Redstate

...but I did, you know.

By AcademicElephant Posted in War — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

On Sunday, I noted that the highly-partisan National Security Archive, which is affiliated with George Washington University, had chosen Robert Gates as their most recent target for truth telling. Mr. Gates is of course President Bush's nominee to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, and he has up until now enjoyed quite a honeymoon with both congressional Democrats and the press. I wondered what sort of traction their sensational (not to mention timely) revelation of a declassified memo from 1984, in which Mr. Gates advocated aggressive military action against the Sandinistas, would gain. Left-leaning blogs have seized on the memo, and now refer to Mr. Gates as "exactly the same kind of war-mongering nutcase" as the current SECDEF. But that sort of fringe hyperbole is not likely to sway many senators who are eager to install Mr. Gates in the Pentagon. What of the mainstream media that has in the past diligently disseminated the documents selected for their delectation by the Archive? I noted that on Saturday, Julian Barnes of the Los Angeles Times had written critically about the memo, and interviewed Archive director Thomas Blanton, who, among other choice epithets, referred to Mr. Gates as a "mini-me Rumsfeld." Would there be more such "journalism" from major sources?

Read on...

The answer to that question appears to be "yes." Today, the UPI's senior Pentagon correspondent Pamela Hess took up this story with "Analysis: Old Gates memo raises questions." Ms. Hess begins with speculation over when Mr. Gates will be confirmed, but the meat of her story is the memo (she innocently describes the National Security Archive as "a project funded by George Washington University in Washington"). Ms. Hess anticipates that his confirmation may now "be rockier than anticipated" because such documents could, in an infelicitous turn of phrase, "pick the scabs off old wounds." She seems to find it ominous that Mr. Gates invoked the Monroe Doctrine not once but twice in this memo, for in her opinion, the Doctrine is a "rationalization for involvement -- or military interference -- in Latin American countries [sic] internal affairs." After all, what did stuffy old James Monroe know about defending US interests in our hemisphere? He and his Doctrine are relics of a different time, when America did not know her place. Any attempt to apply his policy to more recent crises could only be a sinister attempt at a power grab by the imperial United States.

In order to reach a full understanding of the ramifications of the memo, Ms. Hess interviewed the National Security Archive's senior analyst, Peter Kornbluh. Mr. Kornbluh, like Mr. Blanton, takes a dim view of Mr. Gates after reading the memo:

Kornbluh said one of the main tasks of the Senate Armed Services Committee during next week's hearings will be to find out whether Gates still believes in such a naked exercise of American power.

"The extraordinary issue about this memo is it was a secret memo in which very imperious views were candidly expressed about the attitude of some of key U.S. policy makers that 'might makes right,' that if we thought the threat was real we should take aggressive policy action," Kornbluh told UPI.

That attitude is reminiscent of the Bush administration's approach to Iraq in 2002 and 2003.

"Certainly when the full record of the lead up to war in Iraq is declassified I believe we'll find similar views being expressed," Kornblu [sic] said. "It was what George Bush might have called 'a candid assessment for the need for regime change.'"

Gates has had the benefit of 20 years experience to revise that approach, Kornbluh pointed out, but he sees similarities in tone between Gates and Rumsfeld.

"This is a different period, a different set of circumstances, and the type of attitude displayed in a memo toward Nicaragua would more be associated with the SecDef (secretary of defense) departing than the SecDef being named to replace him," he said.

Gates wrote in the memo: "Once you accept that ridding the continent of this regime is important to our national interest and must be our primary objective, the issue becomes a stark one. You either acknowledge that you must take all necessary measures (short of military invasion) to bring down that regime, or you admit you do not have the will do anything about the problem."

Although Gates' role in Iran-Contra has been exhaustively catalogued in hearings and federal investigations, Kornbluh believes this memo will reopen the matter for debate.

"It's kind of hard to imagine that a Senate committee concerned about the attitudes and ideologies that got us into the quagmire of Iraq could avoid exploring them, when (Gates) has expressed them so clearly in another context," he said.

And there you have it. Mr. Gates' memo is just like what was written in the debate leading up to the Iraq war (no matter that we haven't actually seen those still-classified documents yet; when Mr. Kornbluh chooses the ones he wants to appear in the press he's sure they'll confirm his theory). What's even worse, though, is that it's just like Rumsfeld. In fact, it's more like Mr. Rumsfeld than like the Mr. Gates that trusting Democrats have welcomed with open arms. But now the National Security Archive has educated them, how can responsible Senators let this slide and rubber-stamp such a man? Mr. Kornbluh even tosses in the Q-word for good measure. Is there any doubt that, had Mr. Gates' advice been heeded, Nicuragua would have been just like Mr. Rumsfeld's Iraq?

The Monroe Doctrine. The exercise of naked power. Iraq. Rumsfeld. Quagmire.

Pass the popcorn.

I can hardly blame Ms. Hess for her breathless excitement at the prospect of a bruising confirmation hearing for Mr. Gates. After all, Mr. Rumsfeld has rather spoiled the fun of the Pentagon press corps in recent days. He used to be such excellent fodder, and he's disappointingly given them nothing--nada, zip, not one scrap--with which to work since the announcement of his resignation. Doesn't he realize that Ms. Hess and her colleagues have deadlines to meet and word counts to fill? Can't he pout or sulk or struggle to stay in office? Has the man no sympathy at all?

Apparently not, but fortunately for Ms. Hess, the National Security Archive has thrown her a bone. If her article is an indicator, increasing press attention to this story in a slow news week, particularly in The New York Times and The Washington Post, may well help realize her wish for a contentious hearing. And I must say it is amusing to think of all the senate staffers racing off to Wiki to look up "Monroe Doctrine" as they draft their bosses' questions for Mr. Gates. Furthermore, I'm not sure that putting this memo out there is so terrible after all, although I expect my opinion of it differs from those of Mr. Blanton and Mr. Kornbluh. You see, I'm a fan of the Monroe Doctrine, and the sort of aggressive defense of America's interests that Mr. Gates advocated in 1984 is the first thing I've read that suggests Mr. Bush may have picked a worthy successor for Mr. Rumsfeld. I for one would like to hear more of his thoughts on this topic, so bring on those questions, Senators. Here, let me help you out...