Crashing The Gates

Continuing my semi-regular look at some of Obama's cabinet appointments, let's peek at maybe the most controversial, Bush holdover for Secertary of Defense Robert Gates. I would say that Gates has done a competent job during his tenure under pretty hazardous circumstances, and I can see the desire for continuity during two wars. So there's a case to be made for his reappointment, and Brian Katulis, someone I deeply respect, makes it here.

The case for Gates goes beyond the obvious question of assisting the next president in handling Iraq, which Gates has helped haul back from the brink of total collapse. But he has also been instrumental in launching a sweeping revolution in U.S. national security [...]

In several speeches that haven't received the attention they deserve, Gates has argued that, as he put it on Sept. 29 at the National Defense University, "direct military force will continue to have a role" in the "prolonged, world-wide irregular campaign" against al-Qaeda and other violent extremists. But here's the important part: Gates understands "that over the long term, we cannot kill or capture our way to victory."

Instead, he calls for beefed up U.S. diplomatic and development capabilities. Unlike Cheney and Rumsfeld, who were obsessed with potential great-power competitors such as China, Gates bluntly admits that the "most likely catastrophic threats to our homeland -- for example, an American city poisoned or reduced to rubble by a terrorist attack -- are more likely to emanate from failing states than from aggressor states." His solution to failing states? Help patch them up. Shortly after he took office, Gates argued that the lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan is that "economic development, . . . good governance, providing basic services to the people, training and equipping indigenous military and police forces, strategic communications, and more -- these, along with security, are essential ingredients for long-term success."

Another sign of this revolution came last week with the release of a new Army field manual whose sections on conflict-ridden, fragile states give similar weight to both nation-building and major combat operations. In other words, Gates sees reconstruction and economic development as central parts of the Pentagon's push to make the United States safer from the threats that can lurk inside weak and failing states such as Afghanistan.

This is the basis for the much talked-about NY Times article this week, suggesting that Obama's foreign policy picks foretell a resurgence of the use of "soft power," perhaps even shifting financial resources to that effort and away from outdated weapons systems. And this could be put to best use in Afghanistan, where a replay of the "surge" strategy in Iraq is unlikely to be successful, and where a shift into delivering reconstruction projects and regaining the goodwill of the Afghan people can short-circuit threats from militants as much, if not more, than committing new troops. If we addressed potential global crises before they arrived through direct aid, the results could be very positive.

I just don't know that Gates is best suited to actually carry this out. While he has paid a good deal of lip service to the need to spend on the civilian aspects of national security, his proposed ballooning of the military budget shows a desire to do exactly the opposite - or bust the Federal treasury, I'm not sure which.

Gates is a lame duck. There has been no indication how long he will stay in the Pentagon's top post, but it seems Gates will remain there on a quasi-temporary basis. Consequently, Pentagon bureaucrats who don't want to see their prerogatives challenged--if Gates wanted to do such a thing--could try to wait him out. Second, Gates is no agent of change when it comes to the Pentagon budget. In the Bush years, the regular military budget has increased by 40 percent in real terms (not counting so-called "emergency" supplemental spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan)--partly because of hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns. During the campaign, Obama talked about the need to cut "billions of dollars in wasteful spending" from the military budget. But Gates has yet to demonstrate he is truly interested in reworking the Pentagon's out-of-control budget. Keeping Gates in place sends the signal that Obama, who faces a host of hard jobs, is not eager to take on the Pentagon at the start of his presidency. "There are so many problems at home," says one of the critics, "Obama may not want to do anything fundamental about the Pentagon."

Gates' proposed military budget is enormous, enough to end any hope of devoting the kind of resources needed to the economic crisis. While Obama has displayed some good judgment in wanting to cut down military spending - by accelerating withdrawal, stopping missile defense in Europe, etc. - when running into the buzzsaw of the military-industrial complex, it would be good to have a Defense Secretary on your side in that fight. It's up for question whether Gates is that man. Furthermore, he has shown himself to be unable to really challenge how the Pentagon works instead of making speeches about the practices - his willingness to continue the stop-loss program is a good example.

The early signs on other fronts are positive. All of Gates' top deputies - mostly holdovers from the Rumsfeld years - will not be returning to the Defense Department, so at the policy level there will be other voices in the mix. And Gates has gone out of his way to appear to be a willing soldier early on - he has agreed with Obama's 16-month timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq, as well as a planned closure of Guantanamo Bay.

As the only Republican Cabinet member asked to stay on by President-elect Barack Obama, Gates told reporters Tuesday that military commanders are looking at ways to more quickly pull troops out of Iraq in light of the 16-month timetable that was a centerpiece of the Democrat's campaign.

He also said it will be a high priority to work with the new Congress on legislation that will enable the U.S. to close the detention center at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, where about 250 terrorism suspects are still being held [...]

"Commanders are already looking at what the implications of that are in terms of the potential for accelerating the drawdown and in terms of how we meet our obligations to the Iraqis," Gates said. "Nobody wants to put at risk the gains that have been achieved with so much sacrifice on the part of our soldiers and the Iraqis at this point."

On Guantanamo, Gates said it will take a joint effort with Congress to shut it down. He did not provide details of any suggested legislation but said it would prohibit detainees from seeking asylum in the U.S. if they are released from the detention facility.

If the working relationship continues on this path, I'd be willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. But until Gates actually challenges some Pentagon dogma, I don't see him as the best candidate to move fundamental change through the system.