Gates Criticizes Conventional Focus At Start of Iraq War

[Snaquebite]

Will this further alienate and create problems with SF and Big Army leadership?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092903067_pf.html

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 30, 2008; A04



Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday criticized the shock-and-awe strategy of the 2003 Iraq invasion and said the Pentagon's narrow focus on conventional combat operations proved costly when U.S. ground troops had to switch gears to try to stabilize that country.

The Pentagon bureaucracy failed to respond quickly enough to the military's need for innovative counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gates said, and he called for reforms to make the institution more agile and flexible.

The military's struggle to adjust to the counterinsurgency mission in Iraq "came at a frightful human, financial and political cost," Gates told an audience of military officers at the National Defense University here. "For every heroic and resourceful innovation by troops and commanders on the battlefield, there was some institutional shortcoming at the Pentagon that they had to overcome," he said.

While having a military skilled in fighting major conventional ground wars is essential, Gates said, such a war is unlikely in the near future. Yet the Pentagon has placed comparatively too much emphasis on developing high-technology weapon systems aimed at potential state adversaries such as China or Russia that take years to develop, he said, noting that the 2009 budget contains more than $180 billion for such conventional systems.

Such weapons often envision a computerized, idealized version of warfare that Gates suggested is unrealistic.

"Be skeptical of systems analysis, computer models, game theories," he warned, adding that officers should "look askance" at notions of future conflict that imply "adversaries can be cowed, shocked or awed into submission, instead of being tracked down, hilltop by hilltop, house by house."

Instead, Gates said, the Pentagon needs to be able to rapidly purchase and field more low-tech capabilities. "Our conventional modernization programs seek a 99 percent solution in years. Stability and counterinsurgency missions -- the wars we are in -- require 75 percent solutions in months," he said.

For example, Gates said, the Defense Department took too long to develop up-armored Humvees, mine-resistant vehicles, jammers and other gear to counter roadside bombs, as well as new intelligence technologies needed for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Why did we have to bypass existing institutions and procedures to get the capabilities we need to protect our troops and pursue the wars we are in?" he said.

Gates said that given U.S. military dominance in air, land and sea power, the Pentagon can safely shift away from building small numbers of highly advanced ships, aircraft, and other systems and instead purchase larger quantities of simpler, cheaper equipment -- potentially for use by foreign military partners. For instance, he said that in Iraq a task force has expanded its surveillance capabilities by using turboprop aircraft coupled with advanced sensors, he said.

Gates predicted that in coming years the main threat faced by the U.S. military overseas will be a complex hybrid of conventional and unconverntional conflicts, waged by "militias, insurgent groups, other non-state actors and Third World militaries."

"However," he said, "apart from the Special Forces community and some dissident colonels, for decades there has been no strong, deeply rooted constituency inside the Pentagon . . . for institutionalizing our capabilities to wage . . . irregular conflict."

[NousDefionsDoc]

Well, somebody not from here had to say it out loud...

[NousDefionsDoc]

again...

[Snaquebite]

I agree....When they don't like us, there are too many Groups. When they like us there aren't enough....

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I have a real problem with Gates and his mouth. Someone supposedly from the CIA should know better than to telegraph shifts in strategy, weaknesses, and potential shifts in how we view the world. His job is to develop strategic visions and strategy to meet the threat to our national security interests not to ring his hands and tell everyone how screwed up we are. What the hell ever happened to bringing the underlings, closing the damn doors, chewing ass, setting goals, and getting to work. While this is not surprising to many of us, why in the hell do we need to affirm it to those who would wish to continue to attack our weaknesses while exploiting their strenghts. I just don't get it. It looks more like he is trying to line up his future job security for whomever walks into the white house next go round.:mad:

[Surf n Turf]

I have a real problem with Gates and his mouth. Someone supposedly from the CIA should know better than to telegraph shifts in strategy, weaknesses, and potential shifts in how we view the world. His job is to develop strategic visions and strategy to meet the threat to our national security interests not to ring his hands and tell everyone how screwed up we are. What the hell ever happened to bringing the underlings, closing the damn doors, chewing ass, setting goals, and getting to work. While this is not surprising to many of us, why in the hell do we need to affirm it to those who would wish to continue to attack our weaknesses while exploiting their strenghts. I just don't get it. It looks more like he is trying to line up his future job security for whomever walks into the white house next go round.:mad:

+1
Schweigen ist Gold. Reden ist Silber

SnT

[AF Doc]

I have a real problem with Gates and his mouth. Someone supposedly from the CIA should know better than to telegraph shifts in strategy, weaknesses, and potential shifts in how we view the world.

Too true.

[SF_BHT]

I have a real problem with Gates and his mouth. Someone supposedly from the CIA should know better than to telegraph shifts in strategy, weaknesses, and potential shifts in how we view the world. His job is to develop strategic visions and strategy to meet the threat to our national security interests not to ring his hands and tell everyone how screwed up we are. What the hell ever happened to bringing the underlings, closing the damn doors, chewing ass, setting goals, and getting to work. While this is not surprising to many of us, why in the hell do we need to affirm it to those who would wish to continue to attack our weaknesses while exploiting their strenghts. I just don't get it. It looks more like he is trying to line up his future job security for whomever walks into the white house next go round.:mad:

You are so right on Col. To bad Gates does not know how to quietly make his point.....

[Razor]

I guess he missed the "praise in public; admonish in private" lesson of Leadership 101 during his pre-commissioning training.

[GreenSalsa]

After listening to numerous flag officers pontificating on the threats facing the nation (one sited "Global Warming"--I kid you not).

I think Gates was sending the proverbial "shot across the bow"

For instance former JFCOM Chief Air Force Gen. Lance Smith was quoted as saying "the danger now, of course, is we get so focused on counterinsurgency and irregular warfare that we are not prepared for a different kind of war".

Gates's target audience, although broadcast through the media, was the attendees at the National Defense University at Ft McNair in DC. I think Gates is trying to "wake" the system up.

Unfortunately as much as we would like to think that military would follow the direction and accept the reality of the current situation, there are a significant number of VERY senior people simply do not "get it" and are actively dragging their feet in changing how we do business.

but on the whole, I agree--we shouldn't be telegraphing our weakness but quite honestly--the emperor has no clothes--and we live in a very transparent society.

[Sigaba]

The comments that follow are in basic agreement with Green Salsa's post.

The full text of the speech is here (http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1279).

As a civilian, I find Gates's speech encouraging. In my reading, he's taking the Department of Defense's bureaucracy and civilian leadership to task for getting sidetracked by the revolution in military affairs (RMA) debate. In my view, Gates is seeking to reorient the focus in favor of a balance between the present day requirements of GWOT and potential future conflicts. By making his case publicly, Gates is trying to "'tap the full strength of America and its people' – civilian and military, public sector and private."

In the Q&A session (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4295) following his speech, Secretary Gates elaborated on that theme when he said:



Well, I think that -- and this is something I've talked about before. I think that the national security institutions that we have today were essentially created to fight the Cold War, and reflected lessons learned in World War II. And so the Department of Defense itself, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force, CIA and the National Security Council all came out of the National Security Act of 1947.

It seems to me that there needs to be a new National Security Act that looks at the kind of complicated world that I just described, and says, how would we write a National Security Act for the 21st century to update the institutions and the framework that helped us wage and win the Cold War.

And to be honest, my view is that we need some substantial change in the structures, but I'd be the first to admit that I don't have the answers. Some people have said we need -- and it's come out of the Pentagon, as well as other places -- we need a Goldwater-Nichols for the interagency.

The only problem is -- and I heard this also about the intelligence community, we need Goldwater-Nichols for the intelligence community. The only reason Goldwater-Nichols works is because at the end of the day, everybody who is subordinate to it works for one person. And the secretary of Defense can make decisions for all of the institutions in the organization. You can't do that in the interagency, and you can't do that in the intelligence community.

My interpretation is that Gates wants a broader discussion in American strategic and political culture. This discussion may result in measures, including legislation, that will see warfighters receiving institutional support rather than encountering the current dynamic of constant opposition.

