In Defense of Gates at Defense
David Kurtz this afternoon labeled the prospect of Obama retaining Robert Gates as his Secretary of Defense "disturbing," and suggested that such a move would be further evidence that Democrats lack spine. I generally enjoy David's posts, and take his argument as reflective of views that are widely held among Obama's supporters. David also linked to Spencer Ackerman, who offers a series of compelling reasons why retaining Gates would make good political sense. As it happens, I think Ackerman's correct. But I also think that he, like Kurtz, is missing the larger picture.
Retaining Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense would make sense even if it were politically inexpedient. That is because Gates has succeeded where almost all of his predecessors have failed. Every SecDef seeks to tame the Pentagon's sprawling bureaucracy; most end up, instead, captive to the very forces they initially sought to master. Gates has shown a rare knack for implementing real reform, and for refocusing the defense establishment on pressing priorities. Moreover, with the notable exception of withdrawing from Iraq, most of his priorities are shared by the incoming administration. That suggests there is a rare window of opportunity, a chance to combine an effective SecDef with a President who will actually throw his weight behind his reforms (which Bush has notably failed to do). That's too valuable a prospect to pass up.
Just this past week, news broke that the Defense Business Board, a crucial advisory panel, has prepared a series of briefings for the presidential transition warning that the current budget is "not sustainable," and calling for dramatic cuts to most major new weapons programs. Given the size of the current federal deficits, the magnitude of the economic crisis, and the scope of the military challenges facing the nation, that warning will grow only more urgent over the next four years. If Obama intends to withdraw from Iraq, refocus on Afghanistan, and reorient the military to address new challenges, he's going to need someone at the helm of the Pentagon who can do all of that for him. Someone willing to attack the sacred cows of military procurement, despite congressional and industry opposition. Someone willing to focus on the troops, even at the expense of popular weapons programs. Someone like Bob Gates.
I think two case studies serve to drive this point home.
Taking on the Services: The military engages in two kinds of conflicts. There are the short-term wars that involve shooting; these are eventually resolved. Then there are the struggles the services wage against each other. These are less overtly violent, but no less intense, and far more enduring. One of the greatest challenges facing any Secretary of Defense is ensuring that the military sets aside the latter conflict to focus on the former. Here's how Gates has addressed that challenge:
"The culture of any large organization takes a long time to change, and the really tough part is preserving those elements of the culture that strengthen the institution and motivate the people in it, while shedding those elements of the culture that are barriers to progress and achieving the mission. All of the services must examine their cultures critically if we are to have the capabilities relevant and necessary to overcome the most likely threats America will face in the years to come."
Sage words. But in the same speech, delivered at an Air Force base, Gates stunned the establishment by publicly dressing down the service for failing to adapt to new challenges. He singled out its reluctance to procure UAVs (unmanned drones), despite their proven value in combat, and announced that he would be creating a new task force to bypass the normal procurement procedures. And he praised John Boyd, a maverick forced out of the Air Force as a colonel, as a model for the officers in attendance to emulate, because he had placed being right ahead of being promoted.
The Air Force establishment was aghast. And in time-honored tradition, it hunkered-down, redoubled its intransigence, and prepared to wait out the remainder of Gates' tenure in office. It didn't change its priorities, alter its procurement procedures, or otherwise heed Gates' warnings. In fact, during a visit by Bush to the Pentagon, the Chief of Staff announced that he needed a larger budget, and pressed for the purchase of 381 F-22 Raptors, the shiniest new toy with which the boys in blue like to play. Gates had previously reduced the number of future purchases to 183, because $160 million air superiority fighters didn't strike him as a top priority in the midst of a multi-front war against terrorists and insurgents.
So in June, Gates seized upon a convenient pretext, and abruptly fired the Secretary of the Air Force and his Chief of Staff. Then he went a step further. He installed atop the Air Force its very first transport-pilot Chief of Staff, ending the grip that the combat jockeys had enjoyed since the service's inception. He could not have sent a clearer signal that in his Air Force, the contributions of all officers would be equally valued, measured solely in terms of how they advanced the mission. The cries of outrage are still echoing through Colorado Springs, but for the first time in decades, there's reason to hope that the most troubled of the services can be reformed.
Promoting Success and Innovation: The John Boyd speech was also a volley in a continuing skirmish between Gates and the military establishment over how to select and promote general officers. It's an important dispute. Our wars are run by generals and admirals; our success is contingent on placing the right folks in charge. Moreover, since many of the brightest and most ambitious junior officers hope one day to wear stars themselves, they self-consciously mold their careers and their behavior to meet the demands of the selection boards.
Over the past several years, a seething frustration has become apparent among many junior officers, maddened by the slow pace at which their seniors have adapted to new challenges. The first years of the war in Iraq had been, by any measure, catastrophic, and yet senior generals continued to serve out their full tours in the country, irrespective of how badly things went on their watch. A year and a half ago, a particularly outstanding Lieutenant Colonel named Paul Yingling risked his career by publishing an article attributing many of the problems in the war on terror to "a failure of generalship," and calling for reform of the selection process. This past June, another light bird, Robert Bateman, wrote that part of the problem was a reluctance by the president to fire generals for failing to accomplish their missions.
One man came to symbolize the unbridgeable divide between the mid-career officers fighting on the front lines of the war, and often winning the battles, and their seniors, running the conflict from headquarters compounds, and losing the war: Colonel H. R. McMaster. On paper, he seemed the model officer. He had written a famed book concerning the officer corps' failures in Vietnam, been decorated for valor in the first Gulf War, taught at West Point, and performed well in command. Most crucially, he had turned the situation around at Tel Afar, an effort that became a model for the counterinsurgency program. But twice, he had been passed over for promotion to brigadier general, and his career seemed at an end. As one retired general put it: "When you turn down a guy like McMaster, that sends a potent message to everybody down the chain. I don't know, maybe there were good reasons not to promote him. But the message everybody gets is: 'We're not interested in rewarding people like him. We're not interested in rewarding agents of change.'"
But then, Gates intervened. In an extraordinary and unprecedented move, he recalled Gen. David Petraeus from Iraq to chair the next promotion board, McMaster's final chance to be promoted before facing mandatory retirement. At the time, McMaster was working for Petraeus in Iraq. The move sent a clear signal to up-and-coming officers. In Gates' Pentagon, innovative thinking, a willingness to challenge convention, and an ability to produce results would be the path to promotion - not just punching your ticket, not making waves, and being a team player. And sure enough, when the list was published, McMaster's name was on it.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't doubt that Barack Obama is capable of addressing many of these challenges, irrespective of who happens to occupy the top job at the Pentagon. There are a number of qualified candidates, and no one man is indispensable. But Bob Gates has the virtue of already being in place, having mastered the byzantine bureaucracy and begun the laborious process of bending it to his will. Replacing Gates at CIA was among Clinton's worst personnel decisions. If Obama decides to retain him, at least for a year, I won't be losing any sleep over that decision.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall adds a fascinating new angle, reporting that the appointment (which he says is a done deal) owes much to the tacit alliance Obama has formed with conservative foreign-policy realists. Let me say up front that I'm no fan of Kissinger/Scowcroft style realpolitik, even as practiced by its more sober advocates like Chuck Hagel. It generally entails an amoral cynicism I find distressing, and over the long term, counterproductive. But after the last eight years, a strong dose of realism is probably a healthy and necessary corrective. And the approach entails a pragmatism that's as useful at Defense as it is destructive at State. So even if this is the unseen hand of Scowcroft at work, I can live with this appointment, and even find reason to cheer it.
Advertisement
No time to write anything substantive; just wanted to share my emphatic agreement. I've never been clear what the arguments against Gates are besides Bush and Iraq. Maybe for some that's enough. But if there are other legitimate reasons not to retain the guy I'm honestly interested in hearing them.
November 11, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree opletely. Personally most of the outrage at keeping Gates from libs is just because he worked for Bush. I have to say to myself "Are you even THINKING rationally?"
November 11, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Informative and though-provoking as always. Thank you.
November 11, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the hardest things any elected official faces is the entrenched career bureaucrats, which while extremely important and necessary, also have the desire to survive through the constant rotations of party control over the government. This means they carry their own agendas and can undercut the President at every turn. The Executive can order something, but it is the bureaucracy which carries out these orders, and history is full of examples of the disconnect between planning and implementation of policy. There are few if any entrenched bureaucracies in Washington as powerful as the Pentagon and Defense Department. If Gates is the kind of man that can bring about change whilst being respected, then I vote to keep him in place. Administrators like him are few and far between, and he has not shown himself to be the misplaced ideologue Rumsfeld was.
Just my .02 cents
November 11, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well written and well reasoned. And rec'd.
November 11, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd. And agreed.
We seem to be waxing historical at the Cafe of late. And I would like to remind us all that very much part of the civil rights movement for many of us who came of age in the 60's was the peace movement. A direct line moves from Ghandi and non-violence to MLK. And reducing the military and all its ties to corporations and the lobbying of congress as a consequence should be a high priority at a time when we are refocusing as a nation.
Service has too long been connected with "military" service in this land that has become imperial. So, Fly, I thank you for this post. And I encourage you to keep on posting as you seem to be moving in very positive and worthwhile directions. I look forward to each and every one of them. But mostly I look forward to a less militaristic and bellicose country, a peaceful country where we focus on taking care of our citizens and our planet and not on bullying the world for all its assets.
I still can't believe Obama is going to be our president! And a majority of our country are fine with a Dem president and congress. And I pray great good will come of all of this. Ethics. Restored Constitution. Justice and liberty and health care and jobs and security without imperialism for all.
November 12, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gates appears to be open to the fine (if not successfull) previous tradition of telling the truth, personified by John Paul Vann, Ray Herbert and David Hackworth in and regards the war in Vietnam. Their career sacrifices will bear fruit if Gates is retained.
November 12, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in favor of keeping Gates at least for the short term. I think it will ease the transition at a time of war and at the moment, he seems eager to please Obama. I've been impressed by his willingness to stick his neck out against the Bushies.
November 12, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. It is possible that W made a few good decisions in his 8 years. I think it is also worthwhile to note, for those remaining hand-wringers out there, that while Obama is retaining Gates, he is closing Gitmo. President Elect Obama is giving us a preview, he is capable of making both a pragmatic decision in keeping Gates and a moral one in closing Gitmo. Moral and reasonable decision-making. That is Change We Can Believe In, folks!
November 12, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome blog. It is this type of pragmatic leadership we have been missing for too long. I didn't know of any of your reasons for retaining Gates, but it sure adds to my initial thoughts that it would provide the most stable environment for ending the war. That it also allows us to restructure our spending is a huge bonus since that will be challenge number two at DoD.
November 12, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love the post and many of the comments above. Eight years ago, I was struck by the Bush Administration's almost allergic reaction to "All Things Clinton". They campaigned on a platform of restoring dignity to the White House and the Office of the POTUS as though everything Bill Clinton did was immoral, misguided, and wrong. I remember thinking during the campaign that while Bush was running on a platform of upsetting all apple carts, Gore wasn't doing enough to highlight the successes of the Clinton years which deserved continuation.
As a liberal and a patriot, I wholeheartedly believe that it would be incredibly foolish for an Obama Administration to come into office with the same attitude about Bush as the Bush Administration held about Clinton. Examine, question, study, probe... If your predecessor was doing something wrong, correct it. If your predecessor was doing something right, improve upon it. I have my suspicions as to which category will be more heavily populated, but the important thing is making thoughtful, rational decisions about how to proceed.
November 12, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
But teh blogosphere wants blood. :-)
P.S. One of the worst results of the new Bush administration blatantly wanting to do everything opposite the Clinton's immediately if not sooner was that they were no longer going to be lobbing missiles into camps in Afghanistan, and they didn't think all that hunting and policing regarding Al Qaeda was the right way to go about it, it was a waste of time, flitting at non-state-actors gnats that had no power to hurt us. They were going to turn the whole intel and military over to watching them rogue states, where the real danger was. A real irony of 9/11 was that the hit on the Pentagon was totally successful, that the Pentagon itself had unprotected airspace. There was incredible hubris about not using past intel, as if all intel done by civil servants was done by liberal Democrats.
November 12, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gates is an old school public servant of the realist mold, the kind of guy that fits right in with the Scowcrofts and the Bakers and the Powells of the world.
He also knows his shit, and has had success.
I am entirely comfortable having him stay right where he is for a couple more years. Actually, I can think of few Democrats who I would feel comfortable with taking the reigns at the very start of the Obama Presidency. Down the road, sure. But now? Nope. Continuity is required.
November 12, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to all who have posted their thoughts and encouragement - it means a lot to know I'm not just shouting into the void.
I also wanted to take a second crack at a succinct summation of the case for Gates. In a nutshell, it's that he stands the best chance of quickly and thoroughly bringing about the change we need at the Pentagon. In other words, what's commonly framed as a decision that would signal continuity and perhaps cowed passivity, would probably be better interpreted as a renewed commitment to change.
November 12, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I very much agree. On top of your arguments toward the benefits of keeping Gates, I would add: it's only been a week. Let's let Obama be Obama. We voted him in... don't we trust his judgement?
I know I do--and I trust him not to be swayed from otherwise good decisions by his shouting supporters. Including myself :-)
November 12, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I donno, Fly. I wrote a few months back on how we'd need to cut some slack on a lot of people who'd done nasty things - i.e. you can't try 000's of people involved in some nasty Bush administration activities.
But I'm beginning to feel that the 'realist' arguments for continuity, bipartisanship & competency are moving beyond "cutting slack," and beginning to erase these guys' decisions and actions, erase certain moral stands, erase accountability, and that keeping these guys in their chairs ois a step too far.
I appreciate the "who can reform the Pentagon" argument. And the political savvy behind keeping him on. But at this point, the argument seizes up, for me. Because we could essentially pluck the best Republicans, with the most experience, right across the board, and drop 'em into Cabinet under this line.
I would argue that competence is more widespread than we think; and that there has to be SOME form of accountability here, or our moral arguments around the war, the Constitution, torture and much much else collapse. Gates is part of the Bush Cabinet, bears some responsibility, and swore an oath to that. I can see not prosecuting him, harnessing his talent, etc. But to erase this, and give he - and others - Cabinet positions?
Also, I'm not 100% convinced either on his competence, or on his history of moral calls. He was up to his arse in Iran-Contra, and - at a minimum - missed some fairly important things in the 80's, concerning the Soviets.
So what's our defence? Gates was just following orders? He got there late? We're just recognizing talent? It's a politically deft move? Even if I give you the case that he might well be suited to cleaning up the Pentagon, and it might be politically deft, how do we - and Obama - square our moral stance on the War, the Constitution, and on Accountability with re-hiring Gates?
November 12, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn:
You raise two sets of concerns, both legitimate.
The first is, in essence, a slippery-slope argument: if we keep Gates, why not have an entirely GOP cabinet? But that's a little simplistic. I haven't seen reports that Obama intends to retain other Bush cabinet-rank officials. In fact, there's no reason for him to do so. The case for retaining Gates rests on his performance at Defense. That performance has been exceptional, by which I mean to say, a dramatic departure from that of other Bush administration officials, and from that of his predecessors at the Pentagon. In that sense, keeping Gates confirms the rationale for dismissing the rest of the bunch. If you can find another Bush official who's performed as well, I'd be happy to keep them, too. (The only one who springs to mind is Sheila Bair.) It's about performance; bipartisanship is just a bonus.
Retaining a single high official hardly signals the end of accountability. But if holding miscreants to account is the order of the day, the Intelligence Community provides a good place to start. Hayden and McConnell, worried about their job security, placed the Washington-equivalent of a job application on the front of the Post today, replete with dark intimations that replacing them would politicize their agencies and endanger national security. I hope their replacements are announced before Obama even takes office. Hayden presided over the NSA as it circumvented the constitution and FISA to conduct warrantless wiretapping, and as DDNI, was in position to review most of the administration's abuses. McConnell, who's actually proven an able and competent manager and reformer as DNI, and a vast improvement over Negroponte, has been high-handed in his treatment of Congress and generally defended the executive power-grab of the past seven years. Both have to go, to usher in a clean start in the intelligence world. There are plenty of folks qualified to hold these positions, and it's not clear to me that either incumbent contributes irreplaceable value.
The second concern is trickier. You point out that Gates' performance under Reagan and Bush was considerably less impressive than his recent tenure at Defense. And that's true. But if missing the impending collapse of the Soviet Union is a disqualification, we'll have to rule out anyone who served prior to 1989. Iran Contra is something else again. Gates was hardly among its moving forces, but it's reasonable to conclude that he lied in its aftermath about what he'd known, and helped in the coverup. To my mind, these would have been adequate reasons to vote against confirming Gates to his present post. And they certainly raise concerns about his honesty and morality. But as things worked out, Gates was confirmed anyway. And since then, by all indications, he's performed superbly. So do we throw him out now, despite the high probability that his replacement will prove less effective, and his immediate ouster will derail many of his reforms? Or do we retain him for a year or so, allowing a new batch of senior officials to take the reins for those initiatives that are worth continuing, and giving Gates the chance to push through what he's started?
I respect your dissent, but you have my answer above.
November 12, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
As one who was initially skeptical of his appointment at Texas A&M,my alma mater, and later marveled at his ability to listen to the faculty (not too dissimilar from entrenched military brass), and then lead in a spectacular fashion, I only ask for my turn to beat the drum that you carry, and I shall do so loudly and with relish. You're words remind me of the basic thrust of James Carroll's book, The House of War, which caused me to believe that BO needs to watch his back as he looks beyond our borders.
I thought enough of Gates to suggest that BO, the candidate, consider him for VP. Admittedly I was, and am troubled by his Iran-Contra role...but glad he has survived to serve, I frankly wish for more than a one year transition period.
November 12, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this, Fly. 1st, I agree that 'slippery slope' arguments tend not to be useful (including mine in this case!) Setting aside that argument, my view is simply that Accountability must be added to our mix, as Continuity + Performance on their own seem to leave us in a world where Colin Powell, Rubin & Summers, even Lieberman effectively get a free pass for some fairly major failures. Many voices here have pushed for greater accountability in relation to the War(s), the financial crisis, the Constitutional mess, etc. - and I think some sort of weighing is important here.
I CAN see selecting the best of those who sat in key chairs during this time, but somehow they would need to show they had learned, were interested in cleaning up the past, heading toward a better future, and perhaps even engaging in some truth-telling & justice-making. If Gates is up for that, then... wonderful. But being in Cabinet meant he knew, and perhaps even supported, some things we might not be too keen on. In short, no automatic ban, but some sort of coming clean might be useful.
Second, I also think there's a need to think through not just Gates' ability to reshape the Pentagon... but also his VIEW of the world, international relations. While some might argue that Obama will simply supply that, fully sketched, I'm not convinced Cabinet members - with their massive depts & day-to-day operations - simply set their views aside. As for Gates, in 1984 he wasn't just engaged in messiness around Iran-Contra, he took a very strong view on what to do with Nicaragua - wanting it bombed, and every measure short of invasion taken to flip over the gov't there. Some suggest his views changed in the late 1980's. I don't know the answer to that, one way or another. But he WAS selected by Bush I and II to take on major chairs, which would seem to say he was somewhat in the mainstream of a fairly hard-headed approach to things.
What I'm asking here is - no matter what his capabilities re: the Pentagon's internals - what would he say, add, contribute, when that first "testing" of Obama takes place? Does he have useful views on Russia, China, Pakistan & Iran? And I'm asking because I don't know, but I think this is relevant.
November 12, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well said. Excellent post.
I think the key point here is simply a matter of competence. It's been sorely lacking in most areas of this administration and if it exists in such a vital one then let's keep it.
Additionally, this underscores that real grown-ups will always put country first unlike those juveniles who were just spouting off to score political points during the campaign.
Remember, best and brightest doesn't come from just one party, one ideology, one ethnicity or one ANYTHING!
I too would have no qualms about keeping Gates in the new administration. He has certainly struck me as a serious, thoughtful and honest person in his current role. Not a political hack towing the party or company (DOD) line. President-elect Obama could do a lot worse and he's definitely someone who could work well within a new administration.
November 12, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly,
Count me as another who remembers Gates role in the Central American Wars. I admit that I was surprised that he could pick up the pieces he had to work with after Rumsfeld jumped out of the Jeep. Your rousing defense has prompted me to start looking into different accounts of what is happening in the Pentagon.
But I wanted to bring up another element in what the Bush years have done to the National Security Apparatus; The Iraq War was prosecuted with the Military chain of command absorbing many of the functions that used to be the province of either the State Department or the CIA. If Obama kept Gates while aggressively restoring the proper role of these other agencies, I would be a lot less nervous about the tail wagging the dog.
November 12, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
moat:
Let me respond to your post (and to quinn's reservations) by noting that the most prominent advocate in the current administration for expanding the role of the State Department and de-militarizing our foreign relations has been...Robert Gates. No, seriously. He's been far more outspoken about this than Rice, Negroponte, Hadley, or any of the others who ought to have been making this case.
You can look at a compilation of his remarks on this issue for yourself. Or go read his Kansas State speech. But, just for the heck of it, let me throw out a couple of my favorite Gates lines on the subject:
-"[T]here is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security – diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development."
-"I think that the State Department is the proper place to oversee all of the elements of American foreign policy and where there is accountability and where there is operational authority and the ability to persuade or work, coordinate others....the Congress has not been willing, decade in and decade out, to give the State Department the kind of resources, people and authority that it needs to play its proper role in American foreign policy."
-"[H]aving robust civilian capabilities available could make it less likely that military force will have to be used in the first place, as local problems might be dealt with before they become crises."
If anyone else can point to a Secretary of Defense who's said he would gladly hand over a portion of his budget to expand the Foreign Service, USAID, and other civilian agencies, I'd be fascinated. Gates really is a remarkable guy; it'd be a shame to lose him just because he had the misfortune to be appointed by a terrible president.
November 12, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine to keep him if you like the status quo. Was someone talking about change awhile back? I'd like to see some folks who can think outside the box. Apparently we're still comfortable in the box.
November 12, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink