Gates wants action on ‘today’s wars’

By Demetri Sevastopulo

Published: December 5 2008 17:43 | Last updated: December 5 2008 17:43

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, wants the Pentagon to put more emphasis on preparing for counter-insurgency and stability operations rather than its traditional preoccupation with large wars and expensive weapons systems.

In an essay to be published in the Foreign Affairs journal, Mr Gates, who will remain as defence secretary in the Obama administration, said the Pentagon cannot afford to be “preoccupied” with preparing for conventional and strategic conflicts.

In a sign that he may pay more attention to acquisitions in the Obama administration than he has done under George W. Bush, Mr Gates warned that the Pentagon needed to focus more on the kinds of capabilities and equipment needed for the counter-insurgency operations and local conflicts facing the US today.

“Support for conventional modernisation programmes is deeply embedded in the defence department’s budget, in its bureaucracy, in the defence industry and in Congress,” wrote Mr Gates. “My fundamental concern is that there is not commensurate institutional support, including in the Pentagon, for the capabilities needed to win today’s wars and some of their likely successors.”

Mr Gates has been unusual, for a defence secretary, in arguing that Congress should give the state department more money to help boost US soft power round the world.

Critics of the imbalance between the defence budget and relatively paltry funding for the state department, often point out that the Pentagon has more people in military bands than the US has diplomats.

Mr Gates said in the article: “Where possible . . .kinetic operations should be subordinated to measures aimed at promoting better governance, economic programmes that spur development and efforts to address the grievances among the discontented, from whom the terrorists recruit”.

Mr Gates added that while the US was “unlikely to repeat another Iraq or Afghanistan . . . forced regime change followed by nation-building under fire”, it would face similar challenges and needed to place more emphasis on building the capabilities of partner governments and their military forces.

The US military has undergone a shift towards counter-insurgency since the September 11 attacks.

However, Mr Gates has sometimes expressed frustration at the insistence by some senior officers on procuring big-ticket weapons, particularly the air force’s preoccupation with F-22 fighter jets, justified on the basis of future conflicts.

While Mr Gates acknowledged that the US needed to ensure its military dominance over countries such as Russia and China, he said it was necessary to “keep some perspective”.

“As much as the US Navy has shrunk since the end of the cold war . . . its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined and 11 of those 13 navies are US allies or partners,” said Mr Gates.

Mr Gates added that while Moscow was building its armed forces, it was not aiming for the kind of world dominance the US and the USSR battled over during the cold war.

“Before the US begins rearming for another Cold War, it must remember that what is driving Russia is a desire to exorcise past humiliation and dominate its ‘near abroad’ – not an ideologically driven campaign to dominate the globe.”

He conceded that the constraints on the US meant its military would be “hard-pressed” to fight another major conventional ground war “on short notice”.

“But as I have asked before, where on earth would we do that?” he asked.

Mr Gates stressed that his own focus on improving counter-insurgency operations was not aimed at lessening the importance of preparing for conventional wars. He pointed out that the Pentagon and defence industrial complex already lobbied hard to ensure the Pentagon had convention capabilities, but said advocates of counter-insurgency operations had traditionally not had a strong supporter.

“Apart from the Special Forces community and some dissident colonels, however, for decades there has been no strong, deeply rooted constituency inside the Pentagon or elsewhere for institutionalizing the capabilities necessary to wage asymmetric or irregular conflict -- and to quickly meet the ever-changing needs of forces engaged in these conflicts.”


Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008