Posted on 10/08/2007 11:20:57 AM PDT by rubeng
The man who stands between US and new war
Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, has taken charge of the forces in the American government opposed to a US military attack on Iran, writes Tim Shipman.
Pentagon and State Department officials say Mr Gates has set himself up as chief rival to Dick Cheney in a bid to thwart the vice?president's desire to bomb the Islamic state.
Those familiar with internal battles in the Bush administration say Mr Gates has eclipsed Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, as the chief opponent of air strikes and is the main reason President George W.Bush has yet to resort to military action.
Pentagon sources say Mr Gates is waging a subtle campaign to undermine the Cheney camp by encouraging the army's senior officers to speak frankly about the overstretch of forces, and the difficulty of fighting another war.
Bruce Reidel, a former CIA Middle East officer, said: "Cheney's people know they can beat Condi. They have been doing it for six years. Bob Gates is a different kettle of fish. He doesn't owe the President anything. He is urging his officers to be completely honest, knowing what that means."
Officials say Mr Gates's strategy bore fruit when Admiral William Fallon, the head of US Central Command, charged with devising war plans for Iran, said last month that the "constant drumbeat of war" was not helpful.
He was followed by General George Casey, the army's new chief of staff, who requested an audience with the House of Representatives armed services committee to warn that his branch of the military had been stretched so thin by the Iraq war that it was not prepared for yet another conflict.
Gen Casey told Congress the army was "out of balance" and added: "The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight, and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."
Mr Gates has forged an alliance with Mike McConnell, the national director of intelligence, and Michael Hayden, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, to ensure that Mr Cheney's office is not the dominant conduit of information and planning on Iran to Mr Bush.
Insiders say Mr Gates has ensured that Mr Bush has seen more extensive studies of the probable negative effects of an attack on Iran than he was privy to before the war in Iraq.
One CIA insider said: "Bush understands that any increase in real military hostilities in Iran right now could have a negative effect. Bob Gates is the only one opposed to it. He's the single person in the US government who has any standing with the White House fighting it."
So Gates is encouraging mutiny in the ranks.
“Officials say Mr Gates’s strategy bore fruit when Admiral William Fallon, the head of US Central Command, charged with devising war plans for Iran, said last month that the “constant drumbeat of war” was not helpful.”
The same Admiral Fallon that tried to get Bush to NOT adopt the surge strategy offered by General Patraeus. With allies like that, it’s not saying much good about Gates.
Many military leaders worry more about the problems that may come from action than the problems that may accrue from inaction; too willing to hope for the best than to confront the worst head on. They lose wars.
Imagine the situation in Iraq 16 years ago, with Saddam on the ropes, Saddam not expecting a full scale invasion of Iraq, the Shia in open rebellion, tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers in the desert asking to be allowed to surrender, and the Iranian mullahs not have 15 more years of time for subversion in Iraq?
And who are Gates “foreign policy” friends - the “realists” Baker and Scowcroft.
And which situation in Iraq presented the most problems and the least hope - the one we were left with in 2003 by the Baker-Scowcroft realists that sought to avoid tackling the problems of there time in 1991 head on.
So, why should we not see what history tells us. Baker-Scowcroft-Gates seek to avoid the hard choices of their time, and leave conditions we pay for dearly later on. Unfortunately, later on, Iran WILL be better armed than was Saddam, and no one doubts that.
I bet Gates and Cheney saw this and laughed so hard they choked on their orange juice over it.
Cheney doesn’t mind being casted as the “bad cop”. The liberal news media just go bonkers over VP Cheney’s name.
How many troops does it take to bomb them up into the stone age? ;0)
You misread history.
Generals/Admirals should be retired after age 55, as their testosterone level is in severe decline and they lose the will to take action.
In later years they’d rather talk than act.
George S. Patton turned 56 Nov. 11, 1941.
WHY is Adm Fallon still in CHARGE??/ Bush should have replaced him!
“You misread history.”
I did not “misread” the history of American Middle East policies engineered by Baker-Scowcroft, the history of the failures of those policies, the history of the conditions they produced - “stability” of the regime of Saddam Husseein and US.OK to Syria to move into Lebanon.
Neither did I “misread” the history of Gates friendship with Baker and Scowcroft.
Nor did I misread the history of Admiral Fallon trying to prevent the Petraeus “surge” from becoming American policy.
Cheney-Bolton 2008.
“WHY is Adm Fallon still in CHARGE??/ Bush should have replaced him!”
I suspect one needs to ask Sec Defense Gates.
My Bullsh!t-o-meter is pegging. Written by somebody who hasn't got a third-grade-education on how the US system of government works.
Gates is in battle with Cheney over war policy? Who's Bush, chopped liver?
While I am reluctant to give the substance of the article much credence, it seems to pretty clearly state that Cheney and Gates are the two point men for different strategies, each trying to convince the President to adopt their approach to Iran.
Which is how the US system of government works.
Bruce Reidel
Reidel has followed al-Qaida since American intelligence first became aware of the group in the mid-1990s. His experience in counterrorism began with his first assignment at the Central Intelligence Agency in 1977, when he worked against Fatah founder Abu Nidal. In the 1990s, he was named national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia before moving to the Pentagon to become assistant secretary of defense for the same region.
He eventually was brought to the White House during President Clinton’s second term as a special assistant to the president on that region, and held that job through the first 12 months of the Bush administration
Yes, I hear you, but I get no feeling the writer grasps the distinction...I bet he thinks impeachment is just a vote of no-confidence.
I know - there are always exceptions.
There’s no Gen Patton around now...... And, look what “they” did to him way back then!
You’re leaving Cheney out of that triad. Cheney also has a long working history with those 3, particularly with Gates.
manure
No flames, you are correct. I'm a Vietnam ERA vet, and I saw it too.
Although, I think you're wrong regarding will (or provocation). We have technically been at war with Persia since 1230 hrs Zulu, 4 November 1979. The mullahs have been killing us since then.
Time to serve a cold dish of revenge, and the Iranian nuclear genie will give the current admin the cojones. It is long past time to open a giant size can of whoop a$$ on Persia.
5.56mm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.