I'm sitting here pondering the latest e-mail circulating through various military and subject matter expert networks concerning Dr. Jason Brownlee'sMiddle East Report hit-piece on the Army's newest field manual -- FM 3-07, Stability Operations. In Imagining the Next Occupation, Brownlee evokes all the politically biased bugaboos in his implied bottom line - the better we become at nation building the more likely we are to try to do more of it, thereby establishing military occupation as a Pentagon priority.
My bottom line for those disposed to hurling stones at doctrinal publications such as FM 3-07 and FM 3-24, Counterinsurgency (USA and USMC doctrine) is they really do not understand why the Army and Marine Corps (MCWP 33.3.5) felt compelled to write both publications -- because in the absence of such doctrine -- they were reduced to "winging it" -- conducting stability and counterinsurgency missions as directed by our civilian authorities without the whole of government package associated with such operations. Read -- all those non-military lines of operation such as governance, essential services and rule of law. When a vacuum exists someone needs to fill it and this often falls to the default only guys in town -- excepting the bad guys of course.
Doctrine is not national security strategy, defense strategy or a campaign plan and it is especially not the U.S. military's version of Mao's Little Red Book. Often unread by many until needed, military doctrine provides a common framework and lexicon to foster initiative and creative problem solving. In the case of the two FMs mentioned here, it provides a how to think - not what to think - about an unfamiliar operating environment. The military really does like to be "prepared for the unexpected" and the lack of such doctrine has caught us flat-footed one too many times. More importantly, the collaboration between the Army and non-DoD civilian departments and agencies on FM 3-07 paved the way for a common framework to someday truly contribute to a whole of government approach (read unity of effort here) to problems that beg for non-military solutions. Dr. Brownlee -- it ain't sinister -- it's just good common sense.
Now on to the smart stuff -- here is Dr. Davidson's 20 October SWJ post on the facts, fiction, and perspectives concerning FM 3-07.
The recent release of the Army's latest Field Manual, FM 3-07 Stability Operations, has generated as much controversy as it has praise. On one side of the debate are those who see it as a great step forward in helping the military make sense of the complex, violent, and population-focused environments in which it increasingly finds itself. To the extent that our future conflicts are likely to look more like our current ones as Secretary Gates has asserted, it is high time we stopped muddling through and got serious about learning how to do this stuff. On the other end of the spectrum, however, are those who see the new doctrine as another dangerous step on the slippery slope toward U.S. imperialism. The better we become at nation building the critics claim, the more likely we are to try to do more of it. Moreover, teaching soldiers how to do stability operations not only erodes their war-fighting skills (i.e. their "real" mission), but it lets the civilian agencies who are supposed to do it off the hook in building their own capabilities and capacities. There are merits to both arguments, but on balance FM 3-07 should be seen as a great accomplishment.
Why FM 3-07?
It is perfectly understandable to hope that the military will conduct fewer stability operations in the future, but hoping does not make it so. The military still needs to prepare itself for the missions it will most likely be called on to perform. Given the thousands of troops over the last 200 years who have repeatedly been called to conduct these messy stability operations with little to no doctrine, education, or training, it seems high time someone put some rigorous effort into understanding how to conduct them better.
The concern over the U.S. as an imperialist power may be valid, but let's not get carried away. Doctrine is not grand strategy. For those who worry that this new doctrine will make it more likely that we will try to invade and occupy more countries, consider that it might just have the opposite effect. If there is one thing this manual makes very clear, it is that stability operations are not rocket science -- they are actually more complex and uncertain. Having a better understanding of the complexity and cost of these missions can only enhance the policy and strategy-making processes.
Fact vs. Fiction
The real value of FM 3-07 is that it gets a dialogue going and sets a few things straight:
First, FM 3-07 rightly notes that, contrary to popular belief, the Army has been conducting these types of missions for 200 years. The opening chapter is an excellent overview of this rich history. Military troops have been tasked with stabilizing, building, and re-building societies since the first units were sent West to keep peace between the settlers and the Indians and to build -- literally -- the nation. Recall that West Point was established as an engineering school for a reason. President Thomas Jefferson insisted that if we were to have a standing military (which he originally opposed) it should be as useful in times of peace as it is in times of war. One might make a similar case today and ask if the American taxpayer should expect more for $500 billion than an institution organized, trained, and equipped to fight conventional battles and nothing else.
