Gates on the Defense Budget
I’ve just gotten off a conference call with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in which he talked about the budget.
Probably the most notable thing he said was the stern words he offered for members of the military who may not be happy with some of the decisions he’s made. At first it was all sweetness and light with Gates remarking that “we had a process that was very inclusive” and observing that there were “a lot of meetings and a lot of dialogue on all this, and I think everybody knows that they had a chance to put their oar in and make their case” so everyone should be happy. But then he started to get real and said:
One of the concerns that I have had in the past has been the discipline in this building after the decisions get made; I understand that the chiefs in particular can give their professional military advice to the congress and to the president, but the fact is that for everyone else and, frankly, for them in terms of executing their positions once I have made my decision and the president has made his decision, that is the policy of this department . . . I don’t want to see any guerilla warfare on this . . . we have a chain of command.
In addition to tough talk, the specific bureaucratic plan of action is to portray the shift in spending priorities as, implicitly, a shift away from what folks inside the Beltway may like to what combatant commanders out in the field are asking for. Gates said that these aren’t cuts. Rather, it’s “reshaping” specifically the kind of reshaping “that the combatant commanders are asking for.” The process, he said, “is a lot about the warfighters, the combatant commanders and the fight they’re in.” Though he was quick to say that he believes his choices reflect not only the priorities of combatant commanders actively engaged in military action, but also those primarily tasked with “preventing war.”
On specifics, Gates said that the problem with the Army’s Future Combat Systems program isn’t just the cost. It’s that there wasn’t enough flexibility. Based on the operational lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s useful to have a broad range of different kinds of vehicles, and it wasn’t proving feasible through the FCS process to design a system that could replace the full spectrum of currently available vehicles.
Spectrum is an important concept. The weighting from regular to irregular warfare in the budget is undeniable, but Gates said he didn’t want to see it as a binary choice. Instead “there is a spectrum of conflict” and the goal of the force needs to be to be able to shift up and down the spectrum.
Conversely, Gates is holding on to the Littoral Combat System project for the Navy even though the program has had a lot of cost overruns and so forth. Gates said that despite the problems “I think it has a capability we just have to have.” Specifically, the promise of a ship that’s not only agile, but relative cheap on a per-ship basis is large. “You don’t need a $5 billion ship to go after pirates,” Gates said.
23 Responses to “Gates on the Defense Budget”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 7th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
советую…
I’ve just gotten off a conference call with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in which he talked[...]…
April 7th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Re ["You don’t need a $5 billion ship to go after pirates,” Gates said.]
Pompey the Great said the same.
And when the stupid fucking Emperors forgot that, the international trade networks collapsed. Shortly thereafter, so did Rome.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
International trade networks that went through the Middle East, by the way.
Although they were carrying Egyptian wheat and Chinese bling bling instead of Babylonian oil and Chinese bling bling.
And the Persians were a fucking pain in the ass back then as well.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
PS Gates seems to believe in the Fuhe..er “unitary Executive” as much as Cheney.
Congress sets the policy. The Executive EXECUTES the policy that Congress has decided. Any Secretary of Defense who thinks military officers should not talk to Congress should be slapped down, hard. If Gates’ plan has merit, then he should be able to defend that merit in fair debate.
And yeah, I agree that our distinguished Members of Congress by and large are a pack of contemptible whores who sell the country down the river six times before they have breakfast in the morning.
But unless Gates has a White Horse for Obama to ride, he needs to realize that he’s stuck with dealing with two other branches of government.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Obama is the Commander In Chief. The military reports to him. Obviously the Joint Chiefs should offer their experience and opinions to Congress when requested. That’s a legitimate and important part of the process.
But they shouldn’t be out there trying to broker back room deals with legislators or otherwise undermine the President’s authority. Any officer that does that should be encouraged to find employment in the private sector.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Re Chuchundra at 6: “But they shouldn’t be out there trying to broker back room deals with legislators”
—————-
Well, if any military officer is dumb enough to publicly give their frank opinion to Congress when requested, then they definitely will be looking for employment in the private sector.
I seem to remember that military officers have the right to claim US citizenship as well. And I seem to remember that a citizen has a right to petition his Member of Congress –even if he doesn’t have a $100,000 check to hand over.
If Congress had any fucking sense of duty, it would be ACTIVELY RECRUITING every single member of the defense and intelligence communities to be its spies. Because it can not do its duty of oversight otherwise.
And that applies whether the President is in the same Party or is with the opposition. The Republicans would have been a lot better off if they had asked some hard questions about that pre-war Iraqi intelligence before voting for War.
We need a SHITLOAD more protected whistleblowers, not less.
