"Rational bureaucrat" against politicians
Editorial note: The release of memoirs by former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is not just a landmark event. And even more than the "information bomb", as immediately dubbed the book before it went on sale! Some US news agencies were quick to declare Gates a traitor, believing that the disclosure of some confidential conversations with the current president is not just a moveton, but also an unacceptable behavior for a government official (albeit a former one). However, even before the “Minister of War”, various “plums” were published in relation to the current administrations, and therefore the noise that arose in the media around the memoirs of a person who has long been regarded as “a person of bipartisan consensus” deserves separate consideration for a completely different reason.Is this book a stab in the back of Obama, Biden and Donilon? Do we really see the collapse of the foreign policy consensus of the American elites? Have the media exaggerated the importance of books polarized by party signs? What could be behind the publication of such “fried” material in the mid-term election to Congress and two years before the start of the presidential race?
In these and many other questions concerning the memoirs of one of the most successful US defense ministers of the last time, we tried to understand together on Terra America. We bring to your attention the opinions of several members of the team of our portal who have studied the problem from different points of view.
* * *
Boris MezhuyevOf course, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the entire book of Robert Gates on the basis of those fragments that were published in the American press - the book must be read in its entirety. Nevertheless, we can analyze the event itself - the grand scandal that arose around the release of this book.
It is curious that the scandal produced the book of the minister himself, who during the last two administrations personified a compromise.
Appointed Secretary of Defense in the fall of 2006, following the results of failing mid-term congressional elections for Republicans, Robert Gates symbolized his appointment to break the younger Bush with the course of his Vice President Dick Cheney and reconcile with his father's realists of the “old school”.
Of course, Gates was remembered by many as the ultra-hawk of the Cold War era, as the man who, as director of the CIA, armed the Afghan contras, and then opposed Reagan’s agreements with Gorbachev, but by 2006, experts familiar with American politics were also known as the author of the joint report with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who proposed the so-called “new approach”.
Actually, this was about the very approach that is being implemented before our eyes.
When Gates stayed in Obama’s team, it was the strongest evidence that the young Democratic president was seeking to expand his supporters base by including the “old school” realists - people around former National Security Assistant Brent Scowcroft or former Secretary of State James Baker Gates was a key figure in the very coalition of rivals that Obama’s political consultants were so proud of creating. Gates, Hillary, Biden and Patreus are four heavyweights in one team.
It turned out that the solidarity of this coalition is nothing more than a myth, and the Obama team represented the very cart that, without any success, was dragged by a swan, cancer and pike from a famous fable.
As Robert Gates now told the world, the main conflict within the administration arose in 2009 and was caused by the political fears surrounding the president’s need to increase the number of troops in that country to win in Afghanistan. Obama, in principle, decided to increase the number of army groups there by 30 thousands of people. But after this decision, he resisted any replenishment, fearing further blackmail by the military or, as Gates hints, succumbing to the persuasion of Vice President Joseph Biden and National Security Assistant Tom Donilon, who constantly intervened in military matters for political reasons.
In this military conflict with civilians, Gates felt superfluous, and the president in his image appeared to be too hesitant politician, who did not trust his military, who were afraid of any sign of disloyalty on their part.
Apparently, this plot of Gates' invectives is not limited to, but it is curious that when reviewing memories, the focus is on the Afghan theme.
What does all this mean from a political point of view?
The first. Obama's coalition of “sensible” if not “ordered to live long”, then is going through hard times, and the blow was struck at the very moment when it needs political support.
The second. Inside the American establishment, there is a growing opposition to the dictates of politicians over the military. It is interesting that we see no signs of the conflict between the Pentagon’s civilian leadership and people in uniform since the days of Robert McNamara. Gates does not oppose himself to the military. It is rather a clash of pragmatic technocrats with careerist politicians. Gates is disgusted by politicians of all stripes and all branches of government.
Third. Gates’s book is further evidence to suggest that the establishment no longer relies on a democratic party. The team of democrats in the image of its random companion looks like a conglomeration of completely random people.
