|
NRO Symposium
Author Archive
|
E-mail |
Latest
November 9, 2006 7:00 A.M.
Opening the Gates
DOD after Rumsfeld.
On Wednesday, President George W. Bush announced the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Defense secretary and nominated Robert Gates, former CIA director, as his successor. What now for the Defense Department? National Review Online asked some experts.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADVERTISEMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Elaine Donnelly
Defense Secretary-Designate Robert Gates could strengthen the military by ending social engineering that weakens the volunteer force. The abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib began with sexual misconduct between male and female soldiers who were poorly trained and supervised. It would help to eliminate all “gender-free” personnel policies, which encourage indiscipline rather than discipline.
Secretary Gates could start by ending Army co-ed basic training within 30 days, and restoring separate-gender basic training that is known to be superior for Marine men and women.
Gates should also order the Army to stop placing female soldiers in or near direct ground combat units, such as the infantry, which are required by regulation to be all male. For more than two years the Army has been violating policy without the approval of Secretary Rumsfeld, and without the legally required advance notice to Congress.
Surveys taken at the military service academies indicate that “double standards involving women,” or DSIW, are demoralizing and harmful to women and men alike. Secretary Gates should end gender quotas and DSIW in recruiting, training and disciplinary matters. Then he should eliminate Clinton-era regulations known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which are inconsistent with the law banning homosexuals from the military. Finally, Gates should fire David Chu, undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, and replace him with someone who takes social issues seriously.
— Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public-policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation as secretary of Defense is hardly a surprise, especially given the ascendancy in Congress of individuals who had demanded his head on a pike. It is, however, an ominous straw-in-the-wind. Rumsfeld’s replacement at the Pentagon will be a member of George H. W. Bush’s national-security team and, presumably, an agent of its effort to take over (er, “salvage”) the Bush 43 presidency.
At work in all of this, of course, is the fine hand of Bush père’s Secretary of State James Baker. According to Bob Woodward, George W. Bush’s first White House chief of staff, Andrew Card — himself a Bush 41 man — proposed twice that Baker be appointed to the Pentagon job himself. The next best thing is a trusted proxy: 41’s CIA director, Bob Gates.
Gates is a seasoned technocrat, a career intelligence officer and an advocate of Baker-style “realism” in foreign policy. Unfortunately, there is nothing realistic about believing, for example, that the United States can safely negotiate with Iran — something both Baker and Gates espouse. The legitimacy and time this will buy the mullahocracy will translate into threatening Iranian nuclear forces, ballistic missiles and terrorist infrastructure with which to try to realize Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s ambition to achieve “a world without America.” That is a “vision-thing” all too familiar from the Bush I team, one that is predictable from a Baker regency which will supplant the Bush II-Rumsfeld national-security agenda and engender strategic perils the United States can ill-afford.
— Frank J. Gaffney Jr. held senior positions in the Reagan Defense Department and is currently president of the Center for Security Policy.
Nikolas Gvosdev
By accepting Don Rumsfeld’s resignation, President Bush has nullified the first plank of the Democratic agenda on national security (as outlined by Diane Farrell prior to the election) and forces the Democrats — months before the new Congress has convened — to move to point number two — outlining their plan for achieving success in Iraq.
This accelerates what I have termed the “Orange Revolution meltdown clock” for the Democrats. In opposition, it was quite easy for Joe Lieberman, Jim Webb, Nancy Pelosi, and Henry Waxman to agree that Rumsfeld should go — but much more difficult, if not outright impossible, for all of them — as the new legislative majority — to coalesce around a common strategy.
Meanwhile, by nominating Robert Gates — someone closely identified with both the Reagan and Bush ’41 administrations — the president has taken a step to defuse a possible “civil war” within the Republican party over security policy. Symbolically, Gates’ appointment could help promote the “Reagan synthesis” Rich Lowry counseled Bush to pursue in the pages of The National Interest last year. Gates’s arrival at the Pentagon also gives the president room to explore new options for Iraq and puts someone in place who can quietly continue with the ongoing transformation of the military and intelligence communities.
With this decision the president seeks to regain some of the initiative he lost as a result of the elections.
— Nikolas Gvosdev is editor of The National Interest and blogs as The Washington Realist.
Mario Loyola
When the nation went to war in Iraq in 2003 (with overwhelming popular support) and for a long time after that, Rumsfeld had rock-star status. With Abu Ghraib and his management of this millstone of an occupation, his star fell rapidly.
Some of what Rumsfeld gets blamed for, such as Abu Ghraib, really was his responsibility. But Rumsfeld gets blamed for lots of things he doesn't control. Above all, he gets blamed for the pain of a painful dilemma: what to do about Iraq. Those who have pilloried Rumsfeld from left and right without gaining academic consensus or popular support for their pet answer to that question will now have to face the spotlight.
One of the great benefits of historical perspective is that the reputations of important figures get separated from what people thought of them in their own time. So think of who he is. Flaws and all, Rumsfeld is a visionary with a great sense of history and a great devotion to this country. His tenure has been historic. He helped to end two terrible dictatorships and began a process of military transformation that will stay in motion long into the future. He served the president loyally, and in my opinion, he will be remembered for having served us well.
— Mario Loyola, a former consultant to the Department of Defense, is a fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
|