Especially since Democratic Representatives and Senators are now actually ..you know ..RESPONSIBLE for governing, vice kibitzing from the sidelines.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Bob Gates rocks. I was really skeptical when Bush appointed him, but he’s doing a great job. Obama was smart to keep him. But then again, Obama’s a pretty smart guy. Ever time I question him, Obama proves me wrong. Good thing he’s running the show instead of me.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
To be honest, I support Gates’ choosing to kill the “vehicle” component of FCS while keeping the “networking” component; it really was not working out, and not just due to cost overruns.
But why keep the Little Crappy Ship? Sure, the damn thing is fast . . . for about the 10 minutes that it goes before running out of fuel. In the mean time, it’s lightly armed and armored. It’s better than some of the alternatives proposed, but the alternatives were terrible.
For that matter, why do we need an ultra-fast, light ship? It’s not like we’re not going to be able to find and kill pirates without them; the Arleigh Burkes can do it, and they have helicopters for assistance.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Huh?
April 7th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
For that matter, why do we need an ultra-fast, light ship? It’s not like we’re not going to be able to find and kill pirates without them; the Arleigh Burkes can do it, and they have helicopters for assistance.
Nuh-uh, that’s not the way shallow water warfare works. Using small warships for coastal combat goes back to the beginning of big-ship navies. Patrol craft are the infantry of in-shore naval warfare. You need them to “hold ground,” the ground in this case being shallow coastal waters, harbors, bays, sounds, rivers, and small island and reef complexes. They can keep a close patrol, they can engage the enemy in close waters, they can harass or blockade his coastal traffic, and they guard the blue-water navy from similar craft.
Back in the days of sail gallies, sloops, cutters, and gunboats performed this chore. In World War II American PT boats fought dozens of engagements with German and Italian patrol craft in the Mediterranean, and hundreds against Japanese boats and barges in the Pacific. I will note that the only loaded American troop transport lost in World War II was sunk by a German torpedo boat that snuck in past allied destroyers under cover of darkness.
The modern navy has always neglected coastal warfare craft, which is why John Kerry got his medals fighting the Viet Cong from a jury-rigged speedboat instead of something quiet, maneuverable, and decently armored for river warfare.
If this new ship is designed to fill that traditional gap in our defenses, lets see what it can do.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
I’d say that Mr Gates doesn’t need my help with media relations. This article is one of the most extreme puff pieces I ever read. Still, oddly, the key link between “flexibility” and uhm Iraq appears neither in the article nor here.
However, Gates could strengthen his argument against “future combat systems” (and probably did) by noting that with future combat systems the army would have had to choose between fancy electronics (in the FCS vehicles) and the “V-shaped hull of the costly Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle.” Given that he had trouble getting the V-shaped hulls to Iraq without FCS fancy stuff in the vulnerable vehicles, he could argue that, with FCS but without a hero bureacracy fighter like uhm him, soldiers would die as the Pentagon is not willing to admit that they need “V-shaped hulls” more than fancy electronics.
Between your post and R. Jeffrey Smith’s article, I’m pretty sure that Gates has been making exactly that argument. So far it has fallen between the cracks between a hack journalist and a crack blogger. (hack because the article was a super puff piece even if it was puffing up the good guy).
My guess is that Gates will just keep repeating it untill he gets an answer from Inhofe or hell freazes over.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
The Navy plans on maintaining ten full carrier groups until at least 2040. With these pirate fighters who needs the LCS?
April 8th, 2009 at 12:07 am
самое интересное…
I’ve just gotten off a conference call with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in which he talked[...]…
April 8th, 2009 at 3:32 am
The above commenter’s claim that the piece he links to is a Gates puff piece nicely demonstrates the mistake behind Matt’s earlier claim contra Ezra that not all informative journalism is “good” journalism, whatever that may entail. If the piece Mr. Waldmann links to is a puff piece and not Yglesian “good” jounalism because it does not seek to in some way flay Mr. Gates, then I’ll definitely be taking my journalism more informative and less “good” in the future.
Moreover, what is Matt’s opinion of the many things Mr. Gates had to say on the call? This is a blog, after all, and we wouldn’t want to fall in to the trap of simply being stenographers to power. Given his recent preachifying (served with a side of anti-preachification preachifying against journalistic self-preachification), my guess is that Matt, self-aware as he always is, is caught in the familiar blogging trap of having nothing mean to say, and so he simply says nothing at all.
