The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : The Incredible Shrinking SecDef

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

The Incredible Shrinking SecDef

By John Tabin on 4.13.11 @ 11:44PM

Yuval Levin notes that President Obama's speech today on fiscal policy seems to put the White House and the Pentagon on different pages regarding the defense budget. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in the words of spokesman Geoff Morrell, "has been clear that further significant defense cuts cannot be accomplished without reducing force structure and military capability." Obama's speech suggested the opposite.

One gets the distinct impression that Obama doesn't much care what Gates thinks these days. On Libya, it's fairly obvious that Gates was outvoted, and his statements since Obama decided to intervene have been anywhere from lukewarm to completely at odds with the President's position.

Gates is expected to retire at some point this year (speculation about who will replace him has been getting louder). Perhaps he should consider leaving sooner rather than later. It's getting a bit sad to watch him become increasingly irrelevant at the tail end of his career.

View all comments (25) | Leave a comment

RJ| 4.14.11 @ 2:00AM

From my perspective, American military action against Libya without a threat of imminent attack or Congressional approval was illegal and Secretary Gates should have immediately resigned in protest.

Fed Up| 4.14.11 @ 2:15AM

Robert Gates gave us open gays in the military, women on submarines, and annual military base Gay Pride parades (well, okay, not yet).

Not that Obamster will have a better choice when Gates goes, but Bob Gates sucks. He's a loser who has further imperiled us all and our future.

Plus we're not winning aggressively in Afghanistan and pushing the Iraqis hard to get their own house in order. Why doesn't anyone nail Gates for impotency over these past 4 plus years? Talk about ineffectual.

He's another poor excuse for a man with a spine and brain of jello.

Anommynous| 4.14.11 @ 6:35AM

He also had a major role in ending production of the F-22.

To an extent, I think Gates has been a good soldier and has considered it his duty to support the agenda of the Commander-in-Chief, whoever that might be. The problem is, the current POTUS might be the first ever who does not place the best interests of the United States as his highest priority. He is a Citizen of the World.

Ted| 4.14.11 @ 12:05PM

" women on submarines"

It will be interesting to see how that works out. There will be real problems, and the navy will sweep them under the rug and say how fine it has all worked out.

Gates was quoted in the Army Times bantering on about how we now need to open infantry and other currently closed positions to women. And he made no real military argument for necessity. It all boils down to individual promotions are at stake.

Purple Lips| 4.14.11 @ 1:00PM

Coming soon: submarines with OB clinics.

Sunny| 4.14.11 @ 6:07PM

I'm sure Planned Parenthood will be there too.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 4.14.11 @ 5:32AM

The fact of the matter is that on these issues, Gates is right and Obama is wrong. Period.

Defense spending has already been reduced by $25 bn from the FY2010 level, in real terms. And the military has already been weakened. America cannot cut defense spending (distinguish from spending on Iraq and Afghanistan) without weakening its military and THUS imperiling itself. Obama is simply lying. We've heard these promises and assurances before, and each time they were proven to be blatant lies. Each time defense spending was cut, the military became weaker and America became less safe as a result.

Ted| 4.14.11 @ 12:02PM

It's about the only thing Gates has been right about. I am amazed at how similar in the bad respects that Gates proved to be versus Rumsfeld, and without any of Rummy's redeeming qualities.

Teflon93| 4.14.11 @ 7:04AM

Gates is nothing but a lickspittle bureaucrat who's sought to curry favor with the Washington elite of both parties. He's improved precisely zero organizations he's led, leaving in his wake chaos and ineffectiveness. He is Colin Powell without the uniform.

btims| 4.14.11 @ 7:35AM

The Beltway Boys (including Gates) are taking down the US as a military force in order to bring about one world government, "open society", etc.

Along those lines, the US must be weakened economically and militarily. The plan is on schedule.

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.14.11 @ 7:44AM

This is real simple. If they have a uniform on they are a soldier and probably earned those ribbons; if they are wearing a thousand dollar suit they have a net worth of about whatever the laundry bill needed to remove the political filth.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.14.11 @ 7:52AM

Mr. Tabin
Well put.
It's pretty obvious that some of our posters have never handled very much responsibility.

They don't hesitate to take cheap shots at good men trying to hold their finger in the dyke.
(Heh, come to think of it Mr. Gates has to hold his finger on the dyke over at State as well.)

Given the opportunity, I would thank Mr. Gates warmly for trying to make lemonade with lemons above him and around him.
We never hear the zillion little holding actions he has successfully engaged in, much like we did not when Rumsfeld was Secdef.

The idiots in the country can't even think far enough ahead to imagine the drone rubber stamp that Obama will appoint upon his resignation. Duh.

2Anglico| 4.14.11 @ 10:23AM

Finger in the dyke??? Yeah, Gates has seen to it that there are lots of dykes in his department, with even more to come.. errr... arrive.
P.S. the word is DIKE.

2Anglico| 4.14.11 @ 10:29AM

"Mr. Gates has to hold his finger on the dyke over at State as well". Would that be Hillary?

Sunny| 4.14.11 @ 6:07PM

Queen Kankles.

Mike W| 4.14.11 @ 8:42AM

Lemons out of lemonade is a good description of Gate's job. The left wing administration has had a huge influence over him and his actions so he is in somewhat of a no-win situation.

He did a good job in cleaning up the mess of Rummy the Dummy back in 2006.

Derek Leaberry| 4.14.11 @ 9:25AM

Gates betrayed the military and conservatives with his support of sodomites in the military. A dishonorable man, Gates can't pack soon enough.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 4.14.11 @ 10:36AM

I agree, but his endorsement of the abolition of the DADT policy is not the problem. That was not a bad decision - the DADT policy is a stupid policy based on hype, propaganda, and downright lies, not on any facts. As Barry Goldwater said, you don't need to be straight to serve with the military - you just need to be able to shoot straight.

What really worries me about Gates is that he has conducted several rounds of defense cuts on spurious grounds, has done huge damage to America's defense, and yet, he's content with himself and doesn't know what a bumbling fool he is.

2Anglico| 4.14.11 @ 10:53AM

DADT was bad policy because it overturned existing proceedures dealing with homosexuals in the military, dismissal.
Reading between the lines; do you consider it "hype" to quote SCIENTIFIC studies showing at least 70% of active duty personel think it is bad policy to allow open homosexuals to serve? And who is the minister of this propaganda campaign? Lastly, give us 2 examples of these "downright lies".

Derek Leaberry| 4.14.11 @ 11:30AM

The military is a profession where honor is paramount. Sodomites are inherently dishonorable due to their filthy, immoral lifestyles. Thus, sodomites should be banned from the military. The old Reagan-Weinberger doctrine on homosexuals in the military should be returned to its rightful place.

Ted| 4.14.11 @ 12:26PM

The issue of DADT was admittedly complex. It is true that although you don't have to be straight to shoot straight. However, it is also true that human sexuality is many things along the spectrum from beautiful and loving to destructive.

One thing human sexuality is not is benign. Whatever one may think of the wisdom of DADT, it did allow homosexuals to serve and at the same time take sexuality (to an extent) off the table. You can't ask, and I can't tell. Now I admit up front that this is somewhat unfair, and at the same time I submit that all military personnel (myself included) lose, to a certain degree, some of the rights we have or that we think we have for the good of the organization overall.

Now we have (or will shortly) inject open sexuality into the ranks. A type of sexuality that has been problematic in many ways. For the sake of a small percentage of persons with a homosexual orientation and an even smaller percentage of that who want to be open about it (none of my friends in the military who happen to be gay plan to out themselves - all for different, various reasons). In these "discussions" on DADT repeal, not once did they ever talk about how this would improve, be neutral upon, or degrade military effectiveness.

In all likelihood we are going to see some of the same problems we have seen in mixed gender units.

As an aside, on top of all this, Gates is now talking about gender integrating all military units, to include Infantry, Armor, and Special Operations. And why? Because the very political DACOWITS commission wants it. A very political DACOWITS led by LTG Claudia Kennedy (USA RET) who was mad that she didn't get to become the first female Chief of Staff of the United States Army.

The reasonable adults are no longer in charge.

glenny| 4.14.11 @ 12:34PM

DADT? It was NOT a Pentagon policy; it was federal LAW. Remember, Clinton signed it during his term? And in Dec 2010, Congress reversed the law. Gates, while he didn't have to endorse the change in law, couldn't do anything about its reversal.

Ted| 4.15.11 @ 12:04PM

Technically the policy was DADT. It implemented the law to which you refer. Gates actually played a big part in getting the law repealed. He offered up the red herring that Congress needed to change the law so that the Pentagon could change the policy instead of "letting" it be decided in the courts.

What the SECDEF failed of course to mention is that DOJ essentially failed to defend the law - and thus the policy - in court. In the past, DOJ had defended the law in court, and had prevailed each time it was litigated.

He contributed quite a bit, both in what he said and did not say, to getting the law repealed and thus the policy overturned.

Never once did he make any argument for changing - or not changing - the law and policy based on an examination of how the change would improve, be neutral upon, or degrade military effectiveness.

The law's repeal was a political solution in search of a military problem, and Gates allowed the U.S. Military to be used as a political pawn in a political game.

logan| 4.14.11 @ 9:39AM

I don't hate Gates but I don't love him either.....he is merely a functionary with little importance.

Sure the DOD can be trimmed of it's budget. But in what areas? Navy ships? No. F-22 fighters? No.

What should be trimmed is: gay/lesbian/trans-gendered outreach programs. Moooslim sensitivity training. The continued "feminization" of the armed forces? Women's outreach programs. Women soldiers and their pregancy "issues" (how about discharge?).

Those are the things that need to be cut.