Second, the manual recognizes that the nature of conflict is more complex than the pure science of defeating enemy militaries. If we truly wish leave a lasting peace in the places in which we intervene or fight, we do not have a choice between preparing for pure scientific battles and preparing for stability operations. At a minimum, if we do not stabilize a place after we bring down an enemy, then we set a trajectory for more chaos not peace. In so many other cases where the military is called to intervene in on-going conflicts or insurgencies, where the need to provide human security is the decisive line of operation, we need a military with a "full spectrum" mindset to understand the myriad interconnected tasks required to get the job done. FM 3-07 is a first step in this education.
Third, the manual suggests that despite aspirations to the contrary, the desired capability and capacity in civilian agencies not only does not currently exist, but it is not likely to be built in the near future. More importantly, even if and when USAID, State and all the other agencies were to enhance their expeditionary capacity 10 fold, these civilians would still not be capable -- nor should they be -- of doing their thing while bullets are still flying. That is the definition of a combatant, not a civilian. This means that the military will, at a minimum, be required to set a trajectory for accomplishing the long term strategic objectives with or without civilian experts on the ground. Once the environment is safe enough for civilians to engage, the military needs to know how to support their work. This means having a fundamental understanding of the nature of the conflict environment, the intersecting lines of operation (e.g. governance, security, economic development, etc), and the appropriate coordination of efforts among myriad military and civilian actors. This is what FM 3-07 is designed to accomplish.
Finally, it is important to understand that although this is a military manual, paid for and sponsored by the U.S. Army, it is in every other way, shape, and form, a true interagency, whole-of-government product. The process of writing this manual was almost as important as the product itself -- and this process was unique. Through a series of conferences, roundtables, and workshops with thought leaders and representatives from various agencies throughout the government, in the NGO community, and among allies, FM 3-07's author, LTC Steve Leonard, was able to glean the latest thought, theory, lessons, and controversies from the widest possible group of experts. Detailed debates over language, connotations, social science theory, and recent lessons learned from the field took place over a 10-month period, with some of these non-military participants contributing actual text to the finished product. In the end, FM 3-07 was written for and by the civilian-military community of practice, which spans well beyond just the U.S. Army. LTG Caldwell, the manual's chief sponsor at Fort Leavenworth, recognized the importance of generating this vibrant interagency dialogue and has thus set the bar for future whole of government efforts in doctrine and strategy. Indeed, the next QDR might follow a similar model.
In sum, FM 3-07 is a great accomplishment. It is about time we thought seriously about these missions -- not only how to do them, but why we do them. That the publication has generated great debate means that it is functioning just as it should.
This MERIP piece is just another example, I'm afraid, of what happens when a political scientist tries to arrive at broad conclusions about the military without the necessary familiarity and study required to do so.
The pertinent fact to take away from all of the noise is that FM 3.07 is not grand strategy. It is not even a strategy. It is essentially a 'cook book' that provides US Army personnel in simple, easy to understand format, concise information about what they should do when in a stability operation. And this is useful, since they actually have a few of these on their plates at the moment, and it is probably better (for all of us) if they can pull them off successfully.
The idea that the US is likely to embark upon countless crusades because the US Army now has some instructions in how to undertake stability operations is ridiculous. Consider this - the US Army has had doctrine for the tactical use of nuclear weapons for over half a century. I don't recall seeing any blogging about the fact that because they have nuclear weapons doctrine that they will invariably use such weapons. It is simply an illogical argument.
The 8 December edition of Newsweek Magazine features leading foreign-policy experts offering their recommendations on dealing with some of the world's most difficult and pressing challenges. Here's the lineup:
The next US president faces a unique opportunity to put in place an architecture of peace for the 21st century. Grand strategy sounds like an abstract concept - something academics discuss - and one that bears little relationship to urgent, jarring events on the ground. But in the absence of strategy, any administration will be driven by the news, reacting rather than leading. For a superpower that has global interests and is forced to respond to virtually every problem, it's all too easy for the urgent to drive out the important.
In Afghanistan today, the United States and its allies are using the wrong means to pursue the wrong mission. Sending more troops to the region, as incoming president Barack Obama and others have suggested we should, will only turn Operation Enduring Freedom into Operation Enduring Obligation. Afghanistan will be a sinkhole, consuming resources neither the US military nor the US government can afford to waste.
It's not too late to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Tehran clearly wants nukes for both defensive and offensive purposes. But it's not clear the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would sacrifice anything to get nuclear weapons.
Russia has reason to feel betrayed by the process of NATO expansion, begun in 1997. Seven years earlier, the Russians believe, American and German officials working on German reunification pledged not to take advantage of Moscow's weakness by extending NATO into Russia's traditional backyard.
The single most important challenge for the new administration—one with the potential to shape the 21st century - is China. As goes China, so go 1.3 billion men, women and children - one out of every five people on the planet.