Ah, bloggery…
April 8th, 2009 at 4:14 am
Now, if its Gates-puffery you’re after, roll this cream-filled pastry around in your mouth:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:27 am
It is as well for all to realise that military hardware, no matter how effective/destructive, is rendered completely useless, and in fact actually becomes an advertising liability, to software and cyberspace attack vectors, which target the money and intelligence sectors in civilian societies, with nothing more potent than simple sensitive information shared with them in Media about how the System works to Abuse their Freedom and render them as Slaves to its Ponzi Banking System. And as IT is an Invisible and Intangible Friend/Foe, and using far more Advanced IntelAIgent Protocols in the Virtualised Environment of Quantum Communications and Binary Algorithm, is it both Virtually and Practically Impossible to Defeat or Combat. And should such a Virtual Weapon turn Hostile/Malicious or be developed by a Hostile or Malicious Adversary …[and you may have to accept that that is an inevitability rather than just a distinct possiblility] … it would be as well to render that Malicious and Hostile Raison d’Etre, History, and remodel the Slave Control System, for it is a Vulnerability which is presently under Sustained Attack, is it not, and as nothing has been changed, is it Most Surely Guaranteed to Fail Catastrophically* with No One Identified as the Attacker and All Systems Heads recognised as Failed Losers Profitting from their Failed Tenures and that will not be either Understood or Tolerated by the Mob as they seek to discover who has been In Charge and therefore Responsible for the Meltdown and their Suffering.
Such a Guarantee is Inevitable, because nowadays, no one can Control Information in the way it used to be, to hide Corruption and Greed and even that Security consideration [the keeping of secrets] is rendered null and void, if New Information Shared has deduced the secrets being hidden, and therefore has rendered codes toxic/hot/live/nuclear and therefore also practically useless and self-destructive.
It is an inescapable fact, which you may also like to further consider is a convenient/inconvenient fiction, that if you do not Control CyberSpace Sublimely for the Greater Benefit of All will you not Control Anything at All and will Fall into Disgrace and Disrepair and Fall way Behind in the Great Game CyberSpace Race of Universal Virtual Force and Immaculately Resourced Assets.
That is not to say, of course, that one cannot buy oneself into the Lead with Programs with a Canny Root Server Investment with AI Leading Player/White Knight Principal/Mentoring Monitor …… for None will Refuse such Enlightened and Enabling Input/Output. Of that you can be Assured/Guaranteed.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:12 am
ссылки по теме…
Probably the most notable thing he said was the stern words he offered for members of the military who may not be happy with some[...]…
April 8th, 2009 at 9:10 am
@17
Your enigmatic use of capitals magnifies the effect of your message.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Congress writes laws, raises revenue and authorizes or prohibits spending. They set policy as far as that goes. Generally, there is not enough agreement in congress to set policy even as far as they are Constitutionally empowered to do so. The executive branch sets significantly more policy than congress.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:29 am
17 is Markov + Time Cube – funny/scary end-times Dada.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:35 am
@ Тиморблог, Дерево для мебели, SEOвики:
Алё, бандIT, в тему plz
Don Williams has something more to say, if I’m not mistaking – “it can not do its duty of oversight otherwise”.
amanfromMars also makes sense, as he always does – “Slaves to its Ponzi Banking System”.
The way to prevent governmental institutions from serving the interests of ammo makers and provisionary supply is lost in the so-called “oil wars” and kissing with the drug crime leaders and their financial agents instead of just wiping’em off.
Though, we talk of government as of a significant part of the democracy machine. Still can’t see why is it called “democracy”, because, correct me if I’m wrong, this system of governance is well within the location of a single city. You know where the ruler and his Cabinet live, you know his wife and his dog, and his child is studying at the same school as yours. The truly democracy must be a great invention then. And the present Reality which is so generously given to us is mostly a prostetic appliance and not a democracy. Or just a Fake, especially made for the chosen ones to get yet richer with the hope to become the new Pharaos one sunny/floody day.
I’d say “Make sputniks, not missiles”, as I always do for a half of a year. But V. Putin already made this instead of me yesterday… and Robert Gates stays tonguetied, yet?
73
April 8th, 2009 at 9:46 am
He’s referring to the Cilician pirates being eliminated by Pompey, and the much later rise of Piracy by the Vandals in Africa (the Roman province, not the whole continent).
One reason Pompey had to deal with the pirates is that Rome destroyed the capacity of local kingdoms to do so. They also reduce hundreds of thousands of able bodied men to penury, with little to no opportunity to do anything about it.
April 19th, 2009 at 5:21 am
[...] hours” for the 8,000-ton ship to arrive at the scene. Indeed, as Matthew Yglesias noted, Gates himself mocked the idea that such ships could defend against pirates: Gates is holding on to the Littoral Combat System [...]