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.
