Keeping Gates Signals Change
Keeping Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense was the most dramatic signal Barack Obama could have sent that he intends to implement major changes in defense policy. That may sound counterintuitive, but it has the virtue of being true. As Josh noted this morning, "cabinet appointees execute policy. They work for the president." So if Gates is tasked to take us out of Iraq and to redouble our efforts in Afghanistan, we can expect him to carry out both tasks with the same degree of competence he's exhibited thus far in his tenure. In a properly functioning administration, the Secretary of Defense is one of several key voices advising the president on where and how to exercise military force. But he possesses primary responsibility for deciding how that force should be structured, staffed, equipped, and supplied. Those are decisions the president largely delegates, and thus where the secretary exercises his greatest degree of autonomy. And it is in those realms of defense policy that Gates has most distinguished himself. In retaining Gates, Obama is sending a clear signal to the Pentagon bureaucracy that their usual strategy of stalling and out-lasting civilian appointees is going to fail; that he intends to pursue Gates' key reforms. And that's a decision which should make us all stand and cheer.
Many critics of the pick exhibit a myopic view of defense policy. Open Left's Chris Bowers objects on purely symbolic grounds, arguing that it makes Democrats look weak on defense and undermines the appearance of change. These same concerns have been voiced by TPM's usually-astute David Kurtz and Greg Sargent, as well as by posters at DailyKos. Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation, goes a step further, all but declaring the Obama administration a third term for Bush, at least on foreign policy.
The standard critique of the mainstream media, as the traditional press is derisively known in the blogosphere, is that it privileges process over substance. But on defense policy, at least, a similar charge could reasonably be leveled against these bloggers. Conspicuously absent from any of these laments is a detailed, substantive case against Gates. The argument is being conducted almost wholly on symbolic grounds.
Chris Bowers may be the most widely-cited online critic of this pick, so it's worth taking a close look at what he's written. Bowers points out that the Pentagon budget accounts for a huge percentage of our discretionary spending, and it's entirely out of control. But is Gates the problem, or the solution? Bowers appears to have no idea. In fact, Gates and his team have attacked a series of previously-sacrosanct weapons programs. They've done so in the absence of any material support from the Bush administration, and in the face of fierce opposition from the Democratic congress.
No single example is more powerful than that of the F-22 Raptor. It's quite likely the finest air-superiority fighter ever built, but it's certainly the most expensive. The program has been scaled back repeatedly. The Pentagon wants to end purchases with just 183, preferring to purchase the cheaper F-35 instead, and to spend the difference elsewhere; the Air Force is pushing for 381. Congress stuffed $523 million into the FY2009 Defense Appropriation for the production of parts for another 20 aircraft, including $150 million in up-front spending, designed to lock the purchase in before the new administration could take office and cancel the program. But John Young, a widely-respected Gates deputy rumored to be staying on along with his boss, cleverly noticed that the bill only required the Pentagon to expend up to $150 million; he allocated just $40 million, just enough to replace the 4 F-22s lost in combat, and structured the contract so that the options must be exercised by January 21, forcing an immediate decision on the new administration. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were livid. Neil Abercrombie, the subcommittee chair, and Silvestre Reyes delivered memorable verbal thrashings. And they're both Democrats. But Young refused to cave. And his stand preserved for the new administration the chance to make up its own mind about the F-22.
That's just a single example. Gates and his team have also questioned the need for further procurement of the C-17, the CSAR-X helicopter, the Zumwalt-class destroyer, and the Army's FCS initiative, among other weapons systems. One analyst, quoted in Politico's coverage of the pick, bluntly observed that "the defense industry would like to see the entire Bush team move on." But it's not the "Bush team" that's the problem for defense contractors; it's Gates. The Bush Administration has presided over an historic expansion of defense spending. But Gates has been warning that the party is over. His deputies are pushing to roll the ongoing and predictable costs of conflicts into the main appropriations bill, instead of using a supplemental, an important first step in regaining control of spending. And defense spending is just the tip of the iceberg. On a wide array of issues including encouraging heterodox thought, promoting capable officers, reigning in inter-service rivalries, prioritizing the needs of soldiers in the field, and placing personnel ahead of technology, Gates has made important strides - a point I've already made at excessive length. Having him pursue the same agenda while working for a President who actually agrees with and supports his efforts is an exciting prospect.
