To Matthew Stannard of the San Francisco Chronicle. I always say yes to him because his questions are always reasonable and you get no sense of overriding agenda. Plus, he reads the blog, so he knows when to come to me and on what.
Matthew had just gotten off the phone with Hammes, who offered some optimism on Gates (not for me to relay here). My point on Gates was that much depends on how he views China. Rummy never got off China, and that was the great failure of his SECDEF role as far as I was concerned: he created much change and reform in the institutional military, making the SysAdmin's emergence both possible and setting it somewhat in motion among especially the Army, Marines, and SOCOM, but he never shifted funds or priority enough to those non-Leviathan roles, thus the continuing struggle and material hardship for the ground pounders in Iraq. He held back primarily because he wanted his Leviathan as geared up as possible for his preferred near-peer.
Thus, Gates is unlikely to change much unless he's able to change Pentagon thinking (and planning/budgetary priorities) on China. If he can't, then it will be a caretaker's reign to run out the clock.
UPDATE: The Stannard article is now up.
| Permalink |
Comments (4)
I'm reading Gates' book, From the Shadows: the Ultimate Insiders story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War.
It's way more scary to read the sections about Dick Cheney than it is to read the references to Saddam Hussein.
Which is the problem. Gates has had a long and close relationship with Cheney. He's a Cheney boy. They sent Cheney off on a hunting trip just to fool everybody. This is more like a frat house than a White House.
Posted by sonofsamphm1c | November 9, 2006 2:41 AM
since losing the election Bush has resigned from far reaching goals such as the long war to backtrack to his safety net - the realism of his father. Is it any surprise that both Baker and Gates are now the faces of the Iraq policy. They are remnants of Bush I.
The question now is whether they will recognize the challenges that America faces today or go back to the Powell Doctrine and the Gulf War ( still can't forgive them for what they did to the Kurds and Shiites - telling them to stand up and when they did not supporting them and letting them get slaughtered by Saddam )
Will they go back to the political safe zone of realism, how to increase Bushs popularity - get troops out, no more Big Bangs in foreign policy, what happens to MOOTWs, go in if ok, slightest sign of trouble get out quick ( Somalia ).
All this is not very clear, whether Gates or Baker are willing to tranform the military to the future or cutting them some slack by getting out of Iraq and telling everyone - never again, that should comfort the big platform spenders and the China Hawks - time will tell
Posted by vinit joshi | November 9, 2006 8:15 AM
However, see his 2004 co-authored report _Iran: Time for a New Approach_. Download at http://www.cfr.org/publication/7194/iran.html
(HT Mudville Gazette)
Posted by lrblyth | November 9, 2006 9:21 AM
This article from Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4201643.html
repeats some of the points in the Stannard article. It points out quite clearly the way that Rumsfeld has been balancing various monetary priorities. The result has been that there is just not enough money to go around.
Can/will Bush mobilize the country? If we go to a war footing, it seems clear that more money can be put into the defense budget. The anti-China forces should be put on a diet until the Army and Marines are raised to the levels necessary to prosecute the Long War successfully.
If nothing is done we will probably continue to muddle along in Iraq in this twilight zone of little/no progress.
AAARGHHH!! Interservice competition for money was a major problem in the 60s and 70s. Why should I be surprised that it continues even though there is much lip service paid to "joint" operations.?
Posted by Jim Glendenning | November 9, 2006 10:48 PM