War

Bob Gates Is Tired of War

Gates marched in Washington to protest the U.S. invasion of Cambodia. Under the former defense secretary's hawkish exterior, the antiwar impulse has never gone away.

|

Robert Gates may be the only CIA director or defense secretary who ever took part in peace demonstrations during the Vietnam War. In his 1996 memoir—the one nobody noticed—he says that in 1970, as a young CIA employee and Air Force veteran, he marched in Washington to protest the U.S. invasion of Cambodia.

"I and virtually all of my friends and acquaintances in CIA were opposed to the war and to any prolonged strategy for extracting us," he recalls, with no evident regret.

Gates has been a durable pillar of the U.S. national security apparatus, serving under eight presidents. Heading the Pentagon under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, he had the task of bringing success out of stalemate in military engagements someone else started, and he did his best. But under his hawkish exterior, the antiwar impulse has never gone away.

If you're circulating a petition to invade this country or bomb that one, don't bother asking Gates. In his new book, "Duty," he has little good to say about most past or prospective decisions to initiate hostilities.

Despite his Republican credentials and service under Bush, he shows little enthusiasm for his crusading foreign policy. "I thought Bush's freedom agenda as publicly presented was too simplistic," he writes. The administration's goals in Afghanistan were "embarrassingly ambitious (and historically naive) when compared to the meager human and financial resources committed to the task."

Gates, who acknowledges supporting the 2003 Iraq invasion, harbors an abundance of second thoughts. Lamenting its "huge costs" in money and lives and the chaos it produced, he says it also "resulted in a significant strengthening of Tehran's position in the region—and in Iraq itself."

He argues that the Iraq war undermined our efforts in Afghanistan by diverting resources and attention. He concludes that it "will always be tainted by the harsh reality that the public premise for invasion—Iraqi possession of chemical and biological weapons as well as an active nuclear program—was wrong."

Gates was equally dubious when, under Obama, he heard calls for other wars. He lobbied against the 2011 intervention in Libya, believing its civil war "was not a vital national interest of the United States. I opposed the United States attacking a third Muslim country within a decade to bring about regime change. … I worried about how overstretched and tired our military was, and the possibility of a protracted conflict in Libya." He often asked his colleagues, "Can I just finish the two wars we're already in before you go looking for new ones?"

Even though the air campaign succeeded, he says of Libya, charitably, "Problems abound there." The best U.S. response to change in the Arab world, he believes, is to "stop pretending to ourselves that we can predict (or shape) the outcome."

Gates does not welcome the prospect of a nuclear Iran, but he sounds even less open to launching a preemptive attack. Second to his concern about the Iranian program was his determination to restrain the Israelis. If Israel were to bomb Iran, he writes, the result for the U.S. could be "a war possibly more widespread and terrible than those in Iraq and Afghanistan."

When Bush raised the option of a U.S. strike with his national security advisers, Gates argued it would "strengthen the most radical elements, unify the country behind the government in their hatred of us, and demonstrate to all Iranians the need to develop nuclear weapons."

The Iranian government, he said, "would retaliate, putting at risk Iraq, Lebanon, oil supplies from the (Persian) Gulf" and killing any Israeli-Palestinian peace process. He notes that Vice President Dick Cheney promptly "disagreed with everything I had said."

Gates reserves his highest regard for a president he didn't serve: Dwight Eisenhower, himself a former general. As president, he had to deal with the Soviets getting the hydrogen bomb, China building nuclear weapons, a communist victory over the French in Vietnam, an Arab-Israeli war, Castro's revolution in Cuba, and uprisings in Eastern Europe. But after he ended the Korean War in 1953, marvels Gates, "not one American soldier was killed in action during his presidency."

All he wants is for the U.S. to stay out of unnecessary wars of the sort American presidents are so prone to undertake. When the next war of choice begins, Gates won't be among those marching to protest. But his heart might just be with them.

Advertisement

NEXT: Sens. Rubio, Paul Among This Year's CPAC Headliners

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But under his hawkish exterior, writes Steve Chapman, the antiwar impulse has never gone away.

    This does not inspire either confidence or respect. Not in me, anyway. Makes me doubt the veracity of this alleged ‘anti-war impulse’.

    1. I hate computers, but I work in IT. If you only have so many salable skills… I think he just knew where is paycheck was coming from.

      1. He was the President of Texas A&M before he went back into government.

        He could have stayed there.

    2. I absolutely love this program, it’s actualy the most financially rewarding I’ve ever had. You can work where ever, when ever, and as much as you want. Make $100 in a day, pretty cool!! I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. Linked here http://www.Buzz95.com

  2. But under his hawkish exterior, writes Steve Chapman, the antiwar impulse has never gone away.

    Except for all the time he spent furthering the war aims of the US government. Fuck you, Bob, actions speak louder than words. We aren’t progressives; your words and “intentions” don’t mean fucking shit. Only your actions and results.

    1. Exactly. I don’t care what’s in his heart, let him repent in his church on Sunday. His actions resulted in the deaths of Americans. Fuck him in his face.

  3. I marched on the Pentagon in 1967. I was a Second LT in the USMC, wearing civilian clothes of course.

  4. Nice to hear somebody at least admit mistakes.

    I disagree with him that the Iraqi War “undermined our efforts in Afghanistan.” What it did was distract us. We didn’t notice they were building up heavier forces in Afghanistan in 2004 instead of doing the right thing – leaving.

  5. “All he wants is for the U.S. to stay out of unnecessary wars of the sort American presidents are so prone to undertake. When the next war of choice begins, Gates won’t be among those marching to protest. But his heart might just be with them.”

    Well, we’re faced with that now. The Menendez-Kirk bill increases sanctions on Iran at a time when negotiations are taking place to avoid that catastrophe. And its a bipartisan effort, with both Democrats and Republicans who support the bill. And as Ron Paul warned us, sanctions are an act of war to begin with, although the bullets have not started flying yet.

    But not much condemnation here at Reason for the bill, although we are always told how much they want the military budget cut, and how bad and costly foreign interventions are. But condemning a bill that pushes us that much closer to a war we can’t afford? Nary a word.

  6. One leetle problem. Islam is not tired of war.

    1. And in some places they never will be. It’s like us getting tired of football and baseball.

    2. And we should step back out of their way and let them kill each other.

      Regardless of which side wins, Shia or Sunni, they will not be our friend whether we helped them to victory or not.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.