The problem, however, is not in the essence of concrete invectives of Gates against Obama and Biden, the problem is that these invectives appeared at all, which means that an attempt to gather competing clans into one working team ended in an unpleasant confusion in America. And it seems that all the assemblies of the two-party consensus assembly are now declared dismantled.
In the current foreign policy team, there is one active actor - Secretary of State John Kerry, and he seems to manage more than the entire “coalition of rivals” of the first term. True, not on the warpath, but on the field of diplomacy. And if Gates called himself “the minister of war,” then Kerry is right to call himself “the minister of peace.” But such a “minister” is still more pleasant and easier.
Dmitry DrobnitskyI once spoke about the release of the memoirs of Robert Gates and the party-media struggle that has unfolded around them. As I expected, no one was going to listen to the author himself. The main thing was for both sides to use the book for those political purposes that confront "elephants" and "donkeys" in the mid-term elections of the new year and then on the presidential 2016.
For a while it seemed that Gates himself (for one reason or another) would not comment on his book. But no! This Sunday, he gave a detailed interview to the National Public Radio (NPR agency - National Public Radio).
It turned out that very much of what was discussed on television, the pages of newspapers and Internet portals, to put it mildly, was taken out of context and turned upside down. In any case, Gates himself said so. Calm, tired and confident voice. The voice of a retired professional. Yes, it can be called a technocrat. But the term will not change anything.
We did not sit in the Oval Office with Obama and Gates and cannot judge whether the first black US president in conversations in the inner circle seemed to be a hesitant and unprincipled politician from Harvard, and the Secretary of Defense was a “rational bureaucrat” in Weber’s best sense this word.
Along the way, it turned out that Gates did not compromise the supreme commander (acting, we recall!), And he supported all his decisions, which obviously knocks the ground out from under both those who consider Obama to be a very failed president and those considered Robert Michael Gates a scoundrel and a renegade.
Since it is only on the day this article is released that the book itself will be read both in the USA and in the world (of course, we also ordered this book), I can only be based on the interview that its author gave to NPR.
And in this interview, a person who was extremely tired of incompetent and non-technological people appeared before me. Let me remind you, he did not manage the work of the dining room of the White House, but two wars! And "these people" ... From the interview, it turns out that this is mostly Joe Biden (who opened the door to any office and any question from the foot, and also loved to laugh) and Tom Donilon (in my opinion, these people should were to find a common language, but - alas!). But the others were no better ...
Just imagine a professional who worked (as was noted in the interview) with Kissinger, Brzezinski, Scowcroft, who was given the ultimate complexity of the task (and in disrepair), which had long been “cooked” in the intelligence and military kitchen, who had just rolled up his sleeves ... And then he began to beat his hands, to climb over his head, to give conflicting instructions, to discuss in his presence how all those allies got whom they had just managed to collect ...
Imagine!
In his interview, Gates says that four-star generals called for the Oval Office (translated into “our language” - district commanders), Biden said: “No, no, no,” obliquely overlooked another report of the Ministry of Defense, and Donilon just got up and left the meetings with the president.
And then one of two things. Either Gates for some reason is lying (and why is it so dear to a gentleman?), Or in the Obama administration really chaos reigns. In Russian - a mess.
But at the disposal of the United States is 10 carrier strike groups, which almost completely occupied the World Ocean. This is the most powerful economy. This is a superpower, and now left alone! What the hell is a bipartisan consensus! What is the agreement of the elites! What is the opposition of the so-called technocrats to the so-called politicians! A picture of incompetence, inconsistency and, in terms of control theory, “irregular management” appears before us.
The professional could not help being terrified. He was terrified. Gone. And he wrote a book. In the end, Americans need to know who controls them and how!
But there is one curious circumstance. Hillary Clinton appears before us (I’ll make a reservation again - not in the book for the time being, but in an interview) as a lady, a politician and manager, very worthy.
We deal with the work of such a disgruntled and irritated professional that he even “forgot” about the formal party affiliation. Since the Congress (with all its Republican “stars”) received even more criticism than the administration, Gates’s book was considered de facto pro-Clinton.
But you know what? Professionals are wrong too. And precisely because they are professionals. And politicians in general have such a profession - to err. And in this sense, the eternal dispute between me and Mezhuyev’s colleagues over what is more important for the city — architecture or engineering infrastructure — will almost certainly be historically resolved in favor of something third.
