FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

SASC-ing Robert Gates

by WINSLOW T. WHEELER

Robert Gates will start the constitutionally required Senate confirmation process to become secretary of defense at the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) on Dec. 5. However, what that committee calls an inquiry into his fitness for office will, instead, be an exercise in political posturing — mostly, but not entirely, by the senators. Tune into the C-SPAN broadcast of this important public event to see the following:

Form over Substance

The Senate is steeped in tradition and ceremony, and no senator is a bigger devotee than the current — outgoing — chairman, John Warner, R-Va. He will start the hearing with a long “opening statement.” It will include a concerned but not graphic description of the unfolding disaster in Iraq, the need for a new strategy there, and a few polite words — but not too many — about Donald Rumsfeld. In view of the results of the November elections, he will end with a gentlemanly signing off as chairman of what he will describe as an “august” committee, and he will figuratively — but not yet literally — hand over the gavel to the oncoming chairman, Carl Levin, D-Mich.

When it’s his turn to talk, Levin will be more business-like, but he will convey as little new or important information as did Warner, only an alternate discourse through the obvious issues.

We will then be subjected to an agonizingly long series of “opening statements” from each and every other senator. Most will strive prodigiously to make some sort of news that earns a few seconds of coverage in the evening’s TV news. Very probably, one winner will be Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., calling for more troops to go to Iraq with some sharp rhetoric. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will make news, or not, depending on her political calculation of whether or not she wants attention in connection with Gates’ nomination hearing. The rest will do their very best at being important; the TV newscast producers will separate the winners from the losers.

All these opening statements will take about an hour or two. Then it will be Gates’ turn for his statement. Assuming he follows the advice given to all presidential nominees appearing before the Senate for confirmation, he will say absolutely nothing but he will appear very authoritative in doing so.

Then, the “questioning” will begin. Chairman Warner will be first. He will give what amounts to yet another opening statement. At the end of it he will pose a question, but it will be utterly predictable. The big issue is, of course, Iraq; he will ask something like “Will there be a new strategy?” (Note: he will not ask what the new strategy will be.) Having been told exactly what the question will be several days earlier, Gates will “answer” it: Everything is under consideration; he has spoken at length with the president; the goal is “victory,” but, no, he can’t talk to specifics (or to criteria, methods, parameters, conditions, factors, particulars, or prerequisites).

Senator Levin will ask questions next. He will very probably try to get Gates to say what he had just said he wouldn’t say: what the new Iraq strategy might be, or what descriptors might apply to it. He’ll explain to Levin that he and the president want to hear from the Iraq Study Group (the Baker-Hamilton Commission) first. Of course, if Gates and Bush don’t know exactly what Baker-Hamilton will say — and what their own response is — we are all in for new depths of incompetence.

We will then run through the other twenty-two members of the committee, each being given seven to ten minutes. We will observe the following:

More Speeches

Having already explained themselves with their “opening statements,” the members will re-profess what they think is the most important national security issue in yet another speech. It will invariably take up virtually all of the senator’s allotted time. In some cases it will end in a question. In others, it will end with a request that Gates simply respond. The subject matter will vary from more on Iraq — such as another attempt to get Gates to say what he said he wouldn’t say — to why some defense program or facility in some senator’s state should be preserved for time immemorial.

In all cases, Gates will say that what the senator said was important, but, no, he will not provide any specifics. The line will be that any particulars would “prejudice” his work as secretary of defense, but exactly how a discussion of the pros and cons of expanding U.S. occupation forces in Iraq, building more F-22 fighters or C-130 transports in Georgia (Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., will ask about those), or basing a new aircraft carrier in Florida to replace the USS Kennedy might force Gates to go in one ill-advised direction or another is quite unclear. However, no senator will show the skill or determination to extract a real answer.

An Actual Question?

Somewhere along the line, some senator will ask an actual question without a five-paragraph preamble. It will, however, be read off, or summarized from, a staff memo. It may be a legalism about Gates’ involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s, what parts of the United States can North Korea’s newest missile reach (