The United States is in deep trouble in the Middle East. Despite Barack Obama's promises to withdraw from Iraq, the debacle there shows no sign of ending soon. Hamas rules in Gaza; Iran is quickly moving to acquire a nuclear deterrent. We need a radically different strategy for the region.
After a series of disastrous missteps in its conduct of the war, the White House in 2006 appointed General David Petraeus as the Commanding General of the coalition forces. Tell Me How This Ends is an inside account of his attempt to turn around a failing war.
Linda Robinson conducted extensive interviews with Petraeus and his subordinate commanders and spent weeks with key U.S. and Iraqi divisions. The result is the only book that ties together military operations in Iraq and the internecine political drama that is at the heart of the civil war.
Replete with dramatic battles, behind-doors confrontations, and astute analysis, the book tells the full story of the Iraq War's endgame, and lays out the options that will be facing the next president when he or she takes office in January 2009.
The US Army / USMC Counterinsurgency Center is pleased to host Linda Robinson at the COIN Center Breakfast Brownbag from 0830 to 0900 (CST) 0930 to 1000 (EST) on Wednesday, December 3, 2008. She will discuss the Iraq Surge and Counterinsurgency. Off-Site personnel may participate virtually at https://connect.dco.dod.mil/coinbrownbag.
One of the most difficult challenges President-elect Barack Obama's national security team faces is Mr. Obama's vow to send thousands of American troops to help defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Military experts agree that more troops are required to carry out an effective counterinsurgency campaign, but they also caution that the reinforcements are unlikely to lead to the sort of rapid turnaround that the so-called troop surge in Iraq produced after its start in 2007.
After seven years of war, Afghanistan presents a unique set of problems: a rural-based insurgency, an enemy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, the chronic weakness of the Afghan government, a thriving narcotics trade, poorly developed infrastructure, and forbidding terrain...
Quoted are many COIN practitioners familiar to SWJ readers: Dr. David Kilcullen - Afghanistan may be the 'good war,' but it is also the harder war, Ali A. Jalali - Afghanistan is not Iraq... It is the theme park of problems, General David McKiernan - ... trying to develop a "bottom up" approach in which tribal elders, religious figures and other community leaders would form local councils that would be given the authority and resources to help with security, Colonel John Agoglia and Lieutenant Colonel Trent Scott - ... more American and international troops are needed to protect the Afghan population and hold ground that can eventually be handed off to expanded and better trained Afghan forces... They must deploy prepared for a long fight... They must think long term and realize that victory is unlikely on their watch. They must build a solid foundation on which their successors build on gains made.
Just back from a quick tour of blogs I frequent - and some I will soon frequent - to see what they are saying - or have said recently - concerning the President-elect's national security and foreign policy nominations. Not all have commented -- here's what's what from those that have:
David Ignatius at PostPartisan - This is Obama's team; he's clearly in charge. You could see that he wasn't diminished by the proximity of strong personalities; quite the opposite.
Max Boot at Contentions - As someone who was skeptical of Obama's moderate posturing during the campaign, I have to admit that I am gobsmacked by these appointments , most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain.
Steve Coll at Think Tank - The real challenge (and practical fix) for the next Secretary of State is simply to convince Congress to pay for more diplomats. Filling the shortfall of 2,400 or so positions would reduce waiting times for job applicants, but more importantly, it would give our diplomatic corps the time to get out from behind our desks to communicate with locals, the resources to plan for and respond to emergencies and major events, and the career flexibility to get the training we need to be ready for future challenges.
Blake Hounshell at Passport - What will they do in office? It's too early to tell, but all of these folks, David Sanger observes, "have embraced a sweeping shift of priorities and resources in the national security arena."
Joshua Keating at Passport - Jones's thin paper trail may worry partisans, but with Clinton, Joe Biden, Robert Gates, and Susan Rice on his team, Obama probably has enough big egos with well-defined worldviews to advise him on foreign policy. He may be looking for a towering presence who can call BS on wrongheaded recommendations when necessary, a task the 6'4" Jones seems more than qualified to carry out.
Galrahn at Information Dissemination - The US Navy is a mess right now, and Obama's decision to retain Secretary Gates can't be seen as a good thing for US Navy leadership. Think about the gamble facing the Navy with the Obama administration, the argument to change plans just for the DDG-1000 with the current argument expects the Obama administration to come in, override the recommendation of Secretary Gates, hurt the shipbuilding industry (piss off or on the Unions, however you want to call it), spend more money on the alternative Navy plan, build a fleet for a strategic environment best represented by a nuclear war with China, and finally, take action counter to the majority Democratic Congressman and Senators who are supporting the DDG-1000 plan.
