Undiplomatic Banner
7th April 2009 Charles J. Brown
01:07 pm

In Praise of Robert Gates’s Testicular Fortitude


Obama has a number of enormous challenges facing him:  fixing the economy; reestablishing American credibility abroad; closing Guantanamo and ending unlawful interrogation (which goes beyond just torture, by the way); health care; climate change; changing direction on energy consumption.  You get the picture.  It’s a huge number of big honkin’ problems that aren’t going anywhere.

And yet none of them — not even the economy — are as fraught with danger as the Administration’s (meaning Bob Gates’s) attempt to rewrite the rules on defense budgeting and procurement.  And with the exception of the economy, none could have a big a long-term benefit to the health, safety, and prosperity of the United States.  It takes cojones to take on these guys, and Gates (and Obama) deserve huge props for even trying, especially in the middle of so many other challenges and crises.

But the military-industrial complex and their friends in Congress aren’t going to make it easy.  In fact, they’re going to make it near impossible.

Some advice to my friends in the peace community: you should support Gates’s reforms with everything you have.  It may not be disarmament, it may not end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it will do a hell of a lot more to change the culture in this country than your utterly useless efforts to create a Department of Peace.  Gates is going to need every ally he can find.

Here’s hoping that the good guys win.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Related posts

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 7th, 2009 at 1:07 pm and is filed under American foreign policy, war & rumors of war. It is tagged under , , , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 3 responses to “In Praise of Robert Gates’s Testicular Fortitude”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, so come on... let us know what you think.

  1. 1 On April 8th, 2009, Ted N. said:

    Thanks for posting this note in support of Secretary Gates’ new appropriations poilicy. The peace community has been listening to his relatively encouraging tone since he took office. He has made several pleas for the increased use of “soft power” in dealing with America’s international conflicts, something I’m sure caused more than a little heartburn in the violence-industrial conplex. However, I don’t think it’s a question of either/or. We can both praise Secretary Gates for his leadership and continue to push for a cabinet-level Department of Peace, with a Secretary of Peace that can work with Mr. Gates and move toward a more reasoned, comprehensive foreign policy.

  2. 2 On April 9th, 2009, Charles J. Brown said:

    Ted,

    Thanks for your feedback and for reading the blog. I still think the Department of Peace is a bad idea for two reasons. First, and this will always be the case, it has an Orwellian ring to it. In 1984, the Department of War is called the Department of Peace. That’s an unfortunate (and unfair) association, but it’s also a reality.

    Second, we already have a Department of Peace, and it’s already too weak as it is: the State Department. Rather than devote the time (and considerable funds) necessary to establish a separate department that would only further weaken the USG’s already inadequate foreign policy mechanisms, let’s give the Department of State the resources and personnel to do its job (which includes serving as an effective counterweight to DOD).

  3. 3 On April 13th, 2009, John P. said:

    Mr. Brown,

    This is quite the blog you have here. My congratulations. It looks like a lot of hard work went into it.

    First, let me ask if you knew that The Peace Alliance educates citizens and gets them involved in the civic process? I would hardly call that work useless.

    Second, your two points contradict each other. You say the DOP is a bad idea and then you say that we already have a DOP (the Dept. of State) and should better fund it. So, what exactly are you arguing for?

    Also, invoking Orwell is both unfortunate and unfair, but not a reality. The reality is that the United States Department of War was renamed the Department of Defense. That is accurate history.

    Let me also point out the United States Homestead Act, the GI Bill, and the free, public education for all US citizens. These programs served to liberate and empower citizens. A DOP would work to do the same, to liberate citizens from the structure and cycles of violence within this country. Successful peace-building requires not only a systematic, multidisciplinary approach; but also an emphasis on free will and liberty (one cannot FORCE a person to be peaceful) and a federal department that can coordinate this effort.

    Finally, the legislation requires that 85% of all Department of Peace resources be spent within the United States. Successful peace-building starts at home.

    We are friends, Mr. Brown. We are compatriots. If there is to be real change in this country, we need vision and we need to stop calling each other useless. I do not find you useless. I find you to be an active citizen. I congratulate you on your efforts to be a citizen our founding fathers would be proud of. Please know, that the peace community is trying to do the same.

Leave a Reply

CAPTCHA image