Loose Canons
Bob Gates’ Legacy
The bipartisan defense secretary left the military weaker and less equipped to defend America.
In five years as defense secretary, Dr. Robert Gates transformed the American military and put it on a course that will limit its ability to defend us for decades to come.
Gates’ term as defense secretary began under President Bush and ended after more than two years of Barack Obama’s presidency. Of Gates’ “accomplishments,” three stand out, each of them a significant part of Obama’s agenda.
First is the sociological experimentation that he and Obama have imposed on the military. Second is the path of weakness and withdrawal from the global war against Islamic terrorism. Third is the diminution of our armed services’ ability to develop and use conventional forces, investing only in forces intended to fight “unconventional” wars.
Gates is the only defense secretary in history chosen by a new president to remain in office from one administration to another. But why? Obama was elected to be the “un-Bush” and had campaigned against almost everything Bush had done since 9/11.
For a defense secretary to serve both Bush and the “un-Bush” - with apparent dedication to both - required Gates’ strongest characteristic: malleability.
That malleability was evident before Obama’s inauguration. General Peter Pace was the first Marine to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Soon after his taking office, Gates was faced with threats from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) that if the widely-admired Pace were appointed to a second term, Levin would make his re-confirmation a fight over the Iraq war. Gates caved in to Levin’s threats and received a severe lashing from the Wall Street Journal for it. Its June 11, 2007 editorial said:
Mr. Gates seems to think he can succeed as the anti-Rumsfeld by appeasing the likes of Mr. Levin, but his kowtow only makes Mr. Bush look weaker as a Commander in Chief who can’t even select his own war generals…
The Levin Democrats aren’t seeking some new “bipartisan” strategy that will avoid defeat in Iraq. They want to blame Mr. Bush for defeat so they can destroy his Presidency and elect a Democrat in 2008. Mr. Bush can’t change that through appeasement in Washington but only by improving the facts on the ground in Baghdad. We thought he hired Mr. Gates to make that happen, not to act as a Beltway middleman for Carl Levin’s desires.
Pace is a Marine’s Marine: a tough combat-experienced leader who has a profound understanding of the war and how to fight it. But - to Levin - Pace’s possible renomination would be an opportunity to score points against Bush and the Iraq war. Pace was also an outspoken opponent of allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. Pace was politically inconvenient, so Gates tossed him overboard.
We don’t know what passed between Gates and Obama before Obama decided to retain Gates. But we do know how fast Gates abandoned Bush’s policies for Obama’s.
Since Bill Clinton’s first day in office, liberals have tried to impose their social values on the military with willful disregard for the damage caused to the military’s culture. After spending all his political energy for a year to get Obamacare passed, Obama — and Gates - began picking up where Clinton left off.
In February 2010, Gates notified Congress that he was rescinding
the ban on women serving aboard submarines.
The damage to military families and the military’s warrior culture
— outraged submariners’ wives and mothers didn’t want their men
serving aboard submersible “Love Boats” — were ignored. Gates
later said that he foresaw a time when women would serve among the
Special Forces.
Gates’ (really Obama’s) biggest blow to the military culture was last year’s repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that prohibited homosexuals from serving openly in the military. Gates, speaking of the inevitability of repeal, had his new Joint Chiefs Chairman — Adm. Mike Mullen — lobby Congress for the repeal in such strong terms that even some Democrats were surprised.
The issue of homosexuality in the military isn’t over. It has already come up in the Republican nomination contest and is very likely to become a significant issue in the presidential campaign.
Liberals - Levin chief among them - have always opposed ballistic missile defense. Rumsfeld took Ronald Reagan’s idea of ballistic missile defense off the drawing boards and actually deployed it in California and Alaska.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (48) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Loose Canons
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/05/bob-gates-legacy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Stuart Koehl| 7.5.11 @ 6:44AM
Let's be clear, though, that Gates played a bad hand about as well as anyone could, and I defy Babbin to name just one Obama-appointed alternative who would have done better.
rendite| 7.5.11 @ 10:40AM
The point is that Gates "played" with Obama at all.
