Slashdot Mirror
The Quiet Fury of Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
An anonymous reader writes "Activities, technologies, equipment, or other matters regarding the U.S. Department of Defense are a common topic on Slashdot, both as stories and in discussions. Despite that, we seldom see stories regarding the senior leadership of DoD as we do for technologists, the political branches, and lately the NSA. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who served under both Presidents Bush and Obama, has released a rather biting memoir of his tenure as the Secretary of Defense. The Wall Street Journal has an excerpt: '... despite everyone being "nice" to me, getting anything consequential done was so damnably difficult — even in the midst of two wars. I did not just have to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq and against al Qaeda; I also had to battle the bureaucratic inertia of the Pentagon, surmount internal conflicts within both administrations, avoid the partisan abyss in Congress, evade the single-minded parochial self-interest of so many members of Congress and resist the magnetic pull exercised by the White House, especially in the Obama administration, to bring everything under its control and micromanagement. Over time, the broad dysfunction of today's Washington wore me down, especially as I tried to maintain a public posture of nonpartisan calm, reason and conciliation. ... difficulties within the executive branch were nothing compared with the pain of dealing with Congress. ... I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.' — More at The Washington Post."
Nothing surprising.. basically he is just telling us what we already know about US politics in the modern age.
the system is not perfect, but it would be a lot worse if we allowed one person to have to much power and make too many decisions without input from stakeholders
But then, the takeover by the military industrial complex has already happened more or less. Look what happened when we tried to simpley reduce funding for the military during the last self-induced "crisis."
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
He knew what it was like long before he got that post. What was he expecting, a sudden influx of invisible pink unicorn poop?
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
doesn't news imply new information?
are there really literate adults who don't realize washington is an open sewer? and politicians are all corrupt socipaths?
oldnews.gif
I have a hard time taking what I've read of the criticism online already seriously. Is it really so damning the Obama didn't consider Afganistan "his war", and "wanted to get out"? Or be "skeptical" of the plans put in place by the military leadership?
I mean it sounds like what we heard in the 2000s from the bush administration where enough patriotism and "believing in the troops" was what it took to make a war work. Expecting that from the common person is annoying and immature, but expecting it from the president sounds extraordinarily naive.
This is the problem of everyone who tries to work with other people, it's something you see at every job where your interests are not aligned perfectly with everyone else's. If you think that's bad, try dealing with an HOA.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The most frustrating part of this to me is that people die - both combatants and not - as a consequence of decisions made by these clowns.
SNAFU = " "Situation Normal: All Fucked Up".
Anyone who expects to gain pleasure or be appreciated for serving in our political system is making a big mistake.
Washington is a bunch of Type-A, borderline personality disorder sociopaths, as that's what it generally takes in order to claw one's way up to that level. Arguably that pressure-cooker is present in any group of political elite, from the Politburo to the King's Court.
This whining reminds me a bit of a civilian telecom contractor that went to Iraq to serve military needs, that complained that when some soldiers offered to give him some rudimentary weapons training on the range if he could get the ammo, complained about how hard it was to get ammo. In one of the most heavily armed bases in the world. Sure, he'd probably have to scrounge or scavenge or "borrow" ammo, but as a civilian it was not their job to supply it to him, and they were being nice by offering to give him some training at all.
This guy should have known what internal battles he'd face up there, that's part why Presidents visibly age so dramatically while in office. It's rough on top.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Robert Gates for President!
I've never been the one to raise the "How is this News for Nerds?" cry. In fact, I'm often the one trying to explain how it could interest a nerd. But I'm really at a loss here. The lampshade hung over the first two sentences didn't help.
resist the magnetic pull exercised by the White House, especially in the Obama administration, to bring everything under its control
Jesus, just by winning a couple of elections that guy thinks he's in charge.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I know, everyone is thinking term limits will solve the problem. I think that's backwards: with term limits, you have a perpetual stream of newcomers coming into congress who haven't a clue what is going on but who are determined to "fix things". With short terms, you have congress critters spending an inordinate amount of their time, attention and money on getting reelected, and making political and strategic choices for the country with reelection as the goal rather than making the country better.
We can't get money out of politics, but we can lessen it's importance. Give 'em job security, I say.
Barbra Boxer and Hank Johnson (although neither of these involves Gates, the point remains).
sure, you have politics in the military industrial complex that is the pentagon. its how the mess hall gets halliburton contractors and your usual patrols are augmented by blackwater; its not going anywhere. but the tits-up congress is actually a pretty recent concoction.
in the face of a progressive president who shows signs of championing some popular reforms like wealth equality, immigration and healthcare, i'd say turning congress into a total clusterfuck with the addition of some well funded tea-based fringe group was a very tactically minded decision on the part of americas plutocrats. If the bus is going in the wrong direction, slash the tires and damn the consequences i say.
Good people go to bed earlier.
This is actually quite interesting. We have now moved from 'everyone knows' to someone has actually spelled it out.
There are a lot of ordinarly people out there who are not in the 'everyone' category and may now become aware of this.
No one will ever need more than four wars...
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.
He never said any of this publicly while holding his position because he didn't want to lose his job. I feel that most politicians and cabinet appointees feel this way, but they always hold it all in until they leave office and are ready to author their "tell all" memoir. Maybe if someone actually spoke the truth while in office the problems plaguing our government would have a better chance of being addressed.
Of course since they are all "prone to put self (and re-election) before country" they would never dare to challenge the party line. Robert Gates included.
Yeah, nice try. This is not news for nerds, or even stuff that matters. This does not belong on Slashdot, because this is not Breitbart.com.
sig: sauer
I did not just have to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq and against al Qaeda; I also had to battle the bureaucratic
An article about commanders fighting each other about plans and egos, it mentioned during WWII Gen. Marshall arrives at his office early in morning. During the day he has to fight the British, fight the Soviets, fight the French, fight the Belguims, fight the Dutch, fight the Aussies, fight the Canadians,. Then late at night when Marshall returns home, his wife reminds him that he needs to fight the Germans.
mfwright@batnet.com
. I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.
. I saw most of [insert big corporation] as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic corporate responsibilities (such as reasonable deadlines and funding), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and promotion/ambition) before teamwork and progress.
Its news that human beings are self interested, ignorant, and vain? How did this ingenue become secretary of defense?
Here's a news flash for Bob Gates: People in Washington, running the gov. are no better/worse than the general populace. People don't suddenly become 'better' because they get elected to office, or go work for a congressman, or the white house. When you take the job of Secretary of Defense, you get paid for three things:
1. Up holding your duty to the constitution
2. Setting an example for your subordinates
3. Navigating the politics of government
If you don't want to compromise yourself, these things are all thankless arduous tasks. They wear you out. It goes with the territory. Cry me a river Bob Gates.
As a US citizen Mr. Gates is free to speak his mind as dictated by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. He can also now expect to come under "friendly fire" as the political wheels churn but he knew that before writing the book. I see this is a useful debate as candidates are vetted for the coming elections. He may have his biases but as an longtime insider I'd like to hear what he has to say.
I don't work for the DoD... But it sometimes sure feels like it.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
we can't get competent people to run for public office in this country. Over the years I have worked many times with local, state and federal government agencies. Almost universally, the experience Gates had has mirrored my own. Incompetent management, grandstanding, petty interdepartmental feuds, smothering regulations and endless meetings. If I could sum up the entire experience in a single word it would be this: frustration. Is it any wonder that we can't get talented people to run for public office? High achievers are used to getting things done. Some of them come to Washington thinking that they can cut through the rubbish that slows everyone else down. Good luck with that. I'm sure that many in the press will paint Gates as some sort of grumpy malcontent. But he's actually doing us a favor.
I think its always refreshing to hear from a non political person in Washington DC. A Defense secretary is a great person to get insight into what is and is not working under a administration. I think its almost common knowledge that most President use a political model when making military decisions. Its why a lot of our recent military missions have failed. No President really listens to what his military advisers are telling him. Its far more important to have a positive for the Presidents political future. I personally never thought the Bush administration or Obama's has had any decent people in foreign policy. The results of that show dreadfully on how the World now views America. It would not be so bad to have such a bad President who knows little about foreign affairs. But to put people in the Secretary Of State position of not having any more credibility then the President is even worse. No doubt in my mind that all the men and woman lost in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be for nothing. We will have gained no peace, made no friends in this part of the World and weakened the US military significantly as well as our economy.
"Resist the magnetic pull exercised by the White House"? Uh...idiot your job is to enforce the President's policies! If you find that your disagreements are that broad, you resign. You make your case, defend it as well as you can, and if the boss says "F it, I want to do it this way," you accept that as the way leadership works. The concerns of a President are larger than that of any Secretary. The top guy is the one ultimately responsible for outcomes so it's always easier for the junior officers to come up with daring, risky plans.
Crying about the self-interests of Congressmen? Uh...that's what Congress is!