I think the same will happen with an important dispute between Gates and politicians.
Natalia DemchenkoThe central topic of discussion about the preprint of Robert Gates’s memoirs was quite expected to be “Obama's weakness or strength,” his leadership qualities, his ability to make decisions, and the like. That, however, is not surprising - the entire past year, the American media discussed this particular topic.
But is it only this part of the memories that deserves the attention of a respectable public? The published excerpts demonstrate the underlined respectful attitude of the Secretary of Defense to the chief executive of the United States. Gates himself (both in the book and in the interview that the author has already given to the bestseller at NPR) has repeatedly stressed that the criticism of Barack Obama himself was by no means the main goal of his work.
If we are talking about who personally became the main target of criticism of these memoirs, it is Joe Biden. Commenting on him extremely harshly (“not one correct political decision in 40 years”), Gates, however, considerably softens his position in the above-mentioned interview. The former secretary of defense recognizes part of the blame for their difficult personal relationships and rather links his assessment to the fact that Joe Biden’s views belong to the opposite wing of the political spectrum.
But most of all went to the “stronghold of democracy”, the Congress, the American parliamentarians, whose petty interests so obviously annoy the former minister.
The memoirs of Gates survived so far only the “first reading” - by journalists. In order to draw conclusions about how this book will affect American domestic politics, it should be read by ordinary Americans. But now it is already clear that these are memoirs by which they will later judge a whole political era. The signs of this era are the Congress torn apart by clan interests, the complex and not too sincere relations between the highest military command and the president, the incompetence of young administration managers, the vacuum of trust between the various parts of the administrative apparatus.
In other words - the natural consequences of the crisis of the American society torn by contradictions. A society divided not only at the level of power structures, but at the level of everyday life.
The mid-rise health care reform, growing social inequality, the successes of right and left populists in local elections, and everything that is described in Gates’s book are links in one chain. The consequence of the absence of not just “two-party consensus”, but the absence of public consensus.
However, all this - only the background for its main stories.
Memoirs of Robert Gates - the book is very personal. This is not just a tribute to the traditions of the genre. This is a painful and deeply suffered position of the Minister of Defense, who feels his personal responsibility for what happened in the US military forces. All those who in the foreign press have already written about the book of Gates were struck by his sudden emotionality. The “man from Washington” with a stony face, the former head of the CIA, suddenly turned out to be a sensitive old man who personally writes letters to the relatives of the victims every evening, looks at photos of soldiers and tries to learn more about them ...
And this transformation - from a pragmatic official of the Ministry of Defense into a minister, who declares his main task is to take care of the well-being of an ordinary soldier who fights on the front line - the most important story in his book.
This story is easily deprived of attention, fascinated by the details of political intrigue. It is easy to miss precisely because this statement seems more like the pathos needed by the genre than a real experience. But - that's a pain in the memory! - he wrote these personal letters every night ...
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to Robert Gates, are not “wars of necessity” (which the US is compelled to wage to protect its national interests), but “wars of choice”, without which it could well be done. The war changed in the 21st century. The war, which is “shown” on the screens in Washington, the war, which is conducted by remote means, seems to be much less evil from there than from the front line. Card houses, demolished at the touch of a button, more and more resemble a video game - bloodless and "unreal". This is the path that the development of military science is currently taking. Alas! Humanity is losing sensitivity to someone else's and own pain.
And if in the reasoning of Gates about the White House backstage, one can see the intrigues of the "party tycoons" or the reduction of personal accounts with those who somehow did not please the old man, then his anti-war sentiments deserve close attention. When the fact that war is an optional means of US foreign policy, says the former Secretary of Defense, is an indication of a much bigger problem than disagreement among top US officials. The problem of responsibility for the preservation of peace, a direct indication that politicians too easily forget about the fragility of human existence.
This is a call for change.
Listen to these words of the former Minister of Defense of a powerful world power! He led two of the most serious wars in the Middle East at the same time, and he knows what he is talking about.
Cyril BenedictineIt seems that the true target of the memoirs of Robert Gates Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War is a bunch of US Vice President Joe Biden with the Jewish lobby of America and the hawks in Jerusalem, primarily Benjamin Netanyahu.
According to Bloomberg, Gates and Netanyahu met for the first time during the presidency of George Bush Sr., when Gates was Deputy National Security Advisor (Brent Scowcroft), and Netanyahu was Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel. In his memoirs, Gates recalls that the Israeli diplomat seemed so unpleasant to him that he tried to block his access to the White House.
Bloomberg author Goldberg quotes Gates:
“I was outraged by his talkativeness and criticism of American politics, not to mention arrogance and completely ridiculous ambitions. And I told Brent Scowcroft ... that Bibi should not be allowed into the White House. "
At the same time, Goldberg emphasizes in his article that Gates’s attitude to Netanyahu has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.
So, in Gates's memoirs, there is an impartial portrait of the current Israeli leader, who, as we know, is the main opponent of the Obama administration’s “strategic turn” in the direction of Iran.
Moreover, Gates, taking advantage of the retired memoirist, expresses views that appear to be shared, but cannot be officially announced by the current White House and State Department officials:
“I’m a great friend and supporter of Israel and I’m convinced that Jerusalem should reconsider its strategic doctrine, begin to strengthen relations with the countries of the region, taking into account the Arab spring, the growing influence of Islamists, and the birth rate of the Palestinians. With all these trends, I believe, time is now working against Israel. ”
The hawks in Israel, of course, do not agree with this position. Moreover, "do not agree" - this is mildly said. A recent attempt by US Secretary of State John Kerry during his next (10-th) visit to the Middle East to move towards resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has caused a real hysteria among Israeli hawks. Serious passions flared up around a speech by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, who said:
“Only one thing will save us: if John Kerry receives the Nobel Peace Prize and leaves us alone.” The American security plan presented to us is not worth the paper on which it is written ... US Secretary of State John Kerry, who comes to us, is purposeful and acts, guided by an obscure obsession (KB syndrome), considers himself a messiah. He cannot teach me anything in regard to the conflict with the Palestinians. ”
To the credit of Israeli politicians, almost all of them condemned Yaalon’s “arrogance”, which caused a sharp reaction in the United States. In addition to two - Aelet Shaked from the Jewish House national-religious party and ... Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Netanyahu was forced to respond to the words of his defense minister, but he did it as ambiguously as possible. Unlike other politicians, he did not blame Ya'alon, but confined himself to stating the fact that the United States remained the main partner of Israel. And added:
“We work together with Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Kerry to achieve peace and security in the region.”
The fact that Netanyahu put the first US Vice President Joe Biden is not by accident. Looks like Biden is the only high-ranking official in the White House that hawks in Jerusalem can deal with. The last meeting of Netanyahu and Biden, which took place after the funeral of Ariel Sharon, lasted four hours. According to Israeli media reports, Bibi tried to get guarantees from the US Vice President to maintain the sanctions regime against Iran, and Biden seemed to promise that the sanctions would be maintained. Naturally, the vice-president cannot pursue a policy that runs counter to his boss’s policy, and yet, under current conditions, Biden looks a much more “pro-Israel” politician than Kerry, Hagel ... and Obama himself.
But it is precisely against Biden that the main thrust of the memoirs of Robert Gates is turned. The most "killer" quote:
"He is an honest man ... But he was wrong in almost every issue concerning international politics or national security in the past four decades."
Barack Obama and Joe Biden recently photographed together during lunch at the White House. The BBC company assumes that this is not accidental: this photo can be “viewed as a carefully planned sign of support” that the head of state provides the vice-president.
But why does the vice president even need evidence of such support? Is it just because of Gates's memoirs? Or is everything much more serious, and between the president and the second person in the state there are really deep disagreements?
Of all Obama's associates, Biden is most closely associated with the Jewish lobby in Washington - just recall his famous speech to Jewish activists at the American Institute of Architecture in Washington. Perhaps it is because of these connections that he is viewed by Israeli hawks as "his own man in the White House." In this case, the publication of Gates's memoirs may be part of a thought-out operation to weaken the political influence of those figures who interfere with the implementation of the Obama administration's strategic plans for improving relations with Iran.
Information