It is obvious that Obama said to Gates in the initial job interview in December 2008, "Well, Bob, how do you feel about DADT repeal...this is what I'm for. What do you think, Bob?"
Mr. Gates obviously said exactly what Obama and the White House transition team wanted to hear.
But...if the man had any moral compass at all, any bedrock life principles, Bob Gates would have 1) outright turned down the job offer, or 2) stymied every liberal notion about how to run the military and (the bigger liberal-lunacy gameplan) how to shape it for the future.
Once part of the Obama "team" cabinet, Gates can do all the roadblocking he wishes -- at least for the first 18 months of the Obama administration. What? You think Obama is going to deep-six Bobby in June 2009 or even December 2009? No way? That would have made Obama look the idiot/incompetent for choosing Gates to be in the post.
You make it seem that Gates did the American people and the backbone military a favor by half-stepping, slowing-up ultra-liberal measures. He did not.
The point of the article is that Bob Gates is now retired. We are examing what he did and did not do.
What he clearly has not done is best position our nation to be ready on all fronts for future conflicts and wars that WILL come. And Bob Gates failed at the core: Gates failed to stand against liberal lunacy.
Gates could have rocked the nation if he had made it clear he would resign in rigorous protest in December 2010 over DADT repeal. He didn't; the clown was championing it. (Translation: Gates has no moral compass, no lucent thinking, no soul)
Oh, Bob, played the "game" or "a game" on Team Obama by letting DADT get repealed and he....somehow achieved something worthwhile between December 2010 and retiring for good in June 2011?
Melvin| 7.5.11 @ 6:50AM
Bush or Obama I never liked or trusted Gates. I never trusted the guy period. But as Stuart noted, maybe Gates was the lesser of all of Obama's evils that he could have picked.
canuckistani| 7.5.11 @ 5:29PM
He was the head of Texas A&M. If you don't trust him, that means you don't trust America.
Get out you fascist!
Stuart Koehl| 7.5.11 @ 7:17AM
The problem facing the military today is only tangentially related to budgetary issues. The main problem is a failure to assess correctly the strategic environment in which the United States will operate for the next half century, and to align U.S. military strategy, force structure and procurement with that environment. In particular, none of the armed services seems willing or able to transcend parochial interests to make this happen.
An objective assessment of the current and future strategic environment shows a distinct absence of peer competitors capable of confronting the United States symmetrically in high intensity combat--with one exception: China.
China, however, exists in a strategic cul de sac, and cannot project power overland into areas strategically relevant to it, or vital to the United States. Conversely, the United States is incapable of projecting and sustaining significant land power onto the Asian mainland. Any war with China, if it comes, will be fought on or under the sea and in the air.
On the other hand, the bulk of most conflicts the U.S. will face over the next half century will be low intensity, and by definition, low intensity conflicts are fought mainly by ground forces, with air and naval forces playing an auxiliary role.
The conclusion drawn from this is simple: the U.S. Army must be reorganized as a neo-colonial constabulary force capable of fighting (and therefore deterring) insurgencies and terrorism (as well as performing stabilization and reconstruction, peacekeeping and humanitarian relief operations), while the Air Force and Navy must focus their effort on preparing to fight (and therefore deter) China.
To that end, almost all of the Army's heavy force should be moved out of the active component and into the Army Reserve and National Guard, while the active force reorganizes as a light, strategically deployable and sustainable force focused on low intensity operations. Only a relatively small heavy force is needed in the Active Component to hold the line in places like Korea and the Arabian Peninsula until such time as reserve component heavy forces can deploy using pre-posititioned stockpiles.
To the extent that the Air Force and Navy will support such low intensity operations, it can be done through a combination of relatively simple unmanned air vehicles, transports and coastal patrol vessels. As these are fairly cheap, adequate numbers can be fielded while still reserving sufficient funds to develop and maintain a qualitative edge in major combatant vessels and tactical aircraft over the Chinese.
There is no reason why all of this cannot be done within the current 4-5% GDP threshold under which we are operating. The transformation of the Army in and of itself will increase the size of the deployable force by almost 25% (given the greater number of dismounted infantry in light formations and their smaller logistic footprint), obviating the need for a larger personnel top line. Outsourcing almost all administrative and support functions would reduce costs and free up more personnel slots for shooters over supports.
And I will stick with my previously mentioned idea of cutting the size of the Army officer corps by 50%, creating about 16,000 additional rifle slots while forcing the Army to decide what functions it performs are essential, and which exist only to find something for its officers to do with their time.
J.C.Eaton| 7.5.11 @ 12:12PM
Mr. Koehl, you write cogently and persuasively in much of your commentary. Here's where we split ways: 1] Reserves [Guard, actually---they have the vast majority of the combat units] simply don't have the drill time to stay adept on their 21st century equipment. A weekend per month and two weeks per year is insufficient. Not to mention they are being abused by the current deployment schedule. 2]Why the preoccupation with the occupation of Korea? The youngest[and dimmest] don't support our sacrifices to stay there and if they don't want to protect mama-san why should I?The Second Division is a trip-wire and would be sacrificed to no good end in the event of a full throttle NKA attack. 3] You have far more faith in contracting out Support and Service Support than I do.Call me a paranoid but I want American logistics if I'm involved. Occasional SNAFU,yes. Subversion, no. Best,
JP| 7.5.11 @ 1:47PM
Stuart, I like many of your ideas. But to put so many of our "heavy divisions" into the Reserves is problematic. I have nothing against the Reserves; the German Army in 1914 went to war with an outstanding group of reserves. They made up over 50% of the the Kaiser's standing army. And in many cases, thier performance was superior to that of thier active duty counterparts (see the 3rd Reserve Corps and the Battle of Tannenberg). However, the Second Reich was not a democracy by any means; Germany had conscription, and a very regulated homogenious society. The German Army was to meet its manpower requirements through both conscription and a mandatory reserve requirement. Thier first order reservists averaged in age about 21-28 years old. Thier second order reservists averaged about 30 years old. Germany also paid huge sums of money to keep these men trained and armed. So much so that even the Prussian Parliment complained about the price tag..
In the US there is always the tempation to play politics with everything. And in an era of shrinking budgets, will the DOD be tempted to short change the Reserves? The Reserves would need to maintain at the minimum 2 Corps level headquarters, an Army Group headquarters, at least 8-10 motorized brigades, 2 aviation brigades, engineers, logistics, artillery and ant-aircraft support, etc... They would have to be staffed primairily with men in thier 20s to early 30s, and be able to train at the military's main manuever area in California 2-3 times per year. It can be done of course. But will Congress go along with the bill?
Stuart Koehl| 7.6.11 @ 8:20AM
Both Mr. Eaton and JP ignore two decades of "Total Force" integration of the Army's active component with the Guard and Reserves. Both National Guard and Reserve units have been seamlessly moving in and out of the war zones since 2002, and by all accounts they perform just as well as active component units. The days when Guard duty mean one weekend a month drinking beer and two weeks playing soldiers in the woods with overweight, superannuated officers has been gone for a long time.
Consider that the armored and mechanized brigade combat teams are the least likely to see combat--and then, only in the case of a true national emergency (someone would have had to screw up big time for us to need to reinforce the active divisions we would have in Korea and Kuwait). This makes them far more suited for placement in the National Guard and Reserves, which, of course, are intended to be used only in emergencies, and not as routine roundout or rotational units. On the other hand, moving most CS and CSS units to the active component would make the active forces more sustainable without the need to mobilize the reserve components--and thus disrupt the lives and economies of various localities to support long-term missions.
