Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fareed Zakaria: Is Robert Gates A Genius?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 10:11 AM
Original message
Fareed Zakaria: Is Robert Gates A Genius?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/193487


WORLD VIEW
Fareed Zakaria
Is Robert Gates A Genius?

In the past, weapons production has existed in a dreamland, regardless of enemies, costs or trade-offs.
Published Apr 11, 2009


When a true genius appears," the English satirist Jonathan Swift wrote, "you may know him by this sign; that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." Genius might be a bit much as a description of the secretary of defense, but Robert Gates's budget proposal has certainly gathered all the right opponents. There are the defense contractors, worried that decades of fraudulent accounting are coming to a halt; the Beltway consultants for whom the war on terror has been a bonanza; the armed services, which have gotten used to having every fantasy funded; and the congressmen who protect all this institutionalized corruption just to make sure they keep jobs in their state.

If you're wondering where to come down on the Gates plan, here's a simple guide: John McCain, the most thoughtful, reform-minded legislator on military issues, "strongly supports" it. Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe—who has compared the EPA to the Gestapo, Carol Browner to Tokyo Rose and environmentalists to the Third Reich—warns that it will lead to the "disarming of America." You choose.

snip//

Gates has really just begun a much-needed process of rethinking American defense strategy after the Cold War. He has focused sensibly on the wars we are actually fighting, to make sure the military is equipped to wage them success- fully. But while we don't need the F-22, we are still going to make 2,443 F-35s at an eventual cost of $1 trillion. Do we really need those? What is the thinking behind that program?

American military budgets should be based on two competing imperatives. The first is that we are likely to be engaged in small, complex conflicts with much weaker opponents in difficult terrain. In other words, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Gates budget makes intelligent provision for these kinds of wars—in which manpower and intelligence are key. The second requirement is deterrence. The U.S. military protects global sea lanes and, in a general sense, preserves the peace. If the Somali pirates were to cause too much trouble, eventually it would be the United States military that would help tackle them. If the Chinese were considering offensive actions in Asia, it is the American response that would make them cautious.

But these imperatives can surely be satisfied with a military that is leaner, more cost-effective, more efficient and does keep somewhere in mind the capacity of potential adversaries. The U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft-carrier groups. China has zero. The U.S. defense budget for 2009 is $655 billion. China's is $70 billion, Russia's is $50 billion. America's cumulative cost overruns add up to more than the total annual defense budgets of China, Russia, Britain and France combined. This smacks less of deterrence and more of mindless extravagance and waste.

Coming up next for Gates is the Quadrennial Defense Review. He should take the opportunity—his last one to leave a long legacy—and move the United States toward a military strategy that is shaped by the world we actually inhabit. That would make him a true genius. He will certainly have all the dunces arrayed against him to prove it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. Only a SECDEF appointed by the opposition President (and recommended by that guy's daddy)
could get away with doing this.

The next QDR oughta be one helluva blood bath. I wouldn't want to be one of the poor bastards in the middle, trying to grind out those issues and justifications for digestion by the Hill. No matter what you do, if you step on someone's crank and they decide to blame you because they aren't getting what they want, careers can be ended. It's a hideous time at a certain level, and it's really fraught with hell because Gates has issued "marching orders" pretty much. There will be people who will get huffy about this, and many of them will be in uniform.

We all know there are a lot of "terminal rank" flag and general officers (mostly general) who snuggled up too close to BushCo for comfort. Some of those guys already know that their time is short (they serve at the pleasure of the President, and the President will probably be "displeased") and they'll do what they can on behalf of their favored defense contractor, with the verbal (never written) implied (never stated) suggestion (never a promise) that they'll be given a lobbying job (or a job that is, for all intents and purposes, lobbying, but doesn't have that name and doesn't require registration as a lobbyist) once the "No Go" timeframe for government-associated employment has run out.

Gates is fucking with a lot of post-military salaries with this move. Good for him. Some of those bums (and all of them who cuddled up to the corporate bastards) were overpaid while in uniform!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
2. What a crock
A dog and pony show. We are being conned. Much sound and fury about nothing. Nothing except more of the same. The same (even more) spending instead of severe cuts.

Don't be fooled. We are getting screwed. Conned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Maybe you are so used to being conned, you can't think straight.
Edited on Sun Apr-12-09 10:51 AM by babylonsister
:shrug: This isn't more of the same, but you don't want to know about it, so I won't try to convince you.

Edit to add: if it's more of the same, why are all the rethugs so angry? :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Angry?
Why are the pubs so angry? They are always angry, but in this case it is nothing but a farce.

Gates is still wasting billions of dollars to be used to kill people.
The war in the Middle east continues unabated.
It is more of the same, with just a touch of lipstick on the MIC pig.

How in the world any peace loving, pro-human liberal person could be happy with what is proposed is beyond my fathoming. A rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic makes better sense than this continuation of the MIC.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Look, I'm not a war enthusiast, I'm
an enthusiast of reality. You will never not have a department of defense.

And the rethugs are angry because they are losing some weapons systems that their defense contributors paid big bucks to them to continue.

Oops, gotta go. Bye!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Is Chris Dodd a Rethug?
http://dodd.senate.gov/?q=node/4892 A lot of Democrats are opposed to the cuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC