Robert Gates

[AtomicCEO]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090528/us_time/08599190134200

 

Granted this is just a Time Magazine puff piece, but it's giving some pretty good reasons to like this Bush appointee. Seems like he's pissing off pork enthusiasts from both sides of the aisle. I like it.

 

A few weeks ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates trooped up to Capitol Hill to answer questions about the new Pentagon budget. This is an unseemly spectacle under the best of circumstances. Even reasonable members of Congress have been known to empretzel themselves shamelessly, attempting to defend weapons the Pentagon doesn't want or need, but which provide jobs for their constituents. Usually, they win, too. It is just too difficult for a Secretary of Defense to argue against shiny new weapons systems with subcontractors in 46 states, even if they are fantastically over budget and designed to counter a missile threat that the Soviets never perfected 30 years ago.

 

But this is a different year, and Gates is a different sort of Defense Secretary. He warned the legislators that each decision was "zero sum." Any money that went to things he didn't want would come out of programs necessary to support the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Gates has emerged as that most exotic of Washington species - the bureaucrat unbound, candid and fearless. He tells members of Congress what he really thinks about their pet programs. He upends Pentagon priorities, demotes the military-industrial hardware pipeline and promotes the immediate needs of the troops on the front line. He fires high-ranking subordinates without muss or controversy - an Air Force secretary and chief of staff who didn't agree with him on the need to end production of the F-22 aircraft; the commandant of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, who presided over disgraceful conditions; even a well-respected general like David McKiernan, a conventional-warfare specialist unsuited for the asymmetrical struggle in Afghanistan.

 

Just what we need, a grumpy old man unconcerned with being fired, and no longer interested in political advancement.

[Perchoutofwater]

Bill Gates knows his stuff.

[wiegie]

He fires high-ranking subordinates without muss or controversy - an Air Force secretary and chief of staff who didn't agree with him on the need to end production of the F-22 aircraft; the commandant of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, who presided over disgraceful conditions; even a well-respected general like David McKiernan, a conventional-warfare specialist unsuited for the asymmetrical struggle in Afghanistan.

OK, I don't mind firing people who deserve it, but I think he needs to be careful about firing people just because they disagree with him--I don't want the military run by a bunch of "yes men".

 

Other than that, sounds like he is doing a good job.

[cdrudge]

OK, I don't mind firing people who deserve it, but I think he needs to be careful about firing people just because they disagree with him--I don't want the military run by a bunch of "yes men".

I think the paragraph oversimplifies the firings.

 

Here is an editorial about the firings of the Air Force secretary and chief of staff. It sounds to me like it was more then just a disagreement on the number of planes to order. There were operational issues as well as philosophical differences.

 

The releiving of command the commander of Walter Reed was holding him accountible for the conditions at the center and treatment of soldiers. The commander is ultimately responsible for those personnel and facilities under his command.

 

General David McKiernan was in charge of the ground war in 2003 in Iraq and was in charge of NATO forces in Afghanistan for the past year. Neither conflict has exactly gone well or as planned.

 

All three of them were issues well beyond just not being yes men. For once I'm glad to see someone not being kept in charge just because, especially when they've demonstrated that what they are doing isn't working.

[Azazello1313]

I think the paragraph oversimplifies the firings.

 

Here is an editorial about the firings of the Air Force secretary and chief of staff. It sounds to me like it was more then just a disagreement on the number of planes to order. There were operational issues as well as philosophical differences.

 

The releiving of command the commander of Walter Reed was holding him accountible for the conditions at the center and treatment of soldiers. The commander is ultimately responsible for those personnel and facilities under his command.

 

General David McKiernan was in charge of the ground war in 2003 in Iraq and was in charge of NATO forces in Afghanistan for the past year. Neither conflict has exactly gone well or as planned.

 

All three of them were issues well beyond just not being yes men. For once I'm glad to see someone not being kept in charge just because, especially when they've demonstrated that what they are doing isn't working.

 

another tidbit I remembered reading a few weeks ago on mckiernan...

 

Every British officer I talk with asks what in the world happened with General McKiernan, and why was his relief performed so publicly. I do not know. And I do not personally know General McKiernan. I do know that these ears have never heard someone speak a foul word about him, and I talk with lots of interesting people. If he, McKiernan, was a bad general I would have heard about it.

 

However, General McKiernan did make some statements about additional troops to Afghanistan, and when he made those statements I remember thinking, "He's going to get fired." And so those statements were the first thing that came to my mind. McKiernan has been saying we need more troops than are already on the way. I do not have the training or experience to say how many troops we need in Afghanistan, but I know we could use a lot more than we have there now. Yet it did seem like General McKiernan was pushing the envelope. That doesn't make him a bad general in my eyes. His envelope-pushing speaks of professional courage and honesty, but also one can imagine that leadership might want to keep some opinions in-house.

 

I dunno. gates seems pretty damn competent to me. the one big thing obama's done so far that I am a big fan of was keeping him on board. but that doesn't make him immune from politics and stuff.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Azazello1313

[cdrudge]

Of the three firings listed, I don't think any of the individuals were necessary bad at the job, they just weren't performing great or the best at that position. None of them got to where they were at making chronic mistakes wherever they went during their careers. In the corporate world, there are CEOs who do a wonderful job of running an established company, but they don't have what it takes to revive a struggling company. There are also CEOs that can breath new life into a struggling company, but can't keep that company running straight once they get on more solid ground. There is no reason politics and the military are that much different in leadership then the private sector.

[polksalet]

For those unaware of have forgotten he used to post on Texags.com as "ranger64". I used to talk to him worse than any of the libs here. Of course we had no idea who the handle belonged to. blackhelicopter blackhelicopter