The active component, consisting of highly trained light infantry and special operations troops, will be able to generate the boots on the ground needed to prosecute low intensity conflicts while executing our very demanding counter-insurgency/counter-terrorism strategy.
Consider: an 18,000 armor/mechanized division has about 2500 dismounted infantry--about as many as a 4500 man Stryker medium brigade, and a thousand less than a light infantry brigade. Three light brigades (a division equivalent) therefore provide about 10,500 infantry from a total of 13,500 personnel (add a divisional HQ and support units, and you would get about 10,500 infantry for a total of 15,000 men).
It is clear, then, that this is a much more efficient way of using scarce combat troops than keeping them in heavy formations which cannot be deployed, and once deployed, have such a large logistic footprint that they are almost impossible to sustain.
TrueBlue| 7.5.11 @ 4:27PM
Another thing to consider is that those civilian support personnel tend to actually cost more than the equivalent active duty personnel. Never made sense to me why they would downsize the military to put in civilians that garner a higher paycheck and can't (in most cases) be sent into combat situations.
canuckistani| 7.5.11 @ 5:37PM
Going away present by one Richard Bruce Cheney on the way out the door in January 1993.
Iraqi Freedom was just another joint venture between gov and Halliburton. Another public-private partnership writers here love.
TrueBlue| 7.5.11 @ 5:54PM
Haliburton was only one of quite a few companies that got a benefit from this, and a very small one at that since their benefits are only measured in minor(in comparison) oil contracts. Most of the contracts actually went to Russian and French companies. Other contracting companies that fill US Government civilian positions such as SAIC, L3, and CACI got a much larger benefit, and that's not even counting the actual government civil service positions it created.
Regardless of which side of the fence you're on though there are always corporations or unions getting direct benefits of anything the government does, rather than leaving American business to private non-government affiliated companies. That's the kind of stuff that needs to stop.
Stuart Koehl| 7.6.11 @ 8:27AM
Actually, outsourcing support functions is considerably cheaper than relying on uniformed personnel, especially when one takes into account retirement, health benefits and dependent care. Besides that, the military personnel top line is set by Congress, and any increase in the military establishment ought to be directed towards improving the tooth-to-tail ratio. When not needed, contract personnel can be laid off, then hired back when operations require them. But you have to find something for soldiers to do. When we had a large conscript army, policing the grounds, painting rocks white, and doing KP kept idle hands busy. With a small, professional army, troops have better things to do. Anything that does not require a guy to shoot a rifle, man a weapon system or perform command-and-control functions ought to be done by civilians.
These functions were professionalized by Napoleon in the early 19th century because the civilian drivers of the artillery and the supply train were prone to run away at the first sound of gunfire. With universal conscription, Napoleon had plenty of men, so he put these people in uniform and subjected them to military discipline. However, in the past two decades, the professionalization of private security companies has obviated the need to have uniformed personnel drive trucks on the LOC, operate bases and man dining facilities, laundries and canteens, and even to do rear echelon depot maintenance.
Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 7:21AM
Gates was a typical D.C. Grima Wormtongue---always willing to sacrifice any principle so long as his position was secured.
Stuart Koehl| 7.6.11 @ 8:34AM
Quite unfair to Gates, who did not need the job, and who at various times expressed a desire to leave it. Recognizing, however, that his replacement was likely to be worse, he stayed on out of a sense of duty.
Did I agree with all his decisions? No. In particular I did not like his fixation on current operational needs at the expense of future requirements. On the other, with few allies in the Administration, he had to pick his fights carefully.
I had my misgivings about Leon Panetta as DCI, but was pleasantly surprised by his performance. Panetta seems to be the kind of professional bureaucrat who gives his total loyalty to whatever agency he is running at the moment, fiercely protecting its interests from all competitors. He's a skilled infighter, and more importantly, he knows he's not a subject matter expert. At CIA, he seems to have listened to the professionals and followed their advice. I expect him to do the same at DoD, which means that he'll fight hard for every last dime, and will dig in against any policies that he perceives as crippling the military.