David Wood at Military Watch - The threat of nuclear weapons runs through almost every national security decision Obama and his team will make, from terrorism through negotiations with Moscow.
Noah Shachtman at Danger Room - As predicted, Robert Gates will be staying on as Defense Secretary in the new Obama administration. Count me as psyched. I've been of fan of Gates', for quite some time. I wrote this, for example, in June.
Mary Katharine Ham at The Blog - He fell back on his usual dissembling on Iraq, when asked about withdrawal: "Now, remember what I said consistently during the campaign, and you were there for most of it. I said we'd have all combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months, and that there would likely remain a residual force there." He's clearly squeaking the door open on staying in Iraq, both with rhetoric and appointments (Jim Jones as National Security Adviser instead of Susan Rice.)
Tom Barnett at Thomas P.M. Barnett - Gates is staying, very exciting to hear!
Dan Froomkin at White House Watch - Rather than simply hire a new brand of loyalists -- or replace one gut player with another -- Obama is making it clear that he wants his thinking challenged and wants to hear opposing views before he reaches his decisions.
James Joyner at Outside the Beltway - We're about to see a great shift in resources from the military to other actors, David Sanger argues. In a New Atlanticist piece called "Obama's Foreign Policy Shift," I join Matt Yglesias in proclaiming this "a really good idea."
Jennifer Rubin at Contentions - Certainly much depends on execution of policy, as specific decisions arise for the new administration. But conservatives have little reason to complain about the national security front.
Joe Klein at Swampland - Watching the Obama rollout of his national security team from overseas--I'm in Europe, on my way to Afghanistan--I was struck by the inanity of most of the questions from my colleagues. Granted, these are political reporters, not national security or foreign policy specialists, but what sort of journalist expects the President-elect to tell the "inside story" of how he selected Hillary Clinton?
Jennifer Rubin at Contentions - In responding to a query on his (Obama's) team's strong viewpoints and personalities, he again emphasized his commitment to military strength. His emphasis was on strengthening our capabilities "in all dimensions." (This would seem to mesh with my take that he's not going to be abandoning "hard" power, but rather attempting to supplement it.)
Judah Grunstein at World Politics Review - I think the political optics of what signal this sends regarding Democrats ability to manage national security rightly take a back seat here to the fact that Gates has been very impressive in effecting the institutional changes necessary to support the operational needs of two ongoing wars. But the Pentagon's final internal armistice lines (COIN vs. conventional and hard vs. soft power in Iran, for instance) have not been ultimately settled, which means maintaining continuity at the top makes sense for the time being.
Spencer Ackerman at Attackerman - Instead, Obama presented a clear picture of what he intends to do. Withdraw from Iraq along his 16-month timetable, "but I will listen to the recommendations of [military] commanders." Renew efforts against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Confront the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Reduce the dependency on foreign oil. And, as my last post indicated, recalibrate the balance between civilian and military efforts in U.S. national security to use what Vice President-elect Biden called the "totality" of options.
Jules Crittenden at Forward Movement - Wake up and smell the foreign policy! Big day for the incoming Clinton-Bush administration as POTUS-elect Obama Rodham Bush 3 announces the national security team he campaigned against.
Herschel Smith at The Captain's Jounal - So there seems to be a fundamental difference between Gates and the balance of the team. Gates apparently doesn't believe in fairy tales and myths, while the demands on the left are for Obama not only to defund the military and engage enemies with dialogue, but to succeed, and that, remarkably so. This administration and the American public are being set up for huge disappointment, but all is not lost.
Mark at The Torch - The shift would create a greatly expanded corps of diplomats and aid workers that, in the vision of the incoming Obama administration, would be engaged in projects around the world aimed at preventing conflicts and rebuilding failed states. However, it is unclear whether the financing would be shifted from the Pentagon.
Steve Field at The D-Ring - With the announcement that Sec. Gates will be staying on at the Pentagon for at least a year during what is described as a "rolling transition," my attention has turned to the new communications apparatus at the Pentagon.
Editors at New Atlanticist - The incoming administration will face an enormous array of national security challenges. With General Jim Jones' vision, integrity, and wisdom having such a central role in guiding them, they have a solid foundation.
Westhawk at Westhawk - What about the Obama team's regional strategy for the Afghan problem? One is likely to get better results from a negotiation when one is bargaining from a position of strength. That doesn't describe the U.S. position right now, something the Pakistani and Iranian governments know very well.
Antonious Block at Strategy and National Security - I think the idea of keeping Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense until Obama's own secretary can assemble his team and hit the ground running is brilliant. I also think Clinton will be an excellent Secretary of State (even though I was vehemently opposed to her as a presidential candidate).
Erin Simpson at Abu Muqawama - Victory in our time. Victory for this blog, that is.
"I am deeply honored that the President-Elect has asked me to continue as Secretary of Defense."
"Mindful that we are engaged in two wars and face other serious challenges at home and around the world, and with a profound sense of personal responsibility to and for our men and women in uniform and their families, I must do my duty - as they do theirs. How could I do otherwise?"
"Serving in this position for nearly two years - and especially the opportunity to lead our brave and dedicated Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Defense Civilians - has been the most gratifying experience of my life. I am honored to continue to serve them and our country, and I will be honored to serve President-Elect Obama."
Pentagon Channel: Robert Gates has agreed to stay on as Secretary of Defense in the Barack Obama administration.
"Mr. President-elect, thank you for this honor. If confirmed, I will give this assignment, your administration, and our country my all. I also want to thank my fellow New Yorkers, who have for eight years given me the joy of a job I love, with the opportunity to work on issues I care about deeply, in a State that I cherish. And you've also helped prepare me well for this new role. After all, New Yorkers aren't afraid to speak their minds, and do so in every language."
"Leaving the Senate is very difficult for me. But during the last few weeks, I thought often of our troops, serving bravely under difficult circumstances in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I thought of those other Americans, in our foreign and civil services, working hard to promote and protect our interests around the world. And I thought of the daunting tasks ahead for our country: an economy that is reeling, a climate that is warming, and as we saw with the horrible events in Mumbai -- threats that are relentless. The fate of our nation and the future of our children will be forged in the crucible of these global challenges. America cannot solve these crises without the world, and the world cannot solve them without America."
"By electing Barrack Obama our next President, the American people have demanded not just a new direction at home, but a new effort to renew America's standing in the world as a force for positive change. We know our security, our values, and our interests cannot be protected and advanced by force alone. Nor indeed by Americans alone. We must pursue vigorous diplomacy using all the tools we can muster, to build a future with more partners and fewer adversaries, more opportunities and fewer dangers, for all who seek freedom, peace, and prosperity."
"America is a place founded on the idea that everyone should have the right to live up to his or her God-given potential. And it is that same ideal that must guide America's purpose in the world today. And while we are determined to defend our freedoms and liberties at all costs, we also reach out to the world again, seeking common cause and higher ground. And so I believe the best way to continue serving my country, is to join President-elect Obama, Vice President-elect Biden, the leaders here, and the dedicated public servants of the State Department on behalf of our nation at this defining moment.
"President Kennedy once said that, 'engaging the world to meet the threats we face was the greatest adventure of our century.' Well Mr. President-elect, I am proud to join you, on what will be a difficult and exciting adventure in this new century. And may God bless you, and all who serve with you, and our great country."
CNN via YouTube: Senator Hillary Clinton's remarks upon nomination for Secretary of State.
President-elect Barack Obama announced the key members of his foreign policy and national security team Monday, including his choice of former political rival Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state. In addition, Mr. Obama has decided to keep on the current defense secretary, Robert Gates. VOA National correspondent Jim Malone reports from Washington.
Mr. Obama announced his foreign policy and national security team at a news conference in Chicago.
The president-elect said it was time for a new beginning in what he called an uncertain world, and he described his team as ready to lead what he called a new dawn of American leadership around the world.
"We will strengthen our capacity to defeat our enemies and support our friends," Obama said. "We will renew old alliances and forge new and enduring partnerships. We will show the world once more that America is relentless in defense of our people, steady in advancing our interests, and committed to the ideals that shine as a beacon to the world--democracy and justice, opportunity and unyielding hope--because American values are America's great export to the world."
Mr. Obama's choice of Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state has easily been the most surprising development so far in the presidential transition period.
Mr. Obama described his former political rival as someone who commands respect in world capitols and who can carry out his commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore alliances.
Mrs. Clinton said it would be difficult to leave the Senate, but added she was excited by the challenge of representing the U.S. abroad.
"We know our security, our values and our interests cannot be protected and advanced by force alone, nor indeed, by Americans alone," Clinton said. "We must pursue vigorous diplomacy using all the tools we can muster to build a future with more partners and fewer adversaries, more opportunities and fewer dangers for all who seek freedom, peace and prosperity."
In order to clear the way for Hillary Clinton's nomination as secretary of state, her husband, former President Bill Clinton, agreed to disclose the names of donors to his charitable foundation. Mr. Clinton will also clear his schedule and speeches with the State Department to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.
Mr. Obama's choice for defense secretary is Robert Gates, the man who currently holds the job under President Bush.
The president-elect said Gates has the respect of members of Congress from both political parties for his pragmatism and competence.
Gates also appeared at the news conference and said he was pleased to continue in his current job.
"I am deeply honored that the president-elect has asked me to continue as secretary of defense," Gates said. "Mindful that we are engaged in two wars and face other serious challenges at home and around the world, and with a profound sense of personal responsibility to and for our men and women in uniform and their families, I must do my duty as they do theirs. How could I do otherwise?"
Mr. Obama announced other appointments as well, including Eric Holder as his choice for attorney general and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as the next secretary of Homeland Security.
In addition, Mr. Obama has tapped retired Marine Corps General James Jones to be his national security advisor, and Susan Rice as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
At his news conference, Mr. Obama was also asked about the recent terror attacks in Mumbai, India.
Mr. Obama reiterated that the United States has only one president at a time. But he spoke out forcefully against the terror attacks and said his administration would support India's efforts to catch those responsible.
"Both myself and the team that stands beside me are absolutely committed to eliminating the threat of terrorism and that is true wherever it is found," the president-elect said. "We cannot have, we cannot tolerate, a world in which innocents are being killed by extremists based on twisted ideologies, and we are going to have to bring the full force of our power, not only military but also diplomatic, economic and political to deal with those threats."
Mr. Obama will be sworn in as the country's 44th president on January 20, and his cabinet members will have to be confirmed by the Senate before they can take up their new posts.
President-elect Barack Obama has re-appointed President Bush's Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to serve the new administration next year - a move analysts say brings experience, stability and some political diversity to his cabinet. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.
It was not that long ago that Monday's announcement seemed highly unlikely. In April, with the major party nominees not yet selected and with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton running campaigns highly critical of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, Secretary Gates was asked whether he might consider staying on if asked.
"The circumstances under which I would do that are inconceivable to me," he said.
The answer got a laugh from reporters in the Pentagon Briefing Room, and he repeated it many times in the following months. But since the election four weeks ago, Secretary Gates has kept a low profile, and on Monday he stood on the stage in Chicago as President-elect Obama made this announcement.
"At a time when we face unprecedented transition amidst two wars, I've asked Secretary Robert Gates to continue as secretary of defense, and I'm pleased he has accepted," he said.
Those inconceivable circumstances had come to pass. Secretary Gates said he decided to stay because he could not shirk his duty while American men and women in uniform are continuing to do theirs in two war zones.
"Serving in this position for nearly two years - and especially the opportunity to lead our brave and dedicated soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Defense civilians - has been the most gratifying experience of my life," said Gates. "I am honored to continue to serve them and our country, and I will be honored to serve President-Elect Obama."
That is a good insight into the personality of the soft-spoken 65-year-old secretary. He is a technocrat, longtime intelligence officer and former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, and also a former university president who becomes emotional when speaking about U.S. troops who have been killed and injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He is a man of considerable experience and strong opinions, including a belief in the need to use more U.S. diplomatic and economic power in the world, and less military power. But he is also known as a pragmatist. He has opposed the establishment of a firm timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but he endorsed the new U.S.-Iraqi agreement which contains just that.
President-elect Obama said he did not check Secretary Gates' political affiliation. Speaking about Gates, and also the nominee for Secretary of State, his former opponent Senator Hillary Clinton, President-elect Obama said Monday he expects members of his cabinet to have strong personalities and strong opinions, but also to implement his policies and to share his view of the world.
"They would not have agreed to join my administration, and I would not have asked them to be part of this administration unless we shared a core vision of what's needed to keep the American people safe and to ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad," he said.
Mr. Obama also said he is committed to keeping the U.S. military the strongest in the world.
Analyst Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress says the president-elect went for experience and stability at the Pentagon over any desire to insert a loyal Democrat or make dramatic changes at a time of war.
"What it means is that Senator Obama feels comfortable with him in terms of his plan to withdraw from Iraq, his plan to emphasize diplomacy more than the use of military force, and is looking to have continuity in the midst of all of the other crises going on at home and abroad," Korb said.
At the conservative Heritage Foundation, analyst Mackenzie Eaglen says Gates will provide Obama with independent advice, and will help him deal with senior military officers - many of whom are concerned about having a president with no military experience and a plan to re-focus their efforts on withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq as quickly as possible.
"He is seen as practical, realistic, a pragmatist," said Eaglen. "He's basically seen as generally non-partisan, not an ideology. And that has built him up some credibility. Given that Secretary Gates can provide some continuity with overseeing these strong uniformed personalities and priorities, [it] could end up being a smart decision."
When he was first appointed defense secretary by President Bush two years ago, Gates said the outcomes of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism, would "shape our world for decades to come." President-elect Obama has given him some additional time to help determine how those wars end and what the world looks like afterward.
Some reports had predicted Secretary Gates' renewed tenure would have a specific time limit - a sort of extended transition to a new secretary. But analysts had worried that would weaken him, and nothing was said about it on Monday.
President-elect Obama did say, however, that he will change the Defense Department's mission, not only ordering the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and an increase of troops in Afghanistan, but also treating terrorist safe havens in South Asia as what he called Monday "the single most important threat against the American people." He said he will mobilize resources and focus his administration's attention on defeating the terrorist groups, which are based largely in Pakistan.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will remain in the Pentagon's top post when President-elect Barack Obama's administration takes office.
Obama, who also announced his other nominees for top national security posts today, cited the necessity of continuity as the United States fights wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as his rationale for asking Gates to stay.
In a statement, Gates said he is "deeply honored" that the president-elect asked him to continue serving.
"Mindful that we are engaged in two wars and face other serious challenges at home and around the world, and with a profound sense of personal responsibility to and for our men and women in uniform and their families, I must do my duty -- as they do theirs," Gates said in his statement. "How could I do otherwise?
"Serving in this position for nearly two years -- and especially the opportunity to lead our brave and dedicated soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and defense civilians -- has been the most gratifying experience of my life. I am honored to continue to serve them and our country, and I will be honored to serve President-elect Obama," Gates said.
Obama also announced his intent to nominate the following people to serve in his administration:
-- New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be secretary of state;
-- Retired Marine Corps Gen. James L. Jones Jr. to be national security advisor;
-- Eric H. Holder to be attorney general;
-- Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to be secretary of homeland security; and
-- Susan Rice to hold Cabinet rank as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Gates will not have to go through the Senate confirmation process. President George W. Bush nominated Gates as defense secretary in November 2006. The Senate approved the nomination, and he was sworn into office in December 2006 to succeed Donald H. Rumsfeld. Gates will be the first Cabinet officer to continue serving in an administration from a different political party.
Clinton has represented New York since her election in 2000 and has served on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She served as the chairwoman of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform in 1993. She has supported military action in Afghanistan, and has opposed recent actions in Iraq. In the Senate, she sponsored legislation to increase the size of the Army and has consistently worked to help military families. If confirmed, she will replace Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Jones retired in 2007 after serving as NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe and commander of U.S. European Command. Before that assignment, he was the Marine Corps commandant. Jones received his commission through Georgetown University in Washington in 1967 and served in Vietnam. He received the Silver Star for his actions there. As NATO commander, he led the expansion of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. As national security advisor, he will help to coordinate all aspects of U.S. power in the war on terror. He is currently chairman of the Atlantic Council of the United States. If approved, he would replace Stephen Hadley.
Holder served as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration. He also has served as a judge, a prosecutor and as a front-line lawyer in the Justice Department. A native New Yorker, Holder received his law degree from Columbia University. If confirmed, he would succeed Michael Mukasey.
If confirmed, Napolitano would be responsible for the Coast Guard as part of her portfolio as homeland security secretary. A lawyer, she served as Arizona's attorney general before being elected as governor in 2002. Napolitano would replace Michael B. Chertoff.
Rice served on the National Security Council in the Clinton administration as assistant secretary of state for African affairs. She will replace Zalmay Khalilzad in the U.N. post.
President-elect Barack Obama today cited the need for continuity as the United States fights two wars in announcing that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will remain at the Pentagon when his administration takes over next month.
"At a time when we face an unprecedented transition amidst two wars, I have asked Robert Gates to continue as secretary of defense, and I'm pleased that he's accepted," Obama said at a news conference in Chicago.
"He restored accountability. He won the confidence of military commanders, and the trust of our brave men and women in uniform and their families," he said. "He earned the respect of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle for his pragmatism and competence. He knows that we need a sustainable national security strategy, and that includes a bipartisan consensus at home."
The president-elect said he will tell the secretary to end the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control.
"We will also ensure that we have the strategy -- and resources -- to succeed against al-Qaida and the Taliban," he said. "As Bob said not too long ago, Afghanistan is where the war on terror began, and it is where it must end."
Gates thanked the president-elect for his confidence.
"I am deeply honored that the president-elect has asked me to continue as secretary of defense," Gates said in Chicago. "Mindful that we are engaged in two wars and face other serious challenges at home and around the world, and with a profound sense of personal responsibility to and for our men and women in uniform and their families, I must do my duty as they do theirs. How could I do otherwise?
"Serving in this position for nearly two years, and especially the opportunity to lead our brave and dedicated soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Defense civilians, has been the most gratifying experience of my life," the secretary continued. "I am honored to continue to serve them and our country, and I will be honored to serve President-elect Obama."
Obama said the national security challenges facing the country are as grave and urgent as the economic crisis.
"We are fighting two wars," he said. "Old conflicts remain unresolved, and newly assertive powers have put strains on the international system. The spread of nuclear weapons raises the peril that the world's deadliest technology could fall into dangerous hands. Our dependence on foreign oil empowers authoritarian governments and endangers our planet."
The United States must be as strong at home as it is overseas, and American economic power must sustain military strength, diplomatic leverage and global leadership, he said.
"The common thread linking these challenges is the fundamental reality that in the 21st century, our destiny is shared with the world's," Obama said. "From our markets to our security; from our public health to our climate - we must act with the understanding that, now more than ever, we have a stake in what happens across the globe.
"And as we learned so painfully on 9/11, terror cannot be contained by borders, nor safety provided by oceans alone," he said.
Obama called for a new dawn of American leadership to face and master the challenges of the 21st century.
"We will strengthen our capacity to defeat our enemies and support our friends," he said. "We will renew old alliances and forge new and enduring partnerships. We will show the world once more that America is relentless in defense of our people, steady in advancing our interests and committed to the ideals that shine as a beacon to the world -- democracy and justice, opportunity and unyielding hope -- because American values are America's greatest export to the world."
The president-elect also announced his choices for other posts: New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state, Eric Holder as attorney general, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as secretary of homeland security, retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones Jr. as national security advisor and Susan Rice as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
A Reminder on the COIN Leadership Seminar next Monday at Quantico:
8 December - Counterinsurgency Leadership Seminar (Seminar). Quantico, VA. On 8 December 2008 the US Marine Corps Center for Irregular Warfare (CIW) will host a Counterinsurgency Leadership Seminar at Little Hall (Base Theater), Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia, featuring Colonel Stephen Davis (USMC), Colonel David Maxwell (USA) and Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling. This seminar is cosponsored by CIW, US Joint Forces Command Irregular Warfare Center (IWC), the US Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center (COIN Center) and Small Wars Journal (SWJ). Seminar Panel Members:Colonel Stephen Davis, USMC. Col Davis is currently the Deputy Commanding Officer of Marine Corps Special Operations Command. Previously, Col Davis commanded Regimental Combat Team 2 in Iraq. Colonel David Maxwell, USA. COL Maxwell is currently the G-3 (Operations Officer) of the US Army Special Operations Command. Previously he commanded the Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines. Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling, USA. LTC Yingling is the Commander of 1st Battalion, 21st Field Artillery and is currently deployed to Iraq performing detainee operations. He has served two previous tours in Iraq, and has also deployed to Bosnia and Operation Desert Storm. Colonel Daniel Kelly, USMC, will moderate. Col Kelly is the Director of the US Marine Corps Center for Irregular Warfare. He has held a wide variety of command and staff billets and participated in numerous operations to include Operations Restore Hope / Continue Hope (Somalia), Operations Allied Force / Joint Guardian, (Kosovo) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF I and II).
And an update from Matt Armstrong at MountainRunner:
13 January - The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948: A Discourse to Shape America's Discourse (Symposium). Washington, D.C. -- at the Reserve Officer's Association at the intersection of First Street and Constitution Avenue, NE. The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was passed as the U.S. was beginning a "war of ideology... a war unto death," as America's Ambassador to Russia described it at the time. But, beginning in the 1970's, instead of promoting international engagement through information, cultural and educational exchanges, the law was distorted into a barrier of engagement. From its propaganda and counter-propaganda intentions, it transformed into an anti-propaganda law for reasons that had little to nothing to do with concerns over domestic influence and far removed from the original intent of the law. Keynotes will be given by Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy James K. Glassman and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy Michael Doran. There will be four 90 minute panels -- past, present, future, and Congress -- that will emphasize Q&A, discourse, and debate and not presentations or monologues. Registration is free, open to the public, and required to attend. The event will be on the record with a transcript available after the event. A public report based on the proceedings will be produced. Registration and other information can be found at http://mountainrunner.us/symposium.
... The Mumbai attack is unique from past terror strikes carried out by Islamic terrorists. Instead of one or more bombings at distinct sites, the Mumbai attackers struck throughout the city using military tactics. Instead of one or more bombings carried out over a short period of time, Mumbai is entering its third day of crisis.
An attack of this nature cannot be thrown together overnight. It requires planned, scouting, financing, training, and a support network to aid the fighters. Initial reports indicate the attacks originated from Pakistan, the hub of jihadi activity in South Asia. Few local terror groups have the capacity to pull off an attack such as this...
