I am not big on "good soldiers" in administrations. Those who have worked diligently to advance the Bush Doctrine (that's you Colin Powell) don't get my respect for their service to the president. They are public servants and they should be serving the country's best interest, not the president's will.
That said, I think that Gates is and will be a good SecDef, though he will be a lot better one under a decent president. Here's why.
I was initially very skeptical of Gates. After all, the Bushies have been enablers, allowing "that one" to run the country and our military into the ground. I have a personal stake in the military and the SecDef, since I have sons who are being redeployed next year, so this is far from a theoretical exercise for me.
What convinced me? Well, first, I have a close friend who is in the business and knows many of the major players. Very bright and well connected. He likes Gates and considered him an essential player in moving us forward into a more balanced approach, especially concerning the kinetic/non-kinetic balance, something that the shock and awe crowd just didn't get.
I remained unconvinced (but convincable) until I read a recent article by Gates in Foreign Affairs titled A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age. I now think that Gates is quite likely the right guy in the right place and should stay there for this time.
But over the long term, the United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory. Where possible, what the military calls kinetic operations should be subordinated to measures aimed at promoting better governance, economic programs that spur development, and efforts to address the grievances among the discontented, from whom the terrorists recruit. It will take the patient accumulation of quiet successes over a long time to discredit and defeat extremist movements and their ideologies.
This is the slow and measured response that the current administration had no patience for and that an Obama administration will take to. It is also the basis for a strategy, rather that a set of kinetic knee jerk actions. It is something that would have been called treason by some Republicans in the last election cycle - the white flag of defeat and crap like that.
Instead, it is what has slowly been taking root in the military. The non-flag/star officers have often spent one, two or three deployments in Iraq/Afghanistan. They are not worried about fighting China over Taiwan. They are worried about bringing their troops home and accomplishing their missions. They don't remember Vietnam personally and have no investment in grand tank battles in central Europe or aerial dogfights. Our military hasn't shot down an enemy jet in about a generation.
The military and civilian elements of the United States' national security apparatus have responded unevenly and have grown increasingly out of balance. The problem is not will; it is capacity.
This is why Powell and Rice will go down as some of the least successful SecStates in history. When we needed a balanced approach, we got nothing but compliance from State and triumphalism from Defense.
Yet even with a better-funded State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development, future military commanders will not be able to rid themselves of the tasks of maintaining security and stability. To truly achieve victory as Clausewitz defined it -- to attain a political objective -- the United States needs a military whose ability to kick down the door is matched by its ability to clean up the mess and even rebuild the house afterward.
This is a key. Without a firm hand, it will be all too easy to rebuild our old-style military, instead of building one that can successfully achieve our political aims. You do go to war with the military that you have purchased over the last decade. Thus we always had an aircraft carrier hovering off Iraq, but lacked the armor to protect soldiers. Some of those carriers returned home after six months on station without having dropped any bombs at all or fired a shot in anger. Meanwhile, soldiers were being electrocuted in showers, sickened by unsafe water and suffering traumatic injuries.
No SecDef should be advocating for State - not their job. But Gates looks like he realizes that Defense must work with State to accomplish our country's goals, that they are on the same side and not opponents.
I know that the Gate's reappointment has been chewed up rather thoroughly here, so my main contribution here is to bring his article to your attention. Enjoy.