Is Gates Taking On The Military Industrial Complex? Nah... Just Shuffling The Deck Chairs A Little

With the NY Times reporting that Secretary of State is planning to retire in 2011 and the Washington Post claiming they'll believe it when they see it, I'd like to suggest everyone take a look at the above CNN editorial by Fareed Zakaria this past Sunday. He referred to Gates' announcement of major Pentagon cutbacks as "intelligent, wise and brave." Gates vs the Military Industrial Complex? For President Vacillation? I'll go with the Times on this one. If Obama has shown us one thing in the four years or so he's been on the national political scene, it's that he doesn't have what it takes to fight bitter, deadly battles and that he just wants to please everyone, something he's about to discover isn't working... at all.

Do cutbacks in the Military Industrial Complex make sense? Yes. Are they essential? I'd say so. Will Obama stand firm when the going gets rough? NO.A.CHANCE! Or maybe I'm wrong; I have been before. And I hope I am this time. This weekend USAToday editorialized that the cuts Gates announced are "overdue and entirely welcome," but if you think the tight-wing partisans are making noise now (over the Islamic community center being built a few blocks from "hallowed ground zero"), just watch them get the vapors and turn this isn't a "Democrats are weak" campaign issue.

In an era when the government is so broke that it is-- in effect-- borrowing money from China so it can build weapons to confront China in the future, something has to give.

Gates to the rescue-- sort of. On one hand, the secretary has waged a relentless campaign to cut unnecessary spending. He has targeted weapons systems, successfully capping construction of the F-22 fighter jet, which was designed to battle Soviet-era fighters and has been left with no natural enemies.

Now Gates is after the bureaucracy. In a news conference Monday, he outlined nine ways he wants to cut, consolidate and eliminate jobs and institutions that have grown like weeds lately.

Significantly, he became the first Defense secretary in recent memory to eliminate one of the department's 10 major commands. The Joint Forces Command, based in Norfolk, Va., employs 2,800 government workers and 3,000 contractors to try to make the various branches of the armed services work, well, jointly. JFCOM has been on the chopping block for awhile on the grounds that its job could be handled more efficiently elsewhere in the vast Pentagon workforce. It might have gone on forever. Gates said no.

Gates also said that he will slice 10% a year for three years out of the estimated 790,000 civilian contractors who work for the Pentagon, and that he will attack "brass creep" by halving the number of new generals, flag officers and senior civilian officials who have been added to the Pentagon's payroll since the 9/11 attacks.

The secretary even wants to reduce the number of reports the Pentagon produces every year, and he took a shot at Congress for ordering up more than 700 of them, compared with the 37 demanded back in 1970, during the Vietnam War.

Good for Gates for attacking the unthinking excess that has turned the Pentagon into an immense and grossly inefficient consumer of tax dollars and borrowed money.

So far so good. But here's why Gates gets only partial credit for his war on bloat. Instead of turning the savings back to fight the out-of-control national debt, Gates intends to recycle it all inside the Pentagon to beef up fighting forces and produce future weapons. "This is not about cutting the defense budget, this is about a reallocation internally," he said. "The services get to keep the savings they identify and invest them in higher priority things."

Cutting overhead to sharpen the point of the spear makes sense in wartime. But Gates made it clear that's not what this is. "This isn't about finding money for the wars we're in today," he said. "We've got that money. It's about protecting the money for the future."

Hmm. The Obama administration has ordered a freeze on the nation's non-security spending, but exempted the Pentagon. Gates said "modest but steady growth" is the "minimum" the Pentagon needs to fight two wars and prepare for the future. But wars end. One is ending already, and savings are needed. There's no reason why the Pentagon can't live with a freeze, if not now then in the near future. Gates has shown the way.

Aside from fighting with Petraeus about the timetable for getting the hell out of the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, he "also faces a spate of major decisions in 2011. Several major military positions, including the top Army job and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are slated to get replacements. It's likely that Gates would want to play a role in advising Obama on who should fill those jobs instead of leaving it to a new replacement."