Your browser may have trouble rendering this page. See supported browsers for more information.

|<<>>|405 of 714 Show listMobile Mode

Robert Gates Confirmed as US Secretary of Defense

Published by marco on

This transcript of his confirmation hearing (New York Times) indicates that the transition from Rumsfeld to Gates is akin to the transition from a Republican Congress to a Democratic one: better, if not good yet. Despite the murky crimes lurking in Mr. Gates’ past vis-a-vis the Iran/Contra affair and his having been head of the CIA for some time, it’s hard not be heartened at hearing more honest—and reality-based—answers coming from a Secretary of Defense. Even though Rumsfeld made it easy for his successor to shine, Gates is crystal clear on some answers (and allows a clarity to shine through on others, where he answers more diplomatically, or opaquely).

Winning in Iraq?
“No, sir.”
Stay the course unacceptable?
“That is correct, sir.”
More troops?
“I’m very open to the possibility of and the necessity of an increase in the end strength of the Army.”

However, he did go on to note[1] that his first duty would be to ensure that the other 350,000 troops were properly deployed: if they are, then he would not decrease those deployments just to increase troop strength in Iraq. In other words, he wants a proper analysis to determine whether Iraq automatically overrides other security considerations.

Is China Scary?
When Senator Inhofe argued that “[China] increased their military procurement by over 1,000 percent”, Gates ignored the hyperbole and simply responded “I have not read the reports. I would be more than willing to do so.” This was a nice way of saying—without saying it—that the threat of China, which, as the Senator put it, “used lasers to blind our satellites”[2], is not on the radar as far as he’s concerned.
Biggest Enemy: Hussein or Bin Laden?
“Osama bin Laden.”
Attack Iran?
“I think that military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort; that any problems that we have with Iran, our first option should be diplomacy and working with our allies to try and deal with the problems that Iran is posing to us. … And therefore, I would counsel against military action, except as a last resort and if we felt that our vital interests were threatened.”

So that’s not a “no”. And he invokes—probably instinctively—the standby of protecting “vital interests” without naming a single one, leaving us to believe that he probably means oil, or more precisely, control of the middle east. It’s nice to see him consider diplomacy a first course of action, though it remains to be seen what he does when he realizes that, in the flowery language of his predecessor, “that dog won’t hunt”. Will he stick by this quaint idea of discussing problems before fighting about them—in which case he’ll be marginalized—or was he just talkin’ purty for the Senators?

Attack Syria?
“No, sir, I do not [support that].”
Does Iran Want to Nuke Israel?
“I don’t know that they would do that, Senator. I think that the risks for them obviously are enormously high. I think that they see value –”

At this point, Senator Graham interrupted him to throw out the dual canards[3] that Ahmadinejad is a rabid Holocaust denier and that he wants to “wipe Israel off the map”.

“I think that there are, in fact, higher powers in Iran than he, than the president. And I think that while they are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for a nuclear capability, I think that they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent. They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons – Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west, and us in the Persian Gulf –”

Senator Graham interrupted again to ask Gates if he could guarantee that Iran would not attack Israel, if they had a nuke. He couldn’t do that, in answer to which Graham leaned back, smiling smugly and snuggled himself deeper into his leather chair, stuffed with cash given him by AIPAC.

Reading through this testimony, one is struck by just how easy it is to look like a shining, untarnished genius when one is in the middle of a room full of senators.


[1] Called this because, even today, another report on his opinion is more that the Holocaust is exaggerated by the West. Considering the muscle thrown around by Israel and the lower level of Western History education in the region, it’s quite understandable that Arabs in the Middle East would be a bit skeptical about this bit of history—especially when they’re asked to puzzle out just what the hell it has to do with them. It’s not like Hitler was an Arab. The quote about wiping Israel off the map (Wikipedia) is a deliberately poor translation from the Arabic taken out of context: he was specifically speaking of removing the Israeli regime “from the pages of history”, which continues daily its genocide of the Palestinians.
[2] In an excruciatingly long-winded manner, which is why it’s not cited.
[3] I am not making this shit up … these Senators seem to think the world works like a James Bond movie. That’s not to mention that the US is the one who’s claimed all space for itself and recently announced that they’re going to colonize the moon. But it’s China, with its relatively puny little defense budget, that’s the danger here.