More on Gates

By Ron Beasley

I discussed below why I thought leaving Robert Gates at Defense was a really bad idea.  Our own Anderson had this observation in comments:

Too many of these retreads are Cold Warriors, fighting imagined threats in the same old way and looking to drum up enemies that can be portrayed as "existential threats." This is exactly why Russia has been turned into the latest bad guy -- same as the old Soviet one. Stateless, rhizomatic enemies were just not concrete enough to justify massive, decades-long military budgets, but a new Russia fits that bill nicely.

Nothing has changed for the Washington FP consensus. Russia has always equated with the Soviet Union, and a resurgent Russia is the long lost hegemonic power upon which Washington can project its secret desire for constant conflict. It matters not that GM is opening automobile plants in St. Petersburg or that Europe is intimately connected by energy demands.

If we really ever wish to see a break from that thinking, a new administration will just have to boot the buggers out or we will have to waiting until they die off. I see no boot on the horizon.

Which makes this from Josh Marshall even more disturbing:

One thing to understand about Bob Gates is that he's a Scowcroft guy.

Scowcroft, to the best of my knowledge, never endorsed Obama. But he also, very pointedly, didn't endorse McCain either. And going back many months he's been an important player, far in the background and not for public consumption, in the Obama world. Remember, Hagel, who's sort of been Obama's Joe Lieberman (in the good sense) is very close to Scowcroft. He and Powell are close too. He's the guy who brings all this stuff together.

It's also worth knowing that Scowcroft has also been involved in a multi-year rearguard battle against the neocons in the Bush administration, especially in key efforts trying to block sundry wars with Iran, shut down John Bolton, etc.

This is not to say that Scowcroft is pulling anyone's strings. But to understand the Gates' decision (which I understand is going to happen) you need to look at this on-going conversation and perhaps even de facto alliance with the Scowcroft/GOP foreign policy world.

While the Scowcroft "realists" may appear sane when compared to the reign of terror of the criminally insane neocons they are really cold warriors and they too need to be given the boot.

Comments

[nadezhda]

No. No. No. Scowcroft/Baker/Gates are not Cold Warriors. They aren't knee-jerk Russophobes a la Zbig. They aren't unipolar hegemonists a la Cheney and Rumsfeld. And of course they're neither neo nor paleo cons. They are balance-of-power realists who see the world working its way toward a Concert system within which the US would remain prima inter pares. So they don't have any interest in re-containing Russia. Though they would challenge overly expansive definitions by Moscow of Russian interests in the near abroad. Different breed altogether from the unreconstructed Cold Warriors.

That's why they can think in terms of, for example, (1) regional strategy for MidEast within which to manage withdrawal from Iraq (Iraq Study Group), (2) internationalizing nuclear fuel cycle (not US-dominated Bush program) to create a viable path for adapting NPT, (3) not cheerleaders for Georgians and other "captive nations", (4) not defining Asia-Pacific relations in terms of "containing" China, (5) cautious re NATO expansion, missile defense etc., (6) engaging Iran on a wide-ranging agenda, including Afghanistan, etc. And more evenhanded on Israel-Palestine (which is why they're regularly accused of being Arab lovers).

True, Gates was a Russia specialist during his CIA days, but like a lot of Russia specialists his views have evolved along with changes in Russia, and he has a far more nuanced understanding of post-Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe than anybody on the WaPo op-ed pages. He's a moderating voice on Russia in contrast with Cheney et al. since he sees specific areas in which Russia and the US can collaborate actively. As for the broader need to redefine the role of the military, he's cleaned up a lot of Rummy's worst messes and has started resetting priorities in a more sustainable direction. He's made what for a bureaucrat are radical proposals for shifting responsibilities and budget resources away from DoD and to State where he thinks a lot of stuff belongs. About the only thing he's come out "FOR" which I strongly oppose is reliable replacement warhead.

So I think his overall preferred directions for DoD would be fairly consistent with Obama's long-run goals, and as he's shown in his current assignment for Bush, he can adapt to and operate within a President's agenda and constraints. Turning the DoD aircraft carrier around is going to be a slow, painful process, and Gates has demonstrated he'd be a safe pair of hands that wouldn't spook the residents of the Pentagon.

I don't think it would be a tragedy if Gates weren't kept on. But I don't see other candidates being clearly better. I see lots of upside and little downside to retain him for a couple of years as long as some of his underlings are replaced with Obama folks. But if we're going to oppose his retention, it should be based on facts, not accusations of an ideological propensity that doesn't fit Gates' record.

[anderson]

Ron,

In the aftermath of the Iraq Study Group report, I wrote a rather lengthy article about the "realist" foreign policy of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton eras that you might find interesting as a survey of 20+ years of the kind of thinking that produced Iran-Contra, the first Gulf War and the deadly sanctions against throughout the 90's. It addressed that policy vis a vis the Middle East and, more specifically, Iraq.

The Old American Century: Twenty Years of Realist Foreign Policy

nadezhda,

Perhaps Gates is not a Russophobe on the order of Bryzinski (I doubt anyone could be; for Zbig, it is very personal), but if Gates has demonstrated one thing in his past, it is a willingness to go along with the prevailing attitude, whatever it is. And don't discount the entrenched attitude of the Washington FP establishment. An overriding anti-communism dominated the thinking and fears of the US establishment for decades, ever since the Russian revolution really. That kind of think doesn't just disappear with the disappearance of the Soviet state.

Robert Parry wrote a great review of Gates's history, The Secret World of Robert Gates, which addressed everything from his involvement in Iran-Contra to politicizing intelligence in order to drum up inordinate fear of the Soviet threat.

Maybe Gates has changed, and I would agree, there does seem to be some indication that he is rather more independent now that he is in the cat bird seat at the Pentagon. His remarks regarding Russia after the Georgia conflict were some of the most reasoned that we heard, which isn't saying a great deal, but still, he did stand out for that.

Nonetheless, the entire edifice of American foreign policy is based upon an unrestricted and strident military posture. And when some country pushes back, oh, the outrage! How dare those Ruskies beat down our proxy chums? Washington poked and poked and poked some more, and when the line was crossed and Russia responded, the FP crowd just couldn't believe the Russian "aggression," as if posing the questions, "why does it bother Russia that we want to surround them with military allies and missile bases? What's wrong with those Russians, anyway?"