Wes Clark's take on Robert Gates--and a very important Obama theme
I know that some Democrats are either nervous or upset over Obama deciding to keep Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. I am not among them. I think it is a very good decision, and I found a good explanation from someone who certainly knows more about military matters than me. On November 26, 2008, Wes Clark was a guest on the Ed Schultz radio show, and Gates was one of the topics they discussed.
Many Democrats have criticized the Gates selection because they think it reinforces the stereotype that Democrats can't handle military and national defense matters. I think it is far more important to choose someone that can do a good job, especially given the totality of the circumstances now. This is one instance where I applaud Obama's efforts to avoid partisanship (and another example showing why some Democrats need to temper their expectations). And for those Democrats still worried about this selection, keep in mind that it will likely be temporary, and, as Wes said, there are plenty of good people in the Democratic party that could be a very effective Secretary of Defense.
Ed Schultz: Fantastic. Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates, looks like he's going to stay in that position. What are your thoughts on that?Schultz then asked Clark about the possibility of becoming Secretary of Defense.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's a, it's a good move. I think he's been a very effective, pragmatic Secretary of Defense. He's only been on the job a couple of years. There's some big issues that are going to be coming up for this administration right away, including both Iraq and Iran as well as a new strategy for Afghanistan. The President's clearly going to be in charge. Hillary's going to be the Secretary of State working the overall policy directions. Why not have an experienced guy who's got his, his feet on the ground for a few more months in the Secretary of Defense's position?
Ed Schultz: Has he been a good Secretary of Defense?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, by my view he has.
Ed Schultz: And is there anything that President-Elect Obama would be risking if he were to make a move at this critical time?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think that when you look at, at the way the Defense Department is organized, what you have typically had and what Rumsfeld had was a big problem at the transition coming in. He became the Secretary of Defense. It took him six months, eight months to get the team in. He didn't have a first quality team in there when he first got there. This was during the, the, the lead up to 9/11. I think that may have had some impact. And I think it makes sense to have Gates stay there. Gates is going to be loyal - he's going to have to be loyal - to a new Commander in Chief, and, and that's alright.
Ed Schultz: That was word that I used in the last segment. I mean, loyalty is awfully big when you've got a person in your cabinet. And the fact is, is that Mr. Gates has been against a timeline in Iraq, and we all know where Barack Obama stands on winding our involvement down in Iraq. How do you think that's going to work out?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I, I think that the Iraqis themselves will want the timeline. Now, it may turn out that the timeline doesn't work for reasons inside Iraq that the Iraqis themselves recognize, but I think the issue's gone away. So, I don't think it's an issue at this point.
Ed Schultz: What do you think this means for involvement in Afghanistan?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think there's going to be in increase in troop strength certainly in Afghanistan, but I hope that the Obama team - and I have reason to believe they will - will have a different strategy for national security, and that strategy will en-entail (inaudible) Afghanistan a great deal more emphasis on the non-military elements of the situation.
Ed Schultz: What does this tell the American people about President-Elect Obama that he would keep on the Secretary of Defense and, a-and having been very clear as to what he wants to do with Iraq and Afghanistan? What do, what do, what does this signal to the American people, General?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it, it, it might signal that he's a very confident President-Elect who believes that he can count on the loyal support of a cabinet member, even one who has served a different master.
Ed Schultz: How long do you think Gates would stay in this position?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I'm told that, that actually (chuckles) he's not looking for lifetime employment. He'd be really happy to go back to his home and his other private pursuits, and I, I think maybe a year, maybe less.
Ed Schultz: If you were ever approached for this position, would you consider it?(emphasis added). What I want to focus on here is not Clark's downplaying of him possibly getting the job in the future (and it couldn't happen until 2010 anyway). What I want to focus on is the emphasized portion of the above excerpt. It is important to first and foremost have competent, skilled people in cabinet positions. There are partisan, political factors to take into account, but the first priority is to get good people. I think a second major factor is to get people who are not ideologues, regardless of their party affiliation. Gates fulfills both those factors, and Clark's comments reflect that Obama is placing an emphasis on getting the job done and doing it well.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Of course, but there are a lot of good people in the Democratic Party who could do this job, that-. We're so rich in talent, and I think that he's assembled a great cabinet thus far.
Ed Schultz: But no one has your resume. I mean, (chuckle) who could match that?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's not about resumes. It, it's really about picking people who are congenial, work together well and, and meet the President's needs. Those needs are both substantive and political.
Many Democrats have criticized the Gates selection because they think it reinforces the stereotype that Democrats can't handle military and national defense matters. I think it is far more important to choose someone that can do a good job, especially given the totality of the circumstances now. This is one instance where I applaud Obama's efforts to avoid partisanship (and another example showing why some Democrats need to temper their expectations). And for those Democrats still worried about this selection, keep in mind that it will likely be temporary, and, as Wes said, there are plenty of good people in the Democratic party that could be a very effective Secretary of Defense.
posted by WCharles @ 12/05/2008 01:27:00 PM
9 Comments:
Obama needs to guide Secretary Gates away from long term commitments in Afghanistan. Karzai’s words: ‘If I say I want protection for Mullah Omar, the international community has two choices: remove me or leave,’ ring ominously like an ultimatum, but Karzai knows full well that if the US/coalition forces pull out he wouldn’t last a week. So what gives Karzai the confidence to issue ultimatums? As a past consultant for the Union Oil Company of California, Karzai knows that the oil corporations need the pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea for the huge Asian markets and the Bush administration would grovel rather than leave. If Obama wants to end the war in Afghanistan and not become mired in another oil war, his military should deploy 200,000 troops (10 divisions) into Afghanistan to secure all borders and conduct search and destroy operations over a period of 90 days to achieve Enduring Freedom’s mission, after which all troops should be pulled out. I wrote a book http://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/AClaytonsDefense.html which in part deals with these oil wars.
Secretary Gates’ comment that the key to countering the challenges that Afghanistan poses is to ‘go after the Taliban, al Qaeda and other threats while building Afghan security forces’ is reminiscent of the early stages of the war in Vietnam. In Vietnam we had, on the one hand, the nationalist Ho and Giap the victor over the French at Dien Bien Phu, while on the other, the odd couple of South Vietnam stitched together by the CIA—Bao Dai an inveterate gambler and womanizer, and the ascetic Diem whose theological sojourn to a Catholic seminary did not quell his lust for power and predilection for corruption. Fearing China’s entry with troops, rules of engagement were such that nearby borders of Laos and Cambodia were to remain ‘sanctuaries’ and the border of North Vietnam, was also sacrosanct. What lessons can be drawn regarding Afghanistan post November 2001? First, Karzai has allowed the country to be carved up by warlords and criminals who openly operated on the superhighway—built by millions of Washington dollars—between Kabul and Herat. Second, Karzai failed to quell the resurgence of Taliban, Hisb-i-Islami, and Haqqanis fighters who rampage throughout Afghanistan. More importantly, the Haqqanis, led by an erstwhile CIA hand, are in possession of millions of US dollars, anti-aircraft missiles and armor. Haqqani enjoys the protection of Pakistani intelligence (ISI) in the border areas. So, Gates is in the process of propping up a failed Afghani leader and once again America confronts a nation, ostensibly an ally, in the war on terrorism (Pakistan). Will his trickle of reinforcements do the job? And what is the job?
"If Obama wants to end the war in Afghanistan and not become mired in another oil war, his military should deploy 200,000 troops (10 divisions) into Afghanistan to secure all borders and conduct search and destroy operations over a period of 90 days..."
I am not knowledgeable enough to dispute this--and I happen to think that as a general principle many more troops are needed in Afghanistan. Then again, I think that's what should have been done in the first place--or at least instead of invading Iraq.
But, of course, we did invade Iraq, and that fact along with all the other facts related thereto makes your question of "what is the job?" all the more important.
And a closely related question is "do we have the resources to get the job done?"
I think that the answer to the first question will ultimately be determined by the soon-to-be President.
Getting back to Gates, my sense (or is it hope?) is that he will not set the policy, but rather will be responsible for implementing it. Of course, the policy might not be good, but I have more confidence in Obama than Bush, and at least Gates ain't the same as his predecessor.
...and what I understand to be your point about not getting mired in Afghanistan is well taken. And that gets us back to "what is the job?" One would hope that our leaders would take a few lessons from at least Afghanistan's history.
Here’s Obama’s first mistake. Instead of appointing General Shinseki defense secretary, he gave the man V.A. One of the best thinkers in the contemporary US Army, Shinseki was pushed out by Rumsfeld for criticizing Rumsfeld’s ‘cake-walk scenario’ suggesting that the army needed several hundred thousand troops to put an end to violence in Iraq. Shinseki had proposed that the army should move from its two extremes—light divisions which were vulnerable and heavy divisions which were too slow in deployment (up to six months into an overseas zone), to a medium plane where the main battle tank drops from the scale-tipping 70 tons to around 30 tons by using electro-magnetic armor and unmanned turrets with automatic loading systems that can fire ammunition faster and of a size too large for a human loader. It’s this kind of innovative thinking that is needed in Afghanistan which is also not going to be a ‘cake-walk’. You can be assured Shinseki would not tolerate a ‘trickle-flow’ of reinforcements into air-conditioned prepared camps for the ‘long haul’ which is Secretary Gates’ approach. I touch upon these issues in my book http://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/AClaytonsDefense.html
I agree that Shinseki would make an excellent Secretary of Defense, if for no other reason that he had the decency and balls to stand up and try to do the right thing in opposition to the nutjobs that were driving US policy. However, under U.S. law, he is not eligible. He must wait a given period of years before he would be eligible for that position (and that is why Wes Clark cannot be Secretary of Defense at this time). I can't recall the time period, but I think it is 8 years after retirement from the military.
Given that fact, I think it is encouraging that Obama selected Shinseki to head up the VA. First of all, it puts Shinseki in the government, and it gives him access to Obama. Second, it is a slap in the face to Bush, Rumskull, and all the other neocon idiots, and it could be a signal that their views will not be tolerated.
Another thing to keep in mind is the so far stated objective of Gates being on the job for a year or so. Given the current political climate here, this will avoid a confirmation battle with the Republicans and largely keep them quiet. I realize that this is the sort of thing that can (and often does) have a negative impact on military matters, but it nonetheless is something which must be addressed, particularly since the military become such a domestic political tool under the Bush administration.
What follows is moot given that Shinseki is not eligible to be Sec. of Defense, but it is instructive as an illustration of the current political climate and how the Gates appointment fits into that. That being said, let's assume for the sake of argument that Shinseki could serve as Sec. of Defense.
Appointing Shinseki as Defense Sec. would likely result in a confirmation battle because many Republicans 1) still resent him because of what he did prior to the Iraq war, and 2) such an appointment would likely been seen by them as a "losing face" repudiation of their party. Now, I think that is more than deserved, but at this time, there is a good chance that Republicans would fight a Shinseki appointment as Sec. of Defense on that ground alone. Such a confrontation would waste time and resources, and it would hinder Obama's objective of getting past partisanship--and I see that as crucial to getting many, many things done and changed in this country.
And that's where the Gates appointment fits in. The partisan bullshit is avoided, and there is someone there who is familiar with everything that is going on. He is also someone who has been trying to clean up the mess left by Rumskull, Wolfowitless, Feith, etc. Thus, from a political and logistical perspective, Gates is a good choice.
Then again, if Gates stays more than a temporary time AND he drives policy, my current analysis could be proven wrong...
And, at the risk of taking this discussion on a slight tangent, I am intrigued by the description of your book.
One thing I will mention here is the statement about Australia falling into lock-step with America. My first thought was that I am tired of the attitude of the Bush administration (sadly taken up by many Americans), that everyone else in the world should fall into lock-step with us.
Stan--I look forward to being intrigued by your book, as I just ordered it.
Post a Comment
<< Home