Get PJ Media on your Apple

Faster, Please!

Gates and the Duty Dilemma

January 21st, 2014 - 1:01 pm

robert_gates_1-21-14-2

You’re Bob Gates, the secretary of Defense for George W. Bush and then Barack Obama. During the Obama years, you attend high-level discussions at which you hear the nation’s leaders say some things that shock you, things that show the national interest is disregarded, as never before in your long experience, in favor of personal, political interest by the secretary of state and the president. Even things that threaten our soldiers’ lives and limbs.

In the last year of your tenure, the president reneges on promises he made to you regarding his support for your budget, thereby depriving the troops of weapons and of support for the wounded. And he speeds up the withdrawal from Afghanistan over your violent objections, breaking another commitment.

You’ve been around government all your life. You know that politics often trumps policy. Indeed, you were once humiliated and rejected as a nominee to head the CIA after you were accused of “politicizing intelligence.” But some of the things you hear disturb you more than anything you’ve heard in the past. Hillary and Obama say they supported the Iraqi surge for purely political reasons. And Obama “gives orders,” rather than just making decisions; he doesn’t understand how civilian control of the military works.

The president’s national security staff — at a record 350 slots (seven times the number under the elder Bush) — constantly meddles and tries to micromanage the two wars in which we’re engaged. At one point you have to tell the national security advisor that he’s not in the chain of command and that you will take your instructions from the president alone.

On the other hand, for all his faults, Obama’s actual policy decisions are generally what you want, and when there are disagreements, you sometimes come around to his judgment. He approves an Afghan surge — the very idea of which had not occurred to you (it came from General McChrystal’s analysis, which greatly surprised you but ultimately convinced you) — even though it rated to be politically unpopular, both with the Democrat base and with his own people inside the White House. To be sure, he announced there would be a full withdrawal of fighters in relatively short order, but that didn’t upset you. You later got angry when Obama lied to you about the withdrawal date, but you never thought anything great could be accomplished in Afghanistan anyway. You thought the best we could get was a fairly well-trained Afghan army, facing a Taliban-plus that we’d weakened. And maybe we could support some decent local governments.

And he did the bin Laden raid, which you initially opposed (you favored a drone strike) but then approved and admired.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Gates replaced Rumsfelt because he was the only one the Democrat controlled Senate would approve. When the Democrats put their stamp of approval on something you can bet it's not good for our country or our security.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Mr. Ledeen essentially reviews the Gates book. I would suggest this other book review is very helpful in considering Gates and his book. The review is of a book by John Rizzo, called "The Company", about the CIA where he worked for many years. The review from the Washington Times is by Anglelo Codevilla, who wrote The Ruling Class, and many other books, and also was on a staffer on a Senate committee overseeing intelligence matters. Read this quote slowly and think about it.

"Although the book is not what the advertising promises, it really does provide an accurate picture of life inside CIA. Its exclusive focus on how bureaucrats jostle and feel about one another is entirely consistent with my eight years of experience dealing with CIA’s top levels on the U.S. Senate’s behalf. The substance of any matter notwithstanding, it always came down to which bureaucrat would gain or lose what. The bureaucrats’ personal interests come first. The welfare and reputation of the agency come second. Everything else is incidental. This book seems to describe a collective human ice cream cone licking itself."

Now, to Gates book. And our Federal government in general. What in that paragraph is not true of every matter our Federal Government touches these days? What is not the worse for the involvement of these self-absorbed parasites? I cannot think of anything that is presently done by our government, including Gates and his own actions, that is not described by Codevilla's characterization of the CIA and those who oversaw it.

It was not always thus. But I believe it has been ever increasingly this way since the 1930s. Virtue has been slowly eliminated and replaced by hidden agendas and political motives that are the opposite of virtue. Where once belief in God helped check the dark side, that is now no longer a feature of any of these players. And we pay the price almost regardless of which party is in power.
(show less)
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
I applaud you Mr. Ledeen for reading the book. Now I can better spend my time doing otherwise.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (34)
All Comments   (34)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Ledeen -- your comment regarding Gates apparent hatred of Netanyahu was highly disconcerting (although certainly not your fault!).

While I would not at all call him an anti-Semite per se, he nevertheless lives in a class of people who are clearly overly quick to negatively judge an Israeli or Jew, and overly quick to fawn over an Arab prince or king (just like Obama). This likely comes from, as you point out, his old-world WASP mentality -- that would be the same mentality that has graces our illustrious Sate Department since at least WWII.

You further correctly point out his uncalled for vociferous opposition to the raid on the Syrian nuclear plant, by of all people, the liberal Olmert. He could not blame Netanyahu's (gasp) "speaking truth to power" in the White House for that.

And as you again say in an even more important point, he *never* re-evaluated his apparent knee-jerk anti-Israel stance on that raid (especially when it came to Iran). Thus one can only conclude, that when it comes to issues surrounding Israel, the gentleman does not consult his brain, but rather is driven by baser instincts.

Unfortunately, as I know you know Ledeen, the State Department and some of our military are rife with this type. A type who believes that, at a minimum, Israel should behave as a defacto "Jew-slave" to the US. And anything less is an "outrage!"

Of course your mention of who his mentors are was both telling and highly depressing...
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
This was also the mentality that caused the British to completely mess up the Palestinian mandate - and in their case it was overt anti-Semitism.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think Mr. Gates remains an honorable and brave man in both his positive and negative qualities in comparison to a lot of wimps in Washington.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Good Lord, Michael. Bloomberg as Secretary of Defense? His major policy initiative would be to ban salt in base commissaries. My estimation of Gates went way down with that revelation.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Applaud your restraint. Even contemplating Bloomberg as a candidate is a window into Gates' shabby character and MO, a clear sign of a guy who is tightly calibrated and triangulated and talks out of his clenched ass. Bloomberg? Just what the nation needs. (Ah, I hear his defenders say, just a stalking horse, you peasant, you don't understand nuance. R-i-g-h-t.)

You will note some still see Gates as an 'honorable and brave man' ... in the sarcastic sense meant by Mark Anthony talking about Brutus in Julius Caesar, maybe, but that's it.

Time for Tex. A&M to rip out every trace. Burn him in effigy, maybe?
Whatever you do, don't buy the book -- it'll be remaindered real soon.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
tl;dr
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
So why comment?
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
Here is the REAL question. If the pentagon & o's hacks were screwing up the war, why didn't he call 'em on it publically? And why did he just keep his mouth shut & go along to get along w/o resigning? Gates is the MacNamera of this generation... He could have made a great difference & did nothing.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Exactly. Gates is complicit in everything that went down. Thousands of American troops dead in two failed wars, out of control defense budgets, etc. A man of integrity would have resigned and blown the whistle; clearly, Gates has no integrity.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thank you for the brief review. Although I never would buy the book, much less read it. I saw Gates as a hopeless Washington bureaucrat and a weak one at that. Does anyone here think that Obama would allow an effective manager to stay around?
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wow.
Thank you for this column.

And these should be the leaders...oh my...

31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am 50 pages into the Gates book and WILL slog through it. Too many people are looking for an excuse NOT to confront complicated military and policy decisions and dismiss the study of them with some over-simplified retort. It is as if dismissing someone as a RINO-jerk, politician, whatever, somehow advances the cause, whatever that it. Here's a link to a series on the American Revolution that will give folks something to chew on. Define freedom and liberty when we are at war with our former king: http://allthingsliberty.com/2014/01/importance-observation-inspection/
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
The point being that the Committees of Correspondence, and the related committees, which most towns developed during the Revolutionary War did a lot of things which abridged the freedoms of not just loyalists, but also people who just did not care to contribute. That was an interim period after the King lost his sway and before a Federal government was actually formed. Were the government to do (as it sometime does) such things today there would be/is howling and yowling. My main point, as almost always, is that policy and history is complicated and a lot of questionable decisions get made, but SOME decision has to be made, after which, both the elites and the yahoos can grumble, curse, or threaten rebellion against the rebellion against the rebellion and so on.

Gates' book can provide information on policy and how it was determined. Reading it is a lot more work, than pronouncing him to be a miscreant. The fact that he served at SOD for both GWB and Obama makes him a sell-out to the extremists on both sides. Why complicate things by pointing out that he actually got something done?
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Robert Gates stayed in the Inner Circle for personal aggrandizement reasons, going along with the I Hate America & Israel crowd until he found others reasons and greater remunerative opportunities. There is nothing he has to say now that half of the voting populace didn't already know in 2008.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Seems as if the book was written by someone mindful of what would be the real meaning behind an invitation to join others on a fishing trip out in the middle of Lake Michigan.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All