While I agree with his complaints about how our government is functioning, he's not the one bearing the brunt of partisan warfare.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
You solution would just result in unsuitable people being there longer. The real solution is to make their job much less important. To re-distribute those powers that congress has amassed and push them back out to the states. Let the states be responsible for their own roads and bridges. Let the states be responsible for their own housing and medical/health. They could do it better...if they were collecting the majority of the tax revenue instead of the Federal government.
The problem with congress is that they have centralized too much power and responsibility and they cannot do it well.
The states aren't children anymore. They need to grow up and become little countries of their own.
"Duty" offers the familiar criticism of Congress and its culture, describing it as "truly ugly." Gates's cold feelings toward the legislative branch stand in stark contrast to his warmth for the military. He repeatedly describes his affection for the troops, especially those in combat.
Gee, he hates the career politicians who constrain his freedom to act, and loves the people in his chain of command? I'm stunned. Really. You could knock me over with a sledgehammer.
Gates's severe criticism is even more surprising -- some might say contradictory -- because toward the end of "Duty," he says of Obama's chief Afghanistan policies, "I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions." ... The sometimes bitter tone ... contrasts sharply with the even-tempered image that he cultivated during his many years of government service ... In "Duty," Gates describes his outwardly calm demeanor as a facade. Underneath, he writes, he was frequently "seething" and "running out of patience on multiple fronts."
So he's saying highly placed officials are under a lot of pressure, try to do what they believe is right, are often in highly contentious situations, have to suppress their emotional reactions, and on sober reflection ultimately support each other? My goodness, these exciting revelations have me so wound up I may go over to the couch and have a little snooze.
Pop media trying to turn pedestrian normality into sizzling drama. Yawn.
You want to do something interesting, Gates? Surprise me. Tell me about your fight against the F-35. Tell me about how hard you fought, the times you really put yourself on the line, to get that boondoggle cut. Oh, you didn't? That's why we're still paying for that stupid porkbarrel piece of shit that you opposed? So you're saying you talk the talk, but didn't walk the walk. You want to get me excited about your dedication to America, show me you took a risk for what you believed in when doing so had no upside for you. Don't just whine about how hard it was because everyone else were jerks; I can get that story from every single person on the planet.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Congress really DOES represent the people!
were nothing compared with the pain of dealing with Congress. ... I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.
Has Gates considered blogger moderation and karma whoring to mitigate the dysfunction? I'm sure Ralph Reed might do something for extending unemployment benefits if we gave him a cookie.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
So the "special dood" who was groomed from his teen years to be a CIA/DoD stooge (evidently his uncle was a SecDef, Thomas Gates, under Eisenhower), and who boiled cats as a "well adjusted" teen, who was kept from become the CIA director by a large scale public mutiny of the CIA employees at the time he was acting director, who was first appointed by George Weasel Bush, then reappointed by the clueless Obama (who still hasn't learned to play chess) once again, in yet another of his many "memoirs" criticizes some dems --- simpleton political theater for the Ameritards. Ho hum......
difficulties within the executive branch were nothing compared with the pain of dealing with Congress. ... I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.
..and here's a Republican complaining about Congress and his own party just prior to the last election:
"...an insurgent outlier -- ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition"
..and yet even more of these clowns got sent to Congress weeks later. There's another Congressional election coming up later this year, and most predictions currently are that there will be even more of these ideological fundamentalists and their more reasonable but still Republican allies in Congress next year, primarily due to voters who don't like them not caring enough to go vote. They might even take over the Senate too.
And anyone would look a little groggy and unsteady on their feet when they are being bled dry. There was a report I read recently that the Pentagon could not account for a trillion dollars missing. The system is upside down. The people with the most power should live locally and be elected locally. The way it stands, the people with the most power will never come up for election in your state.
....an intelligent comment (i kan reed) at /. ! ! ! Thank you.
"But being told to fight the war, then being second guessed on how to fight the war was the problem."
As if there was some magical way to fight these wars that would lead to victory and these poor picked on honorable military folks just need the politicians to get outta their way so they can get it done.
Haven't these ridiculous wars only taught the world that the US military ain't much use unless you want to bomb the fuck out of someone?
It is very good to get Gates point of view of the situation, but remember the Military has a specific mission that doesn't always match the goal of the society. Take for example Vietnam War, the military rightly asks themselves how they could have better fought the war and win it, also how the military could have avoided most of the political fallout from the cost of running the war. However what the military never, and can never, ask themselves is are we fighting the right war. Even people who still believe in the domino theory, like Henry Kissinger, think that Vietnam could have been a cheaper delaying action and neighboring countries where we had more stable governments could have been the better place to make a stand. Likewise in Iraq and Afghanistan today, there is no reason to believe a democratic government reflecting the will of the people would be a staunch U.S. ally. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have democracy, but to me it puts sharp limits on how large a price the U.S. should pay to achieve the goal. It will be inherently frustrating for the Military, after all real people are dying (big HINT, think very carefully before starting a war!), none the less that doesn’t mean you throw more lives away without real measurable benefits. Interestingly, Gates has much worse words for Congress than the President, though most of the headlines I see are about the Gates comments about the President. I bet the lack of support in foreign policy from Congress figures into the President’s decisions about the war.
I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.
I'm guessing this won't be on the reading list of the Congressional book of the month club (though it probably should be).
...which is the real story here. It also helps with speaking tours, etc. All to basic milk as much $$ post the time served.
Gates is a conservative Republican.
I found his criticism to be mellodramatic and uneven.
One time Obama is a 'micromanager' and the next he's 'out of touch'
What galls me most is that he criticized the Obama admin. for questioning his generals hard and not accepting their pat answers. Like we're supposed to feel bad when a General in charge of a war gets his feelings hurt?
I *expect* strict oversight of the men making the direct decisions about wars, especially the double-boondoggles of Iraq and Afghanistan that Obama was given.
In the case of General Petraus, he damn well needed to be questioned, disrespectfully even, because of this whole mess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal
Where was Gates's keen eye there? Did he admit *any* actual mistakes?
Thank you Dave Raggett
Tea Party may not be that Stupid! ymmv
Implementing war should not be easy, so it's a bit of a relief that he encountered so much annoying bureaucracy that made it difficult. It should be difficult. It should be damned near impossible. Frankly he didn't encounter enough annoying bureaucracy.
Republicans are Control Freaks.
Seriously...which party is the one that wants to stick a probe up a woman's yahoo?
When you stop saying Unions were only necessary 200 years ago and yet we have the largest wealth gap in the history of mankind.
Not to be a negative Nancy, but if I recall the last big war was in was Vietnam. Wasn't some actual President impeached for evidence showing him trying to prolong the war for his own political gain?
Book Summary: Politicians are all a bunch of assholes.
Random House lists the price of the hardcover book as $35, but the price of the ebook at $14.99. Guess which one I'll buy.
The Officer Evaluation System actually has a mechanism in it to force it to keep everyone from being rated as the best. The senior rater ranking for the officer is given on the form and the profile of the senior rater's rankings is shown beside it. So if the rater puts everyone in the top block, that shows up and each person in the top block is average. If the rater does as he is supposed to and only puts a select few in the top block, then that rating has real meaning. Even a rating in the second block can have significant meaning if the bulk of the people are in the lower blocks. If a rater has too many people in the top block, he gets advised to change the way he is doing his ratings.
If Robert Gates doesn't want to be considered just a cog in the machine (which he was), then maybe he should have tried to change it at the time? When he was, you know, the Secretary of Defence? Instead of milking it later in memoirs.
Or is this an admission that raising concerns through the proper channels doesn't work, and you have to go public to get any traction and visibility? Because that'd be an interesting spanner to throw into that other open case.
So losing a congressional seat in election gets you executed? I like that.
Now mod me up... bitchez! lolz.. You gotta admit I had you there for a moment, right?
Wars are a lot easier to get into than out of. Those who ask about exit strategies or question what will happen if assumptions prove wrong are rarely welcome at the conference table when the fire-breathers are demanding that we strike—as they did when advocating invading Iraq, intervening in Libya and Syria, or bombing Iran's nuclear sites. But in recent decades, presidents confronted with tough problems abroad have too often been too quick to reach for a gun. Our foreign and national security policy has become too militarized, the use of force too easy for presidents.
Today, too many ideologues call for U.S. force as the first option rather than a last resort. On the left, we hear about the "responsibility to protect" civilians to justify military intervention in Libya, Syria, Sudan and elsewhere. On the right, the failure to strike Syria or Iran is deemed an abdication of U.S. leadership. And so the rest of the world sees the U.S. as a militaristic country quick to launch planes, cruise missiles and drones deep into sovereign countries or ungoverned spaces. There are limits to what even the strongest and greatest nation on Earth can do—and not every outrage, act of aggression, oppression or crisis should elicit a U.S. military response.
This is particularly worth remembering as technology changes the face of war. A button is pushed in Nevada, and seconds later a pickup truck explodes in Mosul. A bomb destroys the targeted house on the right and leaves the one on the left intact. For too many people—including defense "experts," members of Congress, executive branch officials and ordinary citizens—war has become a kind of videogame or action movie: bloodless, painless and odorless. But my years at the Pentagon left me even more skeptical of systems analysis, computer models, game theories or doctrines that suggest that war is anything other than tragic, inefficient and uncertain.
Gee, that sounds just like the Stephen Harper regime in Canada.
If he found the situation even more difficult than usual, that's news.
Gates may characterize it all honestly and accurately (I don't know, but assume he does,) his perspective is naturally going to be limited... at best... likely it'll be myopic. The press, they are much more myopic.
The fact he seems upset the Exec branch was trying to micromanage them indicates a lack of understanding or an arrogance of sorts .The Pentagon functions too autonomously. It's as if they think they are their own branch of government when they are completely under the Exec branch (except for declaring war - something Congress abdicated to the Exec long ago.) They are too big, too bloated, too corrupt, too dangerous to our republic, the industrial military complex NEEDS a lot of downsizing and more -real- management to keep them in check.
Congress doesn't have to say about it other than funding and Exec oversight. Since they are heavily tied into the industrial military complex they have to get their hands into everything - force the buying of fighter jets that can't fly in the rain, keep wasteful military bases in their districts, etc.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
> I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.
So, pretty much business as usual, then.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Wow, who knew?
Table-ized A.I.
Ah, man! I just realized that, in retrospect, I managed to direct a thread I started about this having nothing to do with geekdom in a decidedly geeky direction. It's just like Lincoln said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and prove yourself a nerd." Or something like that.
I hope all will feeling good these days and happy with love and I think also enjoying life, I like this very much and interesting points also www.Eachknowledge.blogspot.com
Pragmatism as he did it only works if you're dealing with people who have a political aim that isn't "Get the nigger out".
All his pragmatism did was to go from the position he wanted and work out what a "reasonable compromise" from his opponents' wishes would be, then offer that compromise from the off.
Meaning that
a) the opposition can get even more by moving even more extremely away, because that makes the offered compromise, ideally, what they want from the off. This rewards exremism in his opponents.
b) the opposition now demand a compromise FROM THAT POSITION and painted him as "uncompromising emperor" if he didn't give up more than half of the difference.
While I've seen exceptional incompetence in Government officials, I've seen things not much better in big corporations. They are a bit better since they kinda need to support themselves, but not by much.
Management is ncompetent- check
Feuds between departments- check
Covery your arse attitude to everything- check
Lots of red tape and internal regulations- check
Endless meetings- check
And I can definitely use "frustration" as a word describing my experience in one of the places where I tried to "cut through the rubbish" and get things done. Right now I don't think there is much difference between government and big corporations- both are big organizations with way too much power to screw with people's lives.
--Coder
What about his unique perspective? And The Reminiscence of Atlas Shrugged within congress?
I didn*t had the patience to read rest of the story, because first 3 lines were so boring to start with....
How to slant the news by editing. This comment which slams Congress and by implication Republicans is omitted by the Post. They only put in the parts that criticize Obama.
of course people who micromanage their people can be out of touch with a product & how it is used...but there is *context* to this comment, re: TFA
you can pick apart phrasing like an English major but that's not some counterpoint or rhetorical 'slam'...TFA and Gates's book present a contradictory narrative.
one time, Obama is 'out of touch' with his generals...then he's a 'micromanager' of his generals
those two cannot exist simultaneously...you litterally must be constantly 'in touch' to do the things that make you a 'micromanager'
but that wasn't even my major point, and you know it...
Gates's book is melodramatic crap...the generals mentioned, especially Petreaus and John Allen were corrupt & not to be trusted and Obama was *right* to mistrust them: http://snowboarding8090.com/rubrika/pioneers/shawn-farmer/
Thank you Dave Raggett
that was a link about snowboarding
here's the link about Petreaus/John Allen's corruption: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal
Thank you Dave Raggett
I liked Mr Gates. I thought he was a thoughtful man, and still respect him, but really, why now? Why did he not leave before? It would have been more effective. Now, it just looks like he is doing it for the money and is no different than the congressmen and women he complains about.
so why do we need to hear from consumate example pushing what he calls a book?
I don't think Gates ever got over Ronald Reagan ignoring his advice and working with Gorbachov to end the cold war.
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!