstand the G-Forces that are now acheivable with advanced UAVs.

I hate to disillusion future Jet-Jocks, but the next generation of aerial combat can be controlled remotely by nerds with green hair and nose rings!!

(More posts to follow on other threads)