- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Eminentoes
Defense According to Robert Gates
In an article to be published in the January/February 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs, Robert Gates, the current and future Secretary of Defense, has written that his department should not be "preoccupied" with what is defined as conventional and strategic conflict. Under a theme of "balance" it hasn't taken him long to remodel his thought process awaiting January 20.
In a rather obvious statement Gates discovered, "Support for conventional modernization programs is deeply embedded in the Defense Department budget…" He goes on to say that this applies to all aspects of the defense community: the bureaucracy, the industries, the Congress. He suggests that these interested parties tend to disregard the requirements appropriate to "today's wars and some of their likely successors."
This is exactly what was heard in one form or another post the Vietnam War. The only difference is that Jimmy Carter didn't even want to recognize the increased role of counter-insurgency and special operations that Gates emphasizes. The delayed planning and restricted format of Operation Eagle Claw, the rescue mission to free the Tehran embassy hostages, was an example of the Carter Administration's inability to accept the reality of world political/military affairs.
It appears that Bob Gates seeks to redefine global crises realities so as to justify his true objective of reducing military spending. Gates bases his military intelligence forecast on the thesis that the U.S. would not have to fight "on short notice" another major conventional war in the near or predictable future.
Apparently Secretary Gates counts on a considerable lead-time in any emerging ground conflict with Iran or North Korea. Supporting U.S. Navy aircraft battle groups would have to be shifted to the appropriate theater -- an action already found to overtax American naval resources during the Iraq war. And yet Gates implies the U.S. Navy needs no enhancement during the next presidency. This strategic concept suggests the Air Force's advanced fighter planes, such as the F-22, will of course not be necessary, so they could be shelved -- as well as other unnecessary major war advanced weapon systems.
While recognizing the need for what is known as stability operations, in Bob Gates' view anti-terrorist military activity must be "subordinated to measures aimed at promoting better governance, economic programs that spur development and efforts to address the grievances among the discontented from whom the terrorists recruit."
After all this time one would have thought that this quintessential bureaucrat would have learned that sticks as well as carrots are necessary in combating terrorist organizations. It should be noted in passing that he stays self-protectively clear of commenting on coercive interrogation as an intelligence tool.
Gates has accepted the more humanitarian idea that the world's problems that produce terrorism are primarily economically and socially-centered rather than driven by harshly material, historical, political and religious forces. This may fit well into Gates' Eagle Scout background, but it is Pollyannaish nonsense in the real world context.
In essence, Gates in his essay is challenging the reader to come up with a reasonable world circumstance in which a major American conventional war fighting capability would be necessary. This approach ignores the basic element in world affairs of unintended consequences and unexpected action. But Bob Gates knows this already. He just ignores it.
The fact is that there are serious flashpoints around the world that could escalate into major conflict, and Sec.Def. Gates knows this as well as anyone. Arguing the potential of any of them is futile other than to note they exist. History has already proven major conflict can arise from seemingly minor beginnings -- and quite quickly.
Why is it that Robert Gates wants to reduce to an academic exercise the dangers historically implicit in world affairs? And more important why -- other than justifying reducing the defense budget -- does he wish to downplay the need at this time of maintaining and, most importantly, improving existing U.S. conventional air, sea, and ground forces?
One can see now why the surprising choice was made of Gates by President-elect Obama to stay on as SecDef. No worries about him from the Left's anti-war machine because Robert Gates' ability to argue out of both sides of his mouth makes him a suitable defense choice in the new administration. It may take a while, but the thinking public will catch on -- hopefully before America's enemies do.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama
- Michael Ledeen on Iran and Democracy
- Feeding the Beast
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mark| 12.12.08 @ 8:01AM
SEC Gates has been refining his thoughts on this subject well before the election. If you worked in the Pentagon you would know that this paper is merely a synopsis of his guidance and thoughts of the last two years. It was not motivated solely by his remaining to become part of BHO administration. The tough part is to figure out how to prepare for new threats as well as handling the existing ones. While it is easy to say the US must be able to meet the full spectrum of possible scenarios, actually achieving this goal is proving to be very, very hard. It is very much like trading on Wall Street. All one has to do, I am told, is to buy low and sell high.
Rogelio| 12.12.08 @ 10:56AM
Mr. Wittman,
I'm no fan of Robert Gates, but you might have better reviewed his work on the "Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group" than his decision to aid Obama in transitioning the nation from Buffoon Bush. After all, as you well know, Gates would prefer to retire. It was Obama who asked him to stay on for a time (till the end of Iraq), not Gates.
Now there, on the "Baker- Hamilton" fiasco, what I call "the Baker Boys" we find a very vulnerable political effort by Gates. You might have cracked Gate's political nuts on "Baker-Hamilton". But alas.....
To focus on your own journalistic work, I have a question: what is the opposite of the characterisation in your final paragraph: "...the Left's anti-war machine...?" Is it (and what else can we conclude?) the "pro-war machine" of the right?
Perhaps we conservatives can do better than a "pro-war machine"? What would be the conservative basis of advocating war? Perhaps you could explain.
Rogelio
Turk| 12.12.08 @ 12:17PM
"we conservatives"(not) were screaming at Reagan when he brought the military from the brink of destruction perpetuated by 4 yrs of the bufoon carter. rogelio tries that "I'm a lifelong conservative/republican" trick.
