Robert Gates: Too Dangerous to Keep?

Last week I have looked at the prospects of the upcoming Obama administration’s military/defense policy, and this week I decided to look at the most pressing issue concerning right now – selection of the Secretary of Defense. There have been buzz and debates over whether the current defense secretary Robert M. Gates should remain in his position (even just for a while) during the next administration. Obama had already expressed his willingness to ask Gates to stay should he get elected throughout his campaign. Now that he is elected, Obama has to decide whether he should consider bring “change” to Washington right away as he promised, or continue stability in the Pentagon with an experienced and respected man for the job.

I decided to find articles with two different views using IMSA criteria – one supporting the decision to make him stay, and one opposing it. The first one was Continuity We Can Believe In: Why Barack Obama Should Keep Robert Gates at Defense by Michael Goodwin, a conservative columnist for the New York Daily News, who advocates Obama’s pick of Gates. The other one was The Danger of Keeping Robert Gates in the English edition of Al-Jazeera Magazine by Robert Parry who is a reporter/author that opposes Obama’s potential move. The first author praises Gates for his “honest and nonpartisan public service” and the “record of success” that justifies his stay. On the contrary, the latter points out Gates as someone who “embodies worst elements of U.S. national security policy” and very “politicized”. It was certainly interesting and important to assess two contrasting perspectives, especially because this issue is critical to our national security and also because the new administration has pledged openness and post-partisanship.

For Continuity We Can Believe In: Why Barack Obama Should Keep Robert Gates at Defense

As someone who will soon become an officer in the United States Air Force, this is a really important issue. The next commander-in-chief Barack Obama had made history already and yet will face even greater challenges when he takes office, including managing two difficult wars that he had only been watching from the sidelines. He has promised further changes in our recent policies; he had pledged to end the war in Iraq and put more emphasis in Afghanistan; he said he would talk to our enemies without precondition. He had said he would bring changes to the way policies are made by transcending partisanship, including putting people with different political affinity in his cabinet like President Lincoln did during the Civil War. If Obama truly wants to be a leader who would bring historical changes in this country, then he will have to take some chances. And that includes keeping Robert M. Gates as Secretary of Defense, even at least for a short period.

President-elect Obama had been a main critic of President Bush for years, literally. And there are few people who are more politically tied to the Bush family than Secretary Gates; he was appointed as the Director of CIA by President George H.W. Bush, and Secretary of Defense by President George W. Bush. So for someone who got into office for hammering Bush keeping someone too close to the family might look like a blatant hypocrisy. Many of Obama’s anti-war supporters would protest for sure. Yet, even they overlook Gates’ competence and the opportunity for post-partisanship. People tend to believe that change means complete overhaul, but history has shown that it is often too radical and risky. There should always be a balance between change and continuity. At this critical and dangerous time, it is indeed better to keep a man who has already shown that he is capable and overcame his past politicization of favoring the Bushes.

For The Danger of Keeping Robert Gates

This article mentions mostly about Gates’ history in CIA, but barely touches on his accomplishments as Secretary of Defense. It is true that there are few people who are more politically tied to the Bush family than Secretary Gates; he became the Director of CIA by President George H.W. Bush, and Secretary of Defense by President George W. Bush. Gates would not have been here if it was not for the Bush family. Gates probably had spent most of his CIA career sweet-talking to the Bushes for his own political/bureaucratic career; that could hardly be surprising. But Secretary Gates is a different man from Director Gates. Now he has not only shown competence but honesty and objectivity. If he had kept his politicization tendency, then there would not be as much progress in Iraq War right now, if not deteriorating. Also that is why it has become difficult even for current anti-Bush Democrats to criticize him.

So for Obama, who got all the way to presidency by criticizing Bush and promising change, to tying himself to a Bush crony in a very important position would seem like the least reasonable political move. He would disappoint so many of his anti-war supporters. But they should remember that this is a chance for new cooperation for the national and international interest. It would finally give a very wise man an opportunity to break away from his old realm and work with someone else who demands new directions. And it would be chance for a new president to look at complex war issues from a fresh perspective. Past records are important, but what matters more is what has happened more recently, and how things will be in the better future.

Obama Administration’s 21st Century Military: Sufficient for the 21st Century?

