Ah! A Refreshing Sound--The Voice of Realism, Robert Gates

For the last several years (and the past several months in particular) the Geek has flinched to the bombast of ideologues whether neo-con ninnies such as the Geek's favorite targets, Paul Wolfewitz, Doug Feith, Donald Rumsfield, and the ever gripless Dick Cheney or the Surrender, Now! crowd clustering like sheep around Senate Majority Leader Reid, Speaker of the House Pelosi, presidential wannebes Obama, Edwards, et al and John (The Mouth Without a Brain) Murtha. Oy veh! The cacophony of the mindless!

Comes now Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense and late of the brutally realistic world of intelligence. How the Commander Guy ever let a realpolitiker slip into the current administration will only become clear when (and if) the relevant documents are declassified.

In any event, thoughtful Americans should be pleased by Gates' presence in the administration. He is a man who has a firm grip on the realities of the world today--and the limits of US military power as shown in his recent speech at the College of William and Mary. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/defense_secretary_gatess_nonro.html

Long before Mr Gates took the helm at CIA, the Geek had heard the wry comment that when an intelligence officer smells flowers he looks for the coffin. Later, the Geek learned the same is true with historians.

It is not true to assert that intel folks and historians are pessimists. It is much more accurate to say that both occupations require submergence in the dreck of the human condition to such an extent that coffins are more expectable than flowers, rain more the order of the day than sunshine.

Both intelligence personnel and historians need disciplined imagination to connect the dots of ambiguous facts, factoids, anti-facts, and artifacts to create an accurate picture of complex events and personalities. What separates the two endeavors is the simple reality that the historian looks at the past and the intelligence officer must predict the future.

When disciplined imagination works, intelligence can accurately predict the future. This was the case time and time again in the fog covered swamp of Vietnam. CIA was so correct so often that the administration of Lyndon Johnson stopped reading the Agency's dreary, but accurate predictions concerning both the necessity and direction of the war. (Psst: The spooks said the war was unnecessary--and we were losing it.)

When disciplined imagination fails, or when its product is ignored, the results are rarely good for US interests. That has certainly been the case in Iraq and, to an only slightly lesser extent, Afghanistan.

This is why Mr Gates' presence in the administration gratifies the Geek. It is why Secretary Gates' words concerning Iran and the future of Iraq demand and deserve attention by all Americans.

The Secretary and the Geek are in tandem on several important matters. The first is that an attack upon Iranian facilities must be a measure of absolute last resort. On this critical policy decision, ideologues such as John Bolton, the former Ambassador to the UN and current globe trotting sage for the American Enterprise Institute, are as wrong as grilled watermelon.

For Mr Bolton's current line see the following story from Australia. It's a hoot says the Geek. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/19/2037418.htm

The Geek has little doubt that Secretary Gates would agree that the world could learn to live with a nuclear capable Iran. It wouldn't be comfortable, but as the Geek has argued in a previous post, life in a world where Iran joins the ranks of potential nuke slingers wouldn't be impossible.

War as the SecDef noted in his confirmation hearings is inherently unpredictable. Even every one's favorite German philosopher of matters military, Karl von Clausewitz, allowed, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."

Mr Gates would probably agree that while the US could wreak terrific havoc on the Iranian nuclear, military, governmental, and economic infrastructure, the problem of the day after would be well neigh unsolvable at any acceptable political, diplomatic, military, and economic cost. He might well counsel that war is like icy water--don't dive in, take it one toe at a time.

The Secretary is also refreshingly uncommitted to the absurd notion of exporting democracy to Iraq (or anywhere else) on the tip of an American bayonet. The Geek thought that was a well understood reality. Even the neo-con crew should have been aware that such attempts have been made before. They have failed.

President Woodrow Wilson tried to "teach those Mexicans to elect good men," by landing the Marines at Vera Cruz. The Mexicans ignored the old Princeton professor's lesson. After that splendidly ignored experience, we've tried in other places and other times. None have worked, at least after the US troops came home.

(Don't pull the Japan after World War II gambit on the Geek. That was a unique situation. It has not been repeated in Iraq. It would not be repeatable in Iran. Get a grip!)

What Iraq and the Iraqis need is stability. Stability over time. Our forces can provide stability in the short-term. But, they can and must leave. Thus, our bayonets cannot provide even the appearance of long-term order.

Only the Iraqis cannot do that. It may take the emergence of a strongman to assure that short term stability turns into long-term order. SecDef Gates is aware of that. He isn't disturbed by the knowledge.

The Geek agrees. Democracy works. But not for every country all the time. Iraq may need a strongman who can maintain stability, inculcate order, and provide a basis for the country's future development. We may not like authoritarian regimes. But, as long as they are neither overwhelmingly bloody at home or expansive abroad, we can share the planet with them.

Obnoxious regimes have been commonplace over recent generations. Few of them have merited military operations to force regime change. Even when some have, past administrations have touched a toe or two into the cold water of contemplated war--and backed out quickly.

There's an old cliche holding that a person should choose his enemies carefully. Like all cliches, it contains a large grain of truth. SecDef Gates is realist enough to recognise that it is even more important for a country to choose its wars very, very carefully.

He's got a grip.