Wednesday
Nov262008
Unsurprising News of the Day: Gates to Stay On at Pentagon
Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 8:11
The news this morning is that Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense, is close to agreeing to stay on in the first year of an Obama Administration. No surprise there --- the issue was not whether the offer would be made to Gates but whether he wanted to spend more months in Government service.
The media's headline attention to Gates' retention as a sign of Obama's "bipartisan" approach, keeping or bringing in Republicans in his Cabinet, misses the significance of the story. While there may be some mileage with Congress in pointing to Obama's "centrist" approach to national security, Gates serves more important roles.
In particular, his continued stay at the Pentagon is a reassurance to military services, who are suffering from years of trampling under Donald Rumsfeld. The Secretary of Defense's approach of working with commanders, rather than imposing decisions on them, has brought some stability after the disasters of the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith grand plan for a "transformed" military fighting and liberating country after country. It is also notable that Gates has pulled back on the preaching about Missile Defense as a be-all, end-all solution for the threat from "rogue states" even if, for political and strategic reasons, the US Government is still pursuing its basing strategy in Eastern Europe.
But here's the question missed in today's headlines: the continuity under Gates at the Pentagon is a continuity for what? He may have kept the military ship from sinking, assisted by the fluffy headlines of "surge is working", etc., etc., but there is no strategic approach for the immediate demands on US power.
Will an Obama/Gates Pentagon in 2009 have any approach for dealing with Al Qa'eda other than bomb, bomb, bomb in Pakistan? Is there any new strategy for Afghanistan other than putting some number of troops --- 10,000? 15,000? 20,000? --- into the country? As Iraq moves into a new stage of political in-fighting and insurgency, albeit one with a lower if still significant level of casualties, is there any consideration of a US military role other than some number of troops --- 50,000? 75,000? 100,000? --- as a deterrent to the scheming Iranians across the border?
To be fair to Gates, all of these are issues that require a political solution with military support, rather than a military solution with political justification. Unfortunately, his retention is also a sign --- that seven years into the "Long War" --- that a lot of Washington minds may still be stuck on fight first, talk later.
The media's headline attention to Gates' retention as a sign of Obama's "bipartisan" approach, keeping or bringing in Republicans in his Cabinet, misses the significance of the story. While there may be some mileage with Congress in pointing to Obama's "centrist" approach to national security, Gates serves more important roles.
In particular, his continued stay at the Pentagon is a reassurance to military services, who are suffering from years of trampling under Donald Rumsfeld. The Secretary of Defense's approach of working with commanders, rather than imposing decisions on them, has brought some stability after the disasters of the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith grand plan for a "transformed" military fighting and liberating country after country. It is also notable that Gates has pulled back on the preaching about Missile Defense as a be-all, end-all solution for the threat from "rogue states" even if, for political and strategic reasons, the US Government is still pursuing its basing strategy in Eastern Europe.
But here's the question missed in today's headlines: the continuity under Gates at the Pentagon is a continuity for what? He may have kept the military ship from sinking, assisted by the fluffy headlines of "surge is working", etc., etc., but there is no strategic approach for the immediate demands on US power.
Will an Obama/Gates Pentagon in 2009 have any approach for dealing with Al Qa'eda other than bomb, bomb, bomb in Pakistan? Is there any new strategy for Afghanistan other than putting some number of troops --- 10,000? 15,000? 20,000? --- into the country? As Iraq moves into a new stage of political in-fighting and insurgency, albeit one with a lower if still significant level of casualties, is there any consideration of a US military role other than some number of troops --- 50,000? 75,000? 100,000? --- as a deterrent to the scheming Iranians across the border?
To be fair to Gates, all of these are issues that require a political solution with military support, rather than a military solution with political justification. Unfortunately, his retention is also a sign --- that seven years into the "Long War" --- that a lot of Washington minds may still be stuck on fight first, talk later.
tagged Pentagon, Robert Gates in US Foreign Policy, US Politics
Pentagon, Robert Gates in US Foreign Policy, US Politics
Reader Comments (2)
What disappointing news. This is not why I gave money to Obama and is not what I voted for.
I fear that fresh ideas may be tough to find with Gates continuing on at the Pentagon.
"Will an Obama/Gates Pentagon in 2009 have any approach for dealing with Al Qa’eda other than bomb, bomb, bomb in Pakistan?"
What alternative approach? Negotiation is not possible with Al Qa'eda. It's not a state (rational) actor like North Korea, North Vietnam, Soviet Union.