Gates Must Go

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been one of the more influential Defense Secretaries of our time.  He re-instituted a sense of responsibility in DoD (see various USAF/USA officials fired for myriad offenses), he was a steady transitional hand as a new team took over from the Bush Administration, and his effort to derive efficiencies within the defense budget has been instrumental in (for the moment) holding off even deeper cuts. A master bureaucrat, Gates has tamed DoD to an extent that Mr. Rumsfeld could only have dreamed of.

But it is time for Mr. Gates to go.

The US is currently fighting a war in Libya that it seems clear the Secretary did not want.  His public statements have been notable for their honesty and for the contradictions they pose with administration policy, especially as enunciated by the President at NDU Monday night.  While I agree completely with what I discern to be Mr. Gates' opposition, that he cannot seem to publicly muster the ability to lower his shoulder and support the President DEMANDS that the President ask for his resignation.  Interestingly, the fact that the President had been so hesitant to intervene in Libya--followed then by a strong rationale for doing so--makes this week's very public turnover of leadership to NATO (and the concomitant decline in US kinetic air power engaged) seem like just the latest sign of utter policy breakdown at the highest level.  Mr. Gates' "farewell tour" has already been too long, yet it may well be that the President asked him to stay on just a little while longer as Libya was undertaken.  If that is the case, the President may come to regret that decision. 

SECDEF Preps the Budget Battlefield

The Secretary of Defense gave another one of his bravura performances Friday, with this speech at West Point.  Like his speech at last year's Sea, Air and Space Symposium (in which he challenged Navy and Marine Corps sacred cows before a largely naval audience), Gates showed no timidity in shaking things up for an Army audience.  Key quote for those of you keeping track of my quixotic quest to unbalance the defense budget in favor of American Seapower:

The need for heavy armor and firepower to survive, close with, and destroy the enemy will always be there, as veterans of Sadr City and Fallujah can no doubt attest.  And one of the benefits of the drawdown in Iraq is the opportunity to conduct the kind of full-spectrum training -- including mechanized combined arms exercises -- that was neglected to meet the demands of the current wars. 

Looking ahead, though, in the competition for tight defense dollars within and between the services, the Army also must confront the reality that the most plausible, high-end scenarios for the U.S. military are primarily naval and air engagements --  whether in Asia, the Persian Gulf, or elsewhere.  The strategic rationale for swift-moving expeditionary forces, be they Army or Marines, airborne infantry or special operations, is self-evident given the likelihood of counterterrorism, rapid reaction, disaster response, or stability or security force assistance missions.  But in my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should "have his head examined," as General MacArthur so delicately put it.

I have a feeling that were he to remain in office, Gates might actually take this one on.  I would like to see Congress hold him accountable for this statement in any upcoming testimony, by asking him to elaborate on how statements like this can serve as the impetus for change, and whether he believed such change was possible in the current Pentagon environment.

Bryan McGrath

Gates And Boomers

In this story from yesterday's Politico, Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell reveals some of Secretary Gates' thinking with respect to the Navy's OHIO class SSBN replacement plans. Apparently, SECDEF plans some tough love for the Navy, as he'll wade into the middle of the navalists gathered at the Navy League's Sea, Air, and Space Symposium and cast doubts on the direction the service appears headed. From the story: "Geoff Morrell says Gates will raise questions about changes in geopolitics, global naval resourcing, the global economy and how those changes may impact what programs the Navy builds in the future." This isn't likely to come as good news to the submarine cabal.

At $6-7B a pop, these boats will--as Secretary Gates told the HASC in March--"suck all the air out of the Navy's shipbuilding program" (steady state totals of $15.9B annually).

Mackenzie Eaglen of Heritage called this right--Gates is sending the Navy signals, very strong signals, that they are going to have to figure out a way to lower the cost of these behemoths, and his tipped hand suggests he will talk straight past the Nuclear Posture Review's endorsement of a sea-based deterrent. Because--while A sea-based deterrent was endorsed, it was not necessarily THE sea-based deterrent the Navy has in mind. Some hold out hope that much if not all of the cost of the OHIO replacement will be picked up outside the Navy budget, but Gates' language so far indicates he'll only consider such a plan after the Navy has skinnied down the requirement and done the heavy analysis to justify this type of platform. Gene Taylor (D-MS) and Ron O'Rourke (CRS) have both suggested a variant of the VIRGINIA Class submarine as the OHIO replacement, and I think the idea merits consideration.

Again though--this is a problem only in the Bizarro World of the Department of Defense, where the institutional interest in doling out the goodies equally trumps strategically critical capabilities. Shake up the "balanced force", resource our most strategically critical Service (the Navy) adequately, and $15.9B a year in shipbuilding would look more like $25B a year in shipbuilding. Problem (mostly) solved.

All this aside, it is amazing to watch Gates at work--he is a master bureaucrat. There is a strong argument to be made that he has been the most consequential SECDEF of the last forty years. He certainly holds the whip-hand.


Bryan McGrath