The emergence of Panetta as a national security heavyweight (and hardliner)--something for which he was not known previously--is what allowed Gates finally to step down. Consider, for instance, someone like John Kerry or Wesley (Weazily) Clark as SecDef, if you want a worse case scenario.
Henty Drummond| 7.5.11 @ 7:52AM
It gets worse. If Britain, America's traditional major ally, was taking some of the strain, things might be mitigated. But Britain is cutting defence even more deeply - far more deeply - than the US. One wonders if the West is led by traitors.
maximumrandb| 7.5.11 @ 9:20AM
The huge reductions in the Royal Navy (mothballing both aircraft carriers) are particularly disconcerting.
Derek Leaberry| 7.5.11 @ 8:03AM
Under Robert Gates, the transformation of the military into an institutionally left-wing organization was completed. At least the severe budget cuts required of the military will actually please conservatives who see the culturally modernist American military as an enemy force.
TrueBlue| 7.5.11 @ 4:29PM
No conservatives I know of actually think anything but the best about or Armed Forces, not sure why you'd say they consider them an enemy force.
canuckistani| 7.5.11 @ 5:43PM
Real conservatives, you know the ones afraid of exotics, that sleep with their shotguns and are waiting for the rapture, they would prefer we shut down all foreign bases and build a security perimeter around the country.
As far as the personnel, they still choose to wipe up their rhetoric with the flag and leave vets hanging out there like a smelly shoe.
They will never learn.
TrueBlue| 7.5.11 @ 6:45PM
Wow, where do you get your information and what are you smoking? Whatever it is must be good stuff because your WAAAAAAAAY out there.
TrueBlue| 7.5.11 @ 6:57PM
Real conservatives would be the people who want to stick to the Constitution and not try to fit every law they want passed into the Common Welfare or Interstate Commerce clauses. They don't sleep WITH their shotguns, but are usually kept nearby in case someone decides to get stupid and break in. Most Christians do NOT believe in the Rapture, that is a very limited (albeit highly televised) group of people. While there may be a decent number of people that want us to close all foreign bases that isn't the case for most, and is silly to even suggest that as the truth. As far as a security perimeter, not seeing what the problem is with having a secure border since NOT having a secure border tends to leave you open to an attack inside those borders.
Regarding personnel, almost no active military would dare disrespect the flag or military vets, that would be the liberal Democrat crowd that keeps trying to screw over both groups.
About the only thing I agree with you on is that sadly, people never learn. A large number of people tend to just keep going where they are lead, never learning from their mistakes because they were taught to follow without thinking.
I think you've been listening to the MSM too much.
hardcard| 7.5.11 @ 8:21AM
Thanks for the diversity mr. gates,remember Fort Hood and it's aftermath.
Louis Jenkins| 7.5.11 @ 8:28AM
"A man cannot serve two masters for he will love one and hate the other."
So which side of the fence is Gates on? Does he love or hate Bush, or does he love or hate Obama? The F-35 is indeed a less capable aircraft that the F-22. Missle defense is gone. Allowing women to serve in subs is a disaster. At least he's retired and cannot do more damage to our armed services.
WJ| 7.5.11 @ 8:41AM
Gates was ok. He temporarily turned lemons into lemonade with the Iraq debacle. He cut programs that needed to be cut and didn't cut others that needed to be cut. His integration of women into more combat roles is a disaster. Basically, he disappointed a lot of people on both sides which means he was probably effective.
Babbin is simply an outsider throwing rocks. Take Libya for example. If George Bush or McCain were in office, they would advocate participating in that ridiculous affair also. Babbin would be telling us that "taking out" Gadhafi was a vital national interest and that we couldn't "cut and run" (remember that idiotic phrase, almost as bad as "freedom fries"). Consistency has not been Babbin's strong point.
Matthew Quigley| 7.5.11 @ 9:26AM
Gates is the worst SecDef since Robert MacNamara...and was more destructive. MacNamara turned the officer corps into bean counters, Gates went further into pussifying the military than that. DADT was a bad idea, but open homosexuals are even worse...women in direct support and aircrew roles was a bad idea, but women in frontline units is even worse. ANY bad idea the Democrats have had for the military was made worse by Gates and Obama placing that idea on steroids.
I've seen what has become of my beloved Air Force since I took my uniform off...and what has happened to it breaks my heart. Gates and Obama have devastated our military. The only reason we're not being routed overseas is because our enemies' "leaders" are more incompetent than our own.
Stuart Koehl| 7.6.11 @ 8:40AM
I've seen them all, and can name quite a few who were worse than Gates, and not much better than Robert the Strange. In recent years, for instance, Harold Brown was an unmitigated catastrophe who hollowed out the military and presided over perhaps the lowest point in its history since World War II. Then there were Les Aspin, Bill Perry, and Bill Cohen, who systematically dismantled the Cold War-winning military carefully built up by Reagan and First Bush, and who dropped the ball on the emergence of Islamic terrorism as the chief threat of our time. And finally, Donald Rumsfeld, after a good start, made a hash out of the Department and left it in chaos. After him, Gates was a breath of fresh air.
William R| 7.5.11 @ 10:17AM
No Mr Babblin, George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and the NeoCons ran the military into the ground by invading and occupying two Muslim nations. Something Robert Gates and Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf warned against.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfQG0I9eTWk
William R| 7.5.11 @ 10:17AM
No Mr Babblin, George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and the NeoCons ran the military into the ground by invading and occupying two Muslim nations. Something Robert Gates and Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf warned against.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfQG0I9eTWk
Pelligrino| 7.5.11 @ 10:18AM
Thank you, Mr. Babbin. I hate how "Uncle Bob" was somehow seen as a good man at the helm of our military. He was not. Not in any context.
With so many lurches to the left (with no thanks to Bob), it will take 8-9 years (absolute best case scenario) to undo the damage.
We may not have that luxury of "corrective actions" time.
**Thank you, Mr. Babbin, in particular for mentioning the idiocacy and travesty of women on submarines. No thinking man with even a 62 I.Q. would ever permit such stupidity.
Ditto for open embracing of homosexuals. Obviously fat man Gates was never a junior leader in charge of 30-120 personnel. (We ought to call them "warfighters" but that is just not today's cozy PC-speak) We've hamstrung all our junior officers with daily pitfalls and quandries that handicap the simplest of missions.
Bob Gates was a complete disservice and disgrace. The nation will suffer directly due to his lack of integrity and maturity.
Thank you, Mr. Babbin, for truth-telling on these pages.
bobmontgomery| 7.5.11 @ 10:29AM
On missiles, we went in the space of about a year from generals and admirals being trotted out to tell the public we had nothing to fear from North Korea, that their missiles could be laughed at, to Gates coming out late in his tenure and warning NK could soon be a real threat. Not much reportage on this because it's so easy to laugh at Obama' incompetence. It's not personalities, ladies an gentlemen, it's what they are doing.
chris haynes| 7.5.11 @ 10:48AM
Why not isolationism?
These wars in Iraq Afghanistan Pakistan Libya Yemen Somalia. What's in it for me, John Q Citizen?
I dont care about these places. And America has plenty of oil, it can make everything it needs, and the Atlantic and Pacific are pretty good natural defenses.
Let's stop wasting a trillion a year on...........whatever it is we're doing.
TrueBlue| 7.5.11 @ 4:37PM
We need to keep an eye on these places because a significant portion of their populations despise us and happily arm and fund terrorist groups that are more than happy to attack us.
That said, the way we've dealt with them hasn't been effective in the least. Those cultures don't do pity, they only understand strength. The minute we step out they'll be shouting how they hate us even more. Best way to handle that region is to go in, blast our specific target to kingdom come, and leave while letting everyone know what we did and why. Then make sure they all understand that every time we get attacked we'll blow something else up until they get the point. No more nation building, no more pity for countries that so openly hate us.
Dan D| 7.5.11 @ 11:10AM
SecDef is an employee, and as such always limited to carrying out policy. The Secretary can often influence policy setting, but only to a limited extent. The President and Congress ultimately decide whether our defenses improve or degrade, and entropy always pushes in the direction of degrading.
JP| 7.5.11 @ 1:57PM
The Sec of Def sets policy (based on the Presidents own general perogatives, of course). The amount of detail, budgetary matters, legal constraints, as well as readiness and morale issues are so great that no President has the time to even considering micro-management. It cannot be done. Usually a President will find a like-minded executive who has competence in management and Beltway politics. You would never see a Caspar Wienberger type in an Obama DOD. Weinberger was a Beltway Insider par excellence who was told by Reagan to manage the largest peacetime military buildup in our nation's history. Weinberger pressed Congress to give the JCS everything it wanted - and then some.
A really effective Sec of Def can implement his vision as well as make the President happy. However, if the President demands that the DOD should no longer prohibit gays from serving outright, he has 3 chocies:
1)Salute and Press on (this would be the case if the Sec of Def agreed wholeheartedly with the President).
2)Disagree vigorously and attempt to change the President's mind (either through internal debates, leaked insider info, or both).
3)If he cannot get the President to change his mind, he could always resign in protest.
Tex Expatriate| 7.5.11 @ 12:39PM
Quite a long essay to tell us what we already knew: that Gates is an American traitor by default. He did okay under a genuine American President with spine.
Dave Williams| 7.5.11 @ 12:40PM
....and don't expect anything to get better under that partisan hack Panetta. I tremble for the days to come.
shipley130| 7.5.11 @ 1:37PM
Don't know if any of you have seen the lastest story about the supposed military member survey that was taken about gays serving openly. The report was bogus, that the military supported gays serving openly. The report was written before the survey was ever done. The stats are nearer to opposite to what the report stated. The military does not overwhelmingly support gays.
JP| 7.5.11 @ 2:00PM
I read the story in the WSJ last week. What the DOD and WH did was a felony (presenting Congress with false information). Of course, Congress wanted to be lied to. I wouldn't have surprised me in the least if both Lindsay Graham and Richard Lugar both knew the report was false. The report gave fence sitters like Sen Scott Brown a political way out. And some day people will suffer as a result.
Perusha| 7.5.11 @ 2:19PM
Gates was an employee doing the bidding of exactly who? GWB and BHO, eh?
Ken Wilber wrote that “development is envelopment”.
Just so, what “developed” over the years at Defense truly was an “envelopment”, which is simply another iteration of perhaps some combination of the Stockholm Syndrome and being captured by the bureaucracy.
Remember, the public schools of America exist for the TEACHERS, not the students. Well, why should it be any different at the Defense Department---after all, most of the people working there went to pubic schools!
And anyway, life is a holding pattern---until death.
Way off subject, remember Mark Twain’s remark that Wagner’s music isn’t as bad as it sounds?
Maybe we can apply this witticism in this case.
As an aging bald and repulsive human, I’m always served by a further turning of Twain into---
Lucky for you (or me), you’re not as ugly as you look.
PCP Smoker| 7.5.11 @ 8:30PM
Gates is a scumbag. I hope he fails (aka dies)
masly | 7.6.11 @ 4:03AM
As an aging bald and repulsive human, I’m always served by a further turning of Twain into
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
TURK| 7.6.11 @ 9:49AM
TO MUCH of THE ABOVE BS
Those who ramble on with the typical- it aint understandable if it aint volumes of obtuseness-the matter of Gates is of Gates AND to a lesser extent Bush.During his reign under Bush he (and I emphasize HE) personally fired, simultaneously, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force AND The Secretary of the Air Force. The manner of the firings was reminiscentof a third world coup. One was dragged from a speech at Wright Patterson AFB and hustled to a Gates dispatched jet for his hasty return to our beloved beltway. Bush should never have allowed such conduct! Of what were the 2 guilty?? Advocation of a continued strong, combat ready Air Force. The result was a cancellation of the F-22 into a small contingent. The F-22, you see, is outmoded; it has a Pilot. Of interest might be recent info that the Chinese seemed to have cloned the F-22. THEY apparently feel that control of the skies over the battlefield might still be important. As indicated in some of the above writings Gates was a disaster and blame for him is NOT with Obama(who knew a good thing when he saw it)---George did it!
Pelligrino| 7.6.11 @ 3:22PM
One item that any Secretary of Defense ought to be able to "dipatch" (eliminate/take care of) is piracy on the open seas. Think off Somalia.
Now, this is not our problem alone. By no means. But being the world's superpower means leading. Leading ALL THE TIME.
Couldn't ask for a better (easier) task than to eliminate Somali/African coast pirates who prey upon the world's busiest shipping lane.
If properly unleashed to do what a Navy can do, this problem would be lethaly solved in less than 150 days.
Too easy.
Was this problem solved during Bobby Gates long period as the Secretary of Defense?
Of course not.
He has furthered the wimpification of the fighting force this globe needs for freedom and prosperity -- for all.
God knows we should look to what our US leaders accomplished in just 3 or 4 months during WW II. They, if they could be still alive, would heap scorn on people like Bobby Gates.
How far we have fallen.
The Somali pirates and piracy are just one glaring failure in a long, long list for Bobby Gates. Good riddance. The problem is that the nation is now weaker directly due to his poor leadership.
Stuart Koehl| 7.6.11 @ 8:54PM
Are you saying that the Secretary of Defense can set national policy without the approval of the President of the United States? That's an interesting interpretation of the Constitution, which makes the President the commander-in-chief. Cabinet secretaries are no more than implementers of policies established by the President (and Congress). Unless the President and Congress approve a military operation, there is no way that the Secretary of Defense can move a single soldier to do so.
Bone up on the Constitution, the U.S. Code, and some military history, why don't ya?
weddingdress | 7.7.11 @ 5:16AM
Gates was an employee doing the bidding of exactly who? GWB and BHO, eh?
Ken Wilber wrote that “development is envelopment”.
Just so, what “developed” over the years at Defense truly was an “envelopment”, which is simply another iteration of perhaps some combination of the Stockholm Syndrome and being captured by the bureaucracy.
Mick Russom| 7.7.11 @ 5:53AM
Gates is a NWO globalist, oligarchical collectivists, supports the unconstitutional banking cabals and has presided over, whilst Secretary of defense, of a domestic enemy of the Constitution currently the Obama regime, set up a totalitarian authoritarian police state which is modeling itself after a Maoist/Stalinist regime of total central government control.
His replacement, CIA Director Leon Panetta, keynoted the conference of a pro-Soviet, anti-war group during the height of the Cold War.
Panetta also honored the founding member of the group, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, or WILPF, which was once named by the State Department as a "Soviet front."
And there we have it. A continuous cycle of rats in the highest echelons of government.
matt spaeth| 7.7.11 @ 9:24PM
How many people in this country know that the Bush, Gates team continued the Clinton era policy of allowing pregnant women to serve up to their 6 month of pregnancy aboard combat ships. It's bad enough we let women serve aboard combat ships to begin with , but pregnant? this is a fact , and is still the policy today. John Dalton who was Clinton's Navy secretary started the policy. Fact!!!