 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 19, 2008 at 15:25:57
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 11/19/08: by Ray McGovern Page 1 of 4 page(s) |
|
 
|
1
1
1
Over the past few months, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has generated accolades from FCM pundits—like the Washington Post’s David Ignatius—that read like letters of recommendation to graduate school. This comes as no surprise to those of us familiar with Gates’ dexterity in orchestrating his own advancement. What DOES come as a surprise is the recurring rumor that President-elect Barack Obama may decide to put new wine in old wineskins by letting Gates stay. What can Barack Obama be thinking? Succeeded? You betcha—the surge was a great success in terms of the administration’s overriding objective. The aim was to stave off definitive defeat in Iraq until President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney could swagger from the West Wing into the western sunset on Jan. 20, 2009. As author Steve Coll has put it, "The decision [to surge] at a minimum guaranteed that his [Bush’s] presidency would not end with a defeat in history’s eyes. By committing to the surge [the president] was certain to at least achieve a stalemate." According to Bob Woodward, Bush told key Republicans in late 2005 that he would not withdraw from Iraq, "even if Laura and [first-dog] Barney are the only ones supporting me." Later, Woodward made it clear that Bush was well aware in fall 2006 that the U.S. was losing. Suddenly, with some fancy footwork, it became Laura, Barney—and Robert Gates. And at the turn of 2006-07 the short-term fix was in.
But Please, No More Troops!
By the fall of 2006 it had become unavoidably clear that a new course had to be chosen and implemented in Iraq, and virtually every sober thinker seemed opposed to sending more troops. The senior military, especially CENTCOM commander Gen. John Abizaid and his man on the ground, Gen. George Casey, emphasized that sending still more U.S. troops to Iraq would simply reassure leading Iraqi politicians that they could relax and continue to take forever to get their act together.
Here, for example, is Gen. Abizaid’s answer at the Senate Armed Services Committee, Nov. 15, 2006 to Sen. John McCain, who had long been pressing vigorously for sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq:
Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad sent a classified cable to Washington warning that "proposals to send more U.S. forces to Iraq would not produce a long-term solution and would make our policy less, not more, sustainable," according to a New York Times retrospective on the surge by Michael R. Gordon published on Aug. 31, 2008.
Khalilzad was arguing, unsuccessfully, for authority to negotiate a political solution with the Iraqis.
There was also the establishment-heavy Iraq Study Group, created by Congress and led by Republican stalwart James Baker and Democrat Lee Hamilton. After months of policy review during 2006—with Gates as a member—it issued a final report on Dec. 6, 2006, which began with the ominous sentence, "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." The report called for:
"A change in the primary mission of US. Forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly… By the first quarter of 2008…all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq."
Robert Gates, who was CIA director under President George H. W. Bush and then president of Texas A&M, had returned to the Washington stage as a member of the Iraq Study Group. While on the ISG, he evidenced no disagreement with its emerging conclusions—at least not until Bush asked him in early November if he might like to become secretary of defense.
Never one to let truth derail ambition, Gates suddenly saw things quite differently. After Bush announced his nomination on Nov. 8, Gates quit the ISG, but kept his counsel about its already widely reported recommendations.
Gates to the Rescue
Gates would do what he needed to do to become defense secretary. At his confirmation hearing on Dec. 5, he obscured his opinions by telling the Senate Armed Services Committee only that "all options are on the table in terms of Iraq." Many Democrats, however, assumed that Gates would help persuade Bush and Cheney to implement the ISG’s recommendation of a troop drawdown.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 7 comments |
|
have been wondering
what you might have to say about bobby gates in the final analysis. thanks for sharing this with us...and hopefully obama. by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 3:56:08 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: bobby gates
you are most welcome. IF ANYONE HAS A WAY TO GET THIS TO THE PRESIDENT-ELECT OR FOLKS CLOSE TO HIM, PLS DO! thanks, Ray by Ray McGovern (67 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:29:50 PM (0+)
|
|
"Robert Gates: As Bad As Rumsfeld?"
PRETTY CONCICE ASSESMENT BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT WHAT MADE THE SURGE APPERE AS THOUGH IT HAD THE DESIRED EFFECT WAS THAT EVERY IRAQI THAT COULD LEAVE DID WHICH RESULTED IN THE FLOOD OF REFUGIES TO SYRIA ECT.. BEFORE THE SURGE. SO WASHINGTONS NUMBERS AND FINDINGS ARE SKEWD. by Keith Hupp (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:14:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Ray, you are a treasure, but what gets me
Most upset is that bobby could be confirmed by ALL democrats on the committee without one word about his role in Iran/Contra that is easy to remember(or learn) and should have resulted in prison AND his more shadowy role in the related, precursor, "October Suprise" that still is not clear. Could you with your superior contacts shed more light on his role in that fateful Paris shindig? by CamusRebel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:05:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Real Issue is Obama not Gates
In general, Obama appears to be a very effective manager and an exceptional strategist, making those who serve under him far less important to policy development than under Bush. So Gates' continuation at DoD makes sense in that he is in place and appears to be doing a adequate job managing the mess created by Bush; and, as you point out, Gates, as well as Petraeus, are clearly prepared to carry out whatever policy Obama decides on. In fact, this lightly principled and consistently opportunistic pair may be just what is needed to oversee a pivoting US policy in the region. The more important issue is Obama himself. His vow to “responsibly” end the Iraq war and statements he made in Senate hearings about Iraq withdrawal options indicate a de facto continuation of the so-called war on terror: a slow, partial drawdown of combat troops, with an attempt at base retention in Iraq, along with a concomitant escalation in Afghanistan. On the other hand, Obama appears serious about addressing the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian dispute, which is at the root, along with control of oil and gas resources, of the regional conflict. If he successfully settles the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, then US interests could be served by, and redefined as, predictable access to reasonably priced oil, allowing a relatively prompt end to costly and largely pointless US combat operations throughout the Middle East and East Asia. by William White (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 78 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:07:25 AM (0+)
|
|
To repeat, Gates belongs in prison
for his role in Iran/Contra and the "October Suprise". [editor's note: offensive racial remark removed from comment] by CamusRebel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:06:12 PM (0+)
|
|
To me the central question is about demilitarization
When I read about the spread of real estate the US Dept of Defense commands (Dana Priest in The Mission, for example) and when I have read articles about the fortifications the US has created in Iraq--I wonder about Afghanistan--I know why the US is broke. De-militarization is a tricky business and any president would realize that to pull out of global bases and to rescind longterm defense contracts would cause more havoc in the economy. The least political backlash would probably come from cancelling some of the less needed bases overseas. What would really help would be to downsize in Iraq, and that would be tricky. Is there any likelihood that Gates, given marching orders, could help in that regard before he scampers back to academe? by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1851 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 2:33:33 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