Don't just take my word for it. The two leading blogs on counterinsurgency - Abu Muqawama and Small Wars Journal - make it clear that this was the smartest and most important decision Obama has made thus far. Richard Danzig is reportedly Obama's choice for Deputy Defense Secretary, a role he is expected to full until he takes over for Gates. How does he feel about the Pentagon chief? "I think Secretary Gates has been a good secretary of defense," Danzig told reporters back in October. "I think he'd be an even better one in an Obama administration.... Many of the kinds of efforts he's made are in tune with what we're trying to do."
I can't put it any better.
If you've enjoyed this, please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend' link. You can find more analysis on my TPM blog, or subscribe by clicking 'Follow Me' on the right. As always, I welcome your comments and corrections, and thank you for your feedback.
Advertisement
Another great post, Fly! I hadn't read nearly enough to formulate an opinion so I am pleased that you were able to pack so much information into this post. If Gates rocked the boat even a little with no substantial backing from the Bush administration, then under Obama we could see (hopefully) a dramatic change in the way DOD appropriations are done. Not just that, but the day of the "dinosaur" weapons systems could be closer to ending. Everybody knows that fighting wars in today's world is a much different prospect than Korea and Vietnam and requires different weaponry. I hope that Obama's team can prepare our soldiers for the conflicts that are more pervasive today.
November 26, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post and Andrew Sullivan thinks so too.
November 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, so much for your anonymity, Fly! ;-)
November 26, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS Give me props for recognizing the fingerprints of your background on your posts.
November 26, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. I'm getting tired of the Obama concern trolls out there. I realize it may be well intentioned, and certainly people from all parts of the spectrum need to make their voices heard. But that doesn't mean I can't get tired of hearing it.
November 26, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur. It's hard not see the concern being driven by ultimately insignificant issues such as he's a Bush appointee and we can't say that Bush made even one smart decision.
November 26, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree! This is the biggest issue on the table: dogmatically saying everything Bush did was terrible. It's where you get into trouble and this is case and point. With this decision, Obama was displayed far more sophistication than much of his party and supporters.
November 26, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And to extend that dogmatic fallacy: that no one with an R next to his or her name has a good idea or something to contribute to the good of the cause. The R should make progressive a little more skeptical and on one's toes, but we should dismiss them instanteously.
November 26, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a FWIW. Robert Gates is not a Republican. He is avowedly neither, and both.
November 26, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is a zen koan.
I agree with your assertion. I was thinking of Obama's comment the other day about needing to remember that there is wisdom to be had on the side of the aisle.
November 26, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's complicate a decision with this stuff.
The greatest danger we face is from terrorism. The period of time when terrorism can have greater effect is in a period of settling in that comes between the old and new administrations. We are involved in two war theaters where terrorism can come into play; we also have to consider domestic terrorism.
I would submit that the best way to reduce this danger and/or ensure an effective response occurs is to not only handle the transition very effectively but to bridge the gap with an experienced hand at DOD.
Gates is effective and has certainly helped the image of this current administration. That speaks highly of Gates' effectiveness.
I also think that Obama favors people who rose from the middle class (or below) based on merit and who still stayed in touch with those middle class roots. I think of Summers going to MIT at 16 but still recently has worried incessantly about the disparity of income between the middle and upper economic classes. Gates also rose to his position by merit and has the ability to fire folks who damage "plain ole" military folks--think Walter Reed and the folks who "lost" a nuclear weapon.
My nickel....
November 26, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny you bring up terrorism.
The country's FY09 budget is already set and in play. It's been costed and there aren't huge percentages of discretionary income. Homeland Security's budget will now, in part, go to infrastructure build-out. This general plan was put into play last month by DHS and the Bush Administration. Most people in the country don't know this (although it was talked about by DHS). However, notice what Obama is doing: he is going to keep continuity of infrasture build-out/protection while simultaneously fulfilling his infrastructure program. This provides continuity in an agency where churn was the norm and keeps programs on track (much like Obama keeping Gates on as Sec of Def). It's an excellent example of Obama's cleverness: fulfilling his plans while not appearing to rock the boat.
November 26, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is in the 09 budget that Homeland Security will be using to improve our infrastructure?
November 26, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the same link I provided in my post:
So the infrastructure security and infrastructure upkeep have now been binned together. Much of DHS's budget is for infrastructure security -- it's now possible to go after is for upkeep. Assuming, of course, Obama takes the same policy line which I imagine he would.
November 26, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only think this speech has proven is that DHS is now willing to detail the infrastructure problem. It is a wide chasm from that to the 09 budget where DHS is spending their budget dollars for infrastructure improvement.