Within the specific context of irregular warfare, Gates may be addressing a point recently developed by Ingo Trauschweizer (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0700615784/sr=8-4/qid=1222871981/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1222871981&sr=8-4&seller=). Namely, throughout the Cold War, the national command authority did not sufficiently codify the portfolio of the Army's special operations forces within the context of national military strategy.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

My interpretation is that Gates wants a broader discussion in American strategic and political culture. .

Personally I don't give a rat's ass what Gates wants after he leaves office, but he is filling a slot requiring a little more professional approach and tact. His points are best made within the realm of advisor to his boss and amongst his peers and superiors in private and in the context of his charter as the SECDEF. I do not see that here at all. He is a team player or he is not. If you have problems with the team then fix it quietly or pack your damn rucksack and head out into the sunset. You do not, never, ever, without exception, under no circumstances, without regret or remorse, shoot your damn mouth off to your subordinates, and they are all his subordinates, in a public forum. If you want to lay out your plans, goals, missions, visions, and strategy to take the military to where they need to go to accomplish the grand strategy laid out by your boss then you do it in the appropriate setting and as a professional. If you do not have faith in your subordinates to execute your guidance get rid of them but do not undermine them to their worker bees by telling them that everything is screwed up. If you do not like the bosses tack on things and you cannot convince him that he is going the wrong way, take it up with him and resign if you can't live with it. It you do not want to resign don't whine like someone just licked the red off your candy work with what you have to ensure your organization succeeds where it can and mitigate the chances of failure everywhere else. This is just pure bullshit. Evidently I must be missing something here.

[GreenSalsa]

Evidently I must be missing something here.

Sir,

You are not missing anything--you laid out how it should be in a truly professional environment. Unfortunately, too many who wear the uniform are in it for a "career" and that I believe is where the problem lies...

:confused:

[EX-Gold Falcon]

I am not trying to be Mr. Dissenter, however the gist of some of his comments make perfect sense.

Emphasis on Low-tech (cheaper "off the shelf" tech) items that can fielded faster and easier, vs. SOTA projects that your kids might get their hands on in 20 years.
"Be skeptical of systems analysis, computer models, game theories," he warned, adding that officers should "look askance" at notions of future conflict that imply "adversaries can be cowed, shocked or awed into submission, instead of being tracked down, hilltop by hilltop, house by house."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this particular comment sounds as though it was written by a member of PS.com!
"However," he said, "apart from the Special Forces community and some dissident colonels, for decades there has been no strong, deeply rooted constituency inside the Pentagon . . . for institutionalizing our capabilities to wage . . . irregular conflict." Uh, that looks like a kudos to me...

Beyond the circumstances of this critique, how valid are his comments; or is there more then meets the eye here?

Travis

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

[b]eyond the circumstances of this critique, how valid are his comments; or is there more then meets the eye here?

Travis

It is not the validity with which I am concerned but the public airing of dirty laundry, the putting down of the very force in public with a shotgun vice dealing with the actionable offenders on a professional note, and the fact that you really don't shit where you eat. We know what the problems were, why confirm them in public for exploitation. It was at best irresponsible. As far as the context, off the shelf technology is fine for some solutions and I have had probably more experience here with that than most both as a recipient and as a provider. It does not however solve many of the problems because often times better solutions should be completely and correctly identified and the unintended consequences cause many additional problems that compound the situation.

[charlietwo]

It looks more like he is trying to line up his future job security for whomever walks into the white house next go round.:mad:

No secret there boss :D If it isn't just that, then there is a sexy, slinky journalist who has her ears in more places than she should.

Where do we go from here? I'm still convinced we're moving blindly into a major ambush because we don't have anyone driving this convoy.

[stuW]

I have a real problem with Gates and his mouth. Someone supposedly from the CIA should know better than to telegraph shifts in strategy, weaknesses, and potential shifts in how we view the world. His job is to develop strategic visions and strategy to meet the threat to our national security interests not to ring his hands and tell everyone how screwed up we are. What the hell ever happened to bringing the underlings, closing the damn doors, chewing ass, setting goals, and getting to work. While this is not surprising to many of us, why in the hell do we need to affirm it to those who would wish to continue to attack our weaknesses while exploiting their strenghts. I just don't get it. It looks more like he is trying to line up his future job security for whomever walks into the white house next go round.:mad:

Total agreement.