But Mr Whittman's article is the subject here NOT sneaky leftists in masquerade. Gates is reminiscent of the military hating genuis Robt McNamara. His firing of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and Sec of the Air Force earlier in the yr gave as its excuse mishandling of nucs. But Gates earlier criticisms of the A.F. as incompetent in Iraq, tipped his anti air supremacy philosophy. His vicious handling of the firings was reminiscent of a coup and our present nicey nicey CINC let him get away with it. What the firing was really about, was Gates opposition to force modernizatioin, most specifically in re the Air Supremacy fighter the F-22.
The December issue of "Air Force" , the highly respected journal of the Air Force Association leads with an editorial entitled "Air Supremacy in a Downdraft". Read it and weep.
Gates was continued by BHO because he will be a willing tool in a leftist administration that wants us to be loved again. No more of that Peace Through Strength crap!
Katelyn| 12.12.08 @ 12:36PM
Maybe we can go back to minding our own business and let "flash points" around the world work themselves out. If other countries won't build up their military defenses, then they aren't worth it.
J.C.Eaton| 12.12.08 @ 1:09PM
Katelyn, what "aren't worth it " countries are you thinking about? Our precious allies in western Europe? Mid-east? Asia? I'm really curious to know. Which of the "flashpoints" involve a country we're remotely confident will fight for themselves and with us? One comes to mind for me; who comes to mind for you. Even our new, improved administration and pusillanimous congress will want to bail out someone. Wonder what they'll try to do it with. Best, Judge E
Crusader| 12.12.08 @ 2:29PM
JC, I would say the countries who aren't willing to spend their own money on their own military but who depend on America's sons to fight and die for them. This would describe most of our beloved allies in Western Europe to a "t." Germany, France, Italy, Spain.
I served in Italy for three years recently. Italy spends less than 1% of the GNP on defense and instead relies on good old Uncle Sam to protect her. Meanwhile her troops are lazy, undisciplined, and arrogant. A squad of Eagle Scouts count take a a platoon of Italian infantry.
If you want to see what America will look like in about another generation or so with socialist, Nanny-State overreach, sissified, feminized men and an about-to-be islamisized country, go take a trip to Western Europe. Spend some time in Italy, or Austria, or Germany. Then tell me how much better Europe is than America.
That's where we're headed folks.
Thomas| 12.12.08 @ 4:40PM
I will refrain from commenting on Secretary Gates' theories on national defense, for a simple reason; the world cares little about what the US decides in this regard.
For the last few years, China has been steadily building her armed forces, far beyond any needs in Asia. She has no large military commitments anywhere outside her borders, with the exception of Tibet and that utilizes relatively few troops. She is embarking upon additional large scale military technology development, including aircraft, surface and subsurface ships, ballistic missiles and anti-satellite weapons [who besides the US has significant spaceborne assets?] and cyberwarfare techniques.
Russia, is flexing her remaining military might and is increasingly liable to use it further as her economic prospects decline. She has been cultivating anti-American states in Latin America and pressuring former Soviet client states in an effort to push them away from the West.
Iran continues to process weapons grade uranium. They are still engaged in arming and directing Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, and several other Islamic terrorist groups. In addition, iran has positioned forces to close the Persian Gulf at the Straits of Hormuth. And now they have moved forces and surface to air and anti-ship missiles into Eritrea, making it possible for them to control ingress and egress to the Red Sea.
The only silver lining is that the deepening economic crisis makes it more likely that military enlistment will increase.
We'll just have to see if it is going to be possible to more with less.
AMERICA WAKE UP| 12.13.08 @ 12:25PM
Check out BUSH NAZI PAST, Google it find out who killed 3.000 Americans on Sept 11th 2001, who knew and why the information is out there look it up GOOGLE it
stuart| 12.13.08 @ 10:02PM
As politically smart as it might be for Republicans not to lace into Obama right away, they're going to have to speak about Obama's/Gates' indifference to U.S. military needs. Gate's bona fides as Defense Sec. during the surge shouldn't buy him immunity from his wrongheaded views.
section9| 12.14.08 @ 9:25AM
@Turk:
Gates had to act as he did on the Nuclear Issue because Air Force handling of nuclear weapons and loading and disposition of warheads had declined mightily from the "no excuses, no errors" days of Curtis LeMay. Gates also, it should be noted, has apparently convinced Obama to proceed with the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.
Where I disagree with Gates is over fighters and shipbuilding. Were Gates to merely cancel the F-22 and move all his chips to the F-35, I could understand that. If he, however, intends to suspend both programs, then I have to go ballistic on the man.
And don't get me started on shipbuilding....
Turk| 12.15.08 @ 8:49AM
Section 9 Pay attention! Gates didn't "act" on "nuclear issue". It was a smoke screen. I detect a navy type who is not an air power guy. So what are they gonna do about the grand tour the russian navy is about?
Howard| 12.15.08 @ 12:59PM
I can envision another eviscerating of the Pentagon similar to Carter and later Clinton. Defense spending as Reagan said is "The Military Industrial Complex", until you need them. Then it is the "Arsenal of Democracy". Gates needs to stand up to the lefties.
Thom| 12.15.08 @ 6:56PM
Section9, you understand that the F-35 is a fighter bomber designed to replace the F-16, F-18, Harrier and A10 in those roles and has none of the capability of the current F15 design which is the oldest of the above mention aircraft? Cancelling the F-22 means trying to defend our stealth F-35 bombers with very non stealth Air Superiority fighters that are older than the people flying them. There are vastly important differences between the F-22 and the F-35 that merit a reasoned understanding of what each is and isn’t.
links of london jewellery| 9.10.09 @ 11:10PM
Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！