Where is your concrete evidence that the DHS 09 budget includes actual dollars being spent for infrastructure--on items like bridges and highways and not levees?
Thanks.
November 26, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. The greatest threat we face is not terrorism. That is the old tired 1% Cheney doctrine. The greatest threats we face are Peak Oil, Empire of Debt, Global Warming, and the impending collapse of civilization.
November 26, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah heck, I missed the memo that Bin Laden was captured and al Queda destroyed. When did this happen?
November 26, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Number of Americans needlessly dying every two months due to lack of health insurance: 3000 (Institute of Medicine's estimate)
Number of Americans needlessly dying every two weeks due to lack of health insurance: 3900 (London School of Hygiene estimate)
Total number killed by bin Laden over the last 7 years: less than 3200.
Cost of war on terror: Trillions of dollars
Cost of providing every American health insurance: Actually if we did it with HR-676 it would probably be virtually free.
And that's just one of many examples why the so-called "war on terror" is innumeracy.
November 26, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh. This would certainly work.
The Iraq War was a misplaced response and this is where the 1% solution that Suskind opined about Cheney would fit.
It does not, however, fit with the terrorist attacks on the Twin towers and our subsequent response in Afghanistan. The vast majority of Americans--and I include myself in that number--approved of our excursion into Afghanistan.
Obama certainly is not going to sit around and allow another terrorist attack right here in the lower 48--or even in the Iraqi Green Zone. And it is far easier to prevent that if you have a seasoned team in place during the vulnerable transition time. I also believe that a seasoned team is the right folks to correctly extricate us from Iraq.
Go read a bit of Richard Clark's book and then the conclusions of the 911 commission before writing this sort of drivel.
November 26, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen the conclusions of the 9/11 commission. It's a matter of law enforcement.
And how's that Afghanistan "excursion" working out so far? About as well as the one the USSR had and the one the UK had before that. Where empires go to lose a withering and bankrupting war. That's Afghanistan in a nutshell.
I love how we use words like "excursion" to talk about bombing people. No wonder they hate us.
November 26, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this piece, Fly. 3 things:
1st. Josh can say, Obama can say it, but it is simply nonsense to say, "Cabinet appointees execute policies," if by that we mean it in any substantive or comprehensive sense. The history of Cabinets & organized departments & interests is chock full of the ways information is shaped - consciously or unconsciously - during its gathering, as it is shaped into options, and then as it is presented. The judgment, values & intelligence of individual Cabinet members will shape each of these stages. Beyond that, the weight & voice of the Cabinet member & their constituencies will also carry weight as they discuss these issues with the President. The idea that Obama will stand, clear & clean & untouched by human hand as he "sets" policy, which will then, once past that clean dividing line, be "executed" by the appointee, is an idea untainted by history.
2. As applied to Gates, you make a strong case on his ability to reform the DOD, but I hope his views on where/when/how to apply military force are equally constructive. I have no solid knowledge on this, so I'd be very much interested in your views.
3. Regarding my ongoing question of whether or not the Cabinet picks are up to the "challenge of the times," CarolBG's post today included an interesting link to The Nation's editorial (not my normal stomping grounds):
"President-elect Obama is a centrist at a time when centrism means energy independence and green jobs and universal health care and massive economic stimulus programs and government intervention in the economy. He is a pragmatist at a moment when pragmatism and the scale of our financial crisis compel him to adopt bold policies. He is a cautious leader at a time when, to paraphrase New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, caution is the new risky. The great traumas of our day do not allow for cautious steps or responses."
The last two sentences say what I'm getting at. I'm on-board for the "centrist" & the "pragmatist," and I understand the need for, and value of, caution & incrementalism. But Krugman has put his finger on a tiger here. There's a difference between hiring a good doctor when you're ill, and what you need if faced by a "great trauma."
November 26, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, Fly, thanks for following up on Bowers - even if you disagree, he's putting pertinent points up.
Second, you're relying on the "good employee with a bad boss", which might be true, but sometimes there are half-ass employees with bad bosses as well - it's not always easy to assign levels of blame.
Third, Rumsfeld came in to clean up the military as well, and he had the creds to do it. And came up empty-handed.
Fourth, who was responsible for the slow outfitting of armor on Humvee/replacement?
Fifth, even the best of dogs can be ruined by a bad master.
Sixth, "purely symbolic" is not something to dismiss. Democrats have lost major elections over the "purely symbolic" impression that Republicans are stronger on defense. Saying we need a Republican at DoD to show we're strong on defense only bolsters that losing point.
November 27, 2008 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush ran two times as an Idealouge, hired a whole slew of fellow idealouges, and preceded to force their backwards and damaging ideology down our throats. The Left, meanwhile, decried all the ideology and condemned Bush for it.
Obama, who did NOT run as an Idealouge, is NOT filling his Cabinet with person's of similar ideology, and the Left can't figure out why. They apparently feel every post should be an Obama-clone, because it is OK if we do it. Fucking morons.
November 26, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You apparently feel anyone who can't see Intelligent Design behind very Obama choice is a "fucking moron". Kudos, I see the end of divisive government to be replaced by divisive government. Note: Obama has spent much more time explaining to Republicans why they shouldn't be afraid of him than explaining to me why I shouldn't be afraid of him, or at least less than warm.
November 27, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know a lot about Gates, but I remember being surprised at his somewhat honest answers to Congress about the Iraq war. The way he answered the questions indicated his lack of interest in continuing this foolish war, and signaled his independence from the Bush administration. I was surprised they chose him (look what they did to Fallon when he dared to disagree with them).
It seems to me that there is one more argument in favor of keeping him as Sec of Defense -- Obama's attention, rightly, is currently focused on the economy. Having some continuity in the Defense Dept gives Obama maneuvering time during the transition.
November 26, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you wrote this, Fly. I haven't been blogging much lately and could not have said it better. Jon Soltz has another blogpost along these lines over at HuffPo, called, "Why the Gates Pick Works":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/why-the-gates-pick-works_b_146671.html
A number of anti-war activists were frustrated, and couldn't see his point, so I posted the following comment there:
"This Marine mom completely agrees with you, Jon. My son did two combat deployments with the Marines, including the Battle of Fallujah in Nov. '04, and two nephews have done four more combat deployments to Iraq, with the Marines and army.
"I was opposed to the Iraq war from beginning and have worked to end it. I supported Obama for two years and my son also voted for him.
"Bob Gates handed my son his degree from Texas A&M, so I know more about him, maybe, than some, and I have followed his work since he took over SecDef very closely. I commented to my husband a year ago that Gates seemed to be putting into place Obama's policies more than Bush's, and I have no doubt that he will do all he can to assist Obama as he implements his plan to end the war. We need a smooth transition out of that country in ways that non-military families and non-vets cannot truly appreciate, and that means experience at the Pentagon and a civil-servant mindset that will make it happen. Gates has both.
"I'm sure that after a year or so, Obama will put his own man (or woman) in place, but until then, peace activists need to understand that Obama's policies have not changed, and that if Gates actually did undercut Obama's plan to end the war, he would ask Gates to resign. I don't foresee that happening."
November 26, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keeping Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense was the most dramatic signal Barack Obama could have sent that he intends to implement major changes in defense policy. That may sound counterintuitive, but it has the virtue of being true. As Josh noted this morning, "cabinet appointees execute policy. They work for the president." So if Gates is tasked to take us out of Iraq and to redouble our efforts in Afghanistan, we can expect him to carry out both tasks with the same degree of competence he's exhibited thus far in his tenure.
This is a very odd piece of reasoning. If I understand you correctly, your view is that apart from the matter of basic competence, there can be no such thing as a bad cabinet pick, since cabinet secretaries just do what they are told. I suppose if Obama selected Randy Scheunemann, you would just say, "This proves Randy Scheunemann is now an Obamanian, and yet more change is on the way!"
Your confidence in the all-encompassing power and unquestioned authority of the president is misplaced. Cabinet secretaries have a lot of influence, and a certain measure of autonomy. They bring a lot to the table, and help shape the direction of the presidency as well as be shaped by it. It really would help if we knew that these recent appointments were all thoroughly committed to Obama's agenda.
November 26, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is not Bush. Bush was no President, he was just a kinda dumb guy that got to play for eight years in his doll house. He let everyone under him do the governing, for the simple fact he was to simple to do any of it himself. Normally, ideally, people working for the President do the President's bidding. If Obama gets side-stepped, said side-stepping lackey will get the boot. I trust Obama to be a better administrator that Bush could ever be, and that is, after all, what the President is.
November 27, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post - agree wholeheartedly.
-- Cris
My site: Obama Wallpaper Archive
November 27, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please be advised that there are three problems with your statement below that require clarification:
November 30, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink