Gates Strict Control of Critics Reminds Me of Rumsfeld

Colin Clark has a good read up over at DoD Buzz regarding an exchange between Rep. Mac Thornberry and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

At Wednesday’s House Armed Services Committee budget hearing, Rep. Mac Thornberry, one of the most consistently thoughtful and effective legislators on the House Armed Services Committee, asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates if he thought such an outside panel would be a good idea. Gates made the classic bureaucrat’s move of preempting the questioner, telling Thornberry he had already ,made a move in that direction, naming Andy Marshall, head of the elect Office of Net Assessment, and Marine Gen. James Mattis, head of Joint Forces Command, as his red team.

A little background. It would appear that both Rep. Mac Thornberry and Defense Secretary Robert Gates read this article written by Mackenzie Eaglen and Eric Sayers of the Heritage Foundation back on May 5th. They had an interesting idea, and it appears it was interesting enough that Defense Secretary Gates got wind that it would probably come up in the hearing. This is a bit of background from the Heritage Foundation article.

During the development of the 1997 QDR, an independent National Defense Panel was convened to study the strategy's findings. The NDP consisted of eight analysts, including its Chairman Phillip A. Odeen. In December 1997, the panel released a 94-page report entitled "Transforming Defense: National Security in the 21st Century." (PDF) The report challenged some of the core principles underpinning defense strategy at the time, fulfilling its mandate of complementing the QDR and contributing to a larger debate on the issues. In the cover letter of the NDP, Chairman Odeen captured the true intention of the exercise: "We have not attempted to provide all the answers. Rather, our intention is to stimulate a wider debate on our defense priorities."

The belief in the importance of the National Defense Panel was shared by Democrats and Republicans alike. For instance, President Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, expressed his strong support for NDP's findings while Senator Dan Coats (R-IN), who cosponsored the QDR legislation in 1996, also endorsed it, saying that the purpose of the panel's report (PDF) was "not based on distrust or suspicion of the Pentagon, but on the recognition that we need bold and innovative thinking from a variety of sources in this time of rapid change."

The Heritage Foundation article is a good read, concluding with the suggestion that the QDR process needs an independent National Defense Panel from outside the DoD. Well, while Heritage is suggesting outsiders for independent review, it is pretty clear with the choices that Secretary Gates has other ideas.

Does it get more inside than Andy Marshall? Seriously, you have to be an insider just to know what the guy stands for, he is by all accounts the ultimate insider. I also look at the choice of General Mattis is directly under Gates, how can a subordinate of Gates be an objective observer to a process that the Secretary of Defense is exercising so much control over?

Secretary Gates is visibly exercising power within the DoD with an iron fist, and I see no evidence at all that Secretary Gates is somehow promoting an atmosphere of legitimate debate of ideas in the DoD for the QDR. Sign your non-disclosure agreement and shut the hell up already, because transparency is a lofty idea that sounds good despite an obvious reality it doesn't actually exist.

Red Team and Blue Team look to me like they are simply two different colors of the cover of the same book, with the same pages in both books. Heritage Foundation is right, with absolutely every important decision being punted to the QDR the necessity for a legitimate analysis of concepts, ideas, and alternatives is critical. Secretary Gates has left every impression the fix is in for the QDR analysis, and I for one am a bit concerned that Gates is repeating the obvious mistakes of Secretary Rumsfeld by fixing conclusions without analysis.

I do disagree with the Heritage Foundation article in one regard though, I don't think the National Defense Panel must be completely run by outsiders, although the process may want to be managed by outsiders. In my opinion I think what the NDP needs is an independent assessment from folks not under direct authority of Secretary Gates, which doesn't necessarily mean outsiders, only that independent thinkers with a proven track record of independent ideas are required. This would be how I would do it, picking an expert to run the strategic focus of each service individually and insuring the combination of the five puts the NDP together.

• Army - Andrew Krepinevich
• Navy - Robert Rubel
• Air Force - Anthony Cordesman
• Marines - Frank Hoffman
• Coast Guard - Bruce Stubbs

In my opinion, that would make a hell of a lot more sense than having JFCOM and the ultimate insider Andy Marshall acting as the checks and balances system for the QDR. All five of those gentlemen are well connected and can produce a realistic, unbiased alternative that adds value to the QDR process. I hope Secretary Gates examines his decision to select Andy Marshall and General Mattis and decides to open up the process a bit more for a fair, unbiased outside assessment. The QDR process has become the central strategic focus of the entire DoD, it is too important to lack both transparency and confidence due to questionable processes to date that undermine both.