November 4^th, 2008 will be remembered in history as the day Barack Obama was elected as the first African-merican President of the United States of America. People throughout the nation and even the world will remember where they were and what their initial reaction was the moment he was projected to win. But then they will also remember what they had been going through at the time – the world is in the biggest financial crisis in seventy years, the U.S. has been making fragile progress in two difficult wars, and the world had just simply become too unpredictable. They finally saw a new leader of the free world who has inspired millions around the world with his charisma and words. They now have to see if he can actually lead people out of all these real-life chaos. Economy was the top concern on the voters’ minds, and the President-elect has made this as his top priority. Nevertheless, the new president should also keep in his mind that he is also the new Commander-in-Chief during the most difficult wartime in the nation’s history yet, while American ideals and leadership have been largely undermined both domestically and internationally. President-elect Obama has promised to rebuild America’s defense into the “21^st century military”, following with solid ideas during his campaign. Now, he should work on keeping his commitments as the next great leader of the 21^st century.

President-elect Obama has had no previous military experience, and also had been continuously charged by his rival war hero candidate Senator John McCain as too “naïve” and therefore “not ready”. The same charge has been made by even Senator Joe Biden during primaries before eventually becoming his running mate. It is true that Obama’s record on national security policy is little. Therefore, during his campaign, Obama put an effort to formulate his defense and foreign policy agendas. He has tried to assert he will become both a strong and careful commander-in-chief at the same time. One of the earliest previews of his foreign policy agendas was his speech at Chicago Council of Global Affairs in April 2007, where he first coined the term “21^st century military”. Then he elaborated on the “21^st century military” in the July/August 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs. Here are the excerpts of his main views from the article:

“…to renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace…I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened…We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.”

To show his strong side, he added specific plans including “adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines”, “foreign languages” as one of the skills provided to the people in uniform, and “to commit sufficient funding to enable the National Guard to regain a state of readiness”. On the Air Force note, Obama did call for spending enormous amount of money on the new UAVs, improve electronic warfare capabilities, and building more C-17 cargo planes and KC-X refueling tankers for America’s “future ability to extend its global power” in his speech in Chicago. He overall also promised to provide necessary equipments, trainings, and other resources to those all in the service.

Then to show his wise side, he also mentioned that when he is sending troops in their harm’s way, he will “clearly define the mission, prescribe concrete political and military objectives, seek out advice of our military commanders, evaluate the intelligence, plan accordingly, and ensure that our troops have the resources, support, and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission.” He also would garner support from the U.S. allies and use diplomacy along with armed forces in order to succeed. Few stances have been changed throughout the campaign, and they’ve been all laid out to the public, including in his website. If he follows through on all of his proposals, the U.S.’s defense is likely to be revitalized and strong again.

However, there are some concerns and criticisms towards Obama’s defense plans, especially on his pledge to cut spending on “missile defense systems”, “slowing or suspending the development of future combat systems”, and “not weaponize space”. Certain critics believe these plans “threaten foreign policy consequences inimical to American interests, and would pose perilous problems for some of our key allies around the world”. Then in order to meet all these plans of rebuilding the military, the defense spending has to be either increased or stay the same. But one Democrat House member has already called for 25% in overall defense spending, and probably more members will join him. The situation in Iraq is getting more unpredictable although the US and Iraqi government have recently agreed on withdrawal of American troops by 2011. The situation in Afghanistan is “not going in the right direction” according to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen. Then Russia and China are mobilizing their own military to challenge the U.S. superiority. Therefore, President-elect Obama should stick to its original position and look for other ways to improve the economy without negatively impacting the defense budget.

President-elect Obama has recently proven his determination for national security when he has selected Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to keep the job and a retired Marine general James L. Jones as his National Security Advisor. Both men have distinguished records and credentials on years of service and leadership, and Obama has selected them based on merits, not political affiliation. Not only that but he has already spoken with the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of National Intelligence, and former experts from both the Democratic and Republican administrations as well. This is certainly a positive start but the new president must continue to be both strong and wise throughout his administration regardless of the condition. When President Obama takes office in January 20^th, it will be remembered as a historical day for some reason, but it should be remembered especially as the day when America re-emerged as the leader and protector of freedom and peace in the 21^st century.