Candid Statements From Defense Secretary Gates Hint At Possible Shift

Defense Secretary Robert Gates testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP)

Increasingly blunt statements from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have many wondering if there’s a shift happening at the Defense Department.

Last week at West Point, Gates said any future secretary of defense who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or the Middle East should “have his head examined,” and yesterday he warned frankly about the risk of a no fly zone over Libya.

Gates this week also named Lt. General John F. Kelly as his senior military adviser. Kelly is the highest ranking member of the American military to lose a son or daughter in Afghanistan.

And like Gates, Kelly has been speaking out. He says there is a disconnect between the military and the American people, who he says are unaware of the sacrifice that troops are making. Kelly was nominated this week to the powerful position of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ senior military assistant.

Washington Post reporter Greg Jaffe joins us to talk about Gen. Kelly and also about Gate’s vision of the future of the Army. Jaffe’s latest book is “The Fourth Star: Four Generals and the Epic Struggle for the Future of the United States Army.”

We welcome comments from all of our listeners. Post below. Please stay on topic and be civil. Comments may be moderated by us, but you are solely responsible for the content of your comments.

Gabeward

What ever happend to preventing the slaughter of a conutry’s own people.
Have we not learned lessons from Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia. Force in these case are justified by international law. we need to be sure that we are using the right cases –not iraq–this is different. To assume that every case will be like the last one is to be negligent in looking at each situation on a case by case basis. For example, world war 2 represented a new set of circumstances—not like world war 1, yet we were still fighting the last war, and appeasment ruled the day. We do not have to invade Lybia–come on–we can strike and stay out and help the Libyan people get rid of a dictator. Plus, why are we showing a weak message to other dictators that might think they can get away with mass slaughter?

cc

It all sounds true, it all sounds true right now. What we unfortunately don’t have, is the crystal ball.

With all the flux that’s going on now in the Middle East- the future leadership is still waiting to be born. As evidenced in Egypt already [in that after Mubarak left, people still weren't satisfied, so there were protests against bosses, etc.] -having common enemies is a much easier way to unite a people than agreeing on a common good.

We need to take the greatest care not to put ourselves into a situation where we (the West) are the uniting force for all the wrong leaders to arise. Sometimes, stepping aside is the better, albeit painful, thing to do.

Our wish to be heroes in this situation is admirable, but we need to remember that when we get involved, the chances are so much greater for sparking a worldwide conflict. In this situation, I think it’s much better to err on the side of less than more.

cc

Just lilstening to your show. Can’t help but think that Robert Gates is actually trying to warn us to stay out of the African/ Middle East uprisings for fear of sparking something horrible- I hope we can all think long long term about this, not taking any actions, no matter how well-intentioned, that we will regret if, when thought of in hindsight, will actually be setting ourselves and our world up, for the next big war…

I very much appreciate Secretary Gates voicing his opinion, and hope many will join him.
PFW

Having read the speech Sec. Gates gave at West Point I am disappointed with the coverage Here and Now gave it. Taking his line of “examining the head” of the next SECDEF who would recommend sending large land armies into Asia and comparing that to appeasement in the 1930′s or to interpolate from that as Greg Jaffe did that America’s struggle against extremism will be ending in 2014 is ridiculous. There was no sense of appeasement in his speech as immediately preceding line quoted Gates said that future large power, state-on-state wars will be primarily Air and Naval engagements, which if they ever do occur, would be true. And there was no sense of retreat from confronting terrorism either as Jaffe suggested, as Gates extols the Cadets not to let the Army forget the lessons of fighting irregular warfare as it did after Vietnam.

Please bring some context to the reporting! Don’t just take a few lines from the speech and run with them spouting off what you think he means by it. He’s pretty clear in making his point in his speech.
Private Sector Frog

We are living in a world of conflicts with no declarations of war, no surrenders, no ends. A world where one side wears uniforms and the other doesn’t. One side has IEDs and the other has predator drones. I hope we rethink our whole idea of defense.
Gabeward

I think my point with appeasement was a narrow one: the motives for going to war, when and if genocide is occurring or heading in that direction requires a measured but careful response that does not in any way limit what will be done to prevent or stop such genocide. This goes to the motive of the war, and has nothing to do with the perceived outcome. If, I were to tell you that it was uncertain if the US could stop country X ‘s leader from the mass killing of its citizens and it “might” result in making the area unstable around that country, would it still be wrong to act? The fact is we don’t know what will happen but we do know what is happening when leaders kill or are about to kill their own people. This is an issue of fighting against bad behavior with a rule of law. Title VII of the UN charter allows country’s to prevent the innocent killing of a country’s won citizen. The war in Iraq—second one—was not a Just War and the same could be said about Vietnam. On an individual level would you protect an old lady from being harmed by a bully—or would you sit back because you are worried about what may happen? By sitting back would you not be sending the wrong message to that bully and future bullies? Obama in his statement today says that history is working against the bullying of thugs like Colonel Gaddafi and his rhetoric is distinct from Gates in this regard.
World War I was dirty and no one wanted a repeat of that type of of war –a line it up mow it down warfare —-but sending the wrong message on issues of mass slaughter would have longer term harm than fighting an uncomfortable war. I supported a war to prevent the continued genocide of the Kurds in Iraq –a just cause—but not the Bush’s reasons. In fact many human rights people did. Furthermore, the alliance in the first gulf war had broad international support because of the reasons—protecting another sovereign country. I don’t think hinting, as Gates has of a weak response in this case is wise given what is going on in Libya. Ok need to find a job—this economy sucks.
Charlotte Solarz

The disconnect as perceived has to be due to growing apprehension here and abroad as to the validity of our mission where secrets of “mistakes” are kept and not admitted when found out, and when it is known that we have lost the confidence of the countrymen/women who we come to “protect”,(their take:”invade”) and so, disillusioned, join forces with the “enemy” because of those brutal mistakes. The Middle Eastern front is showing us that they can rise up against their tyrants; wait till the women get into it! Then will the whole place go democratic, and West will have to pay fairly for the oil & resources that will be under their intelligent management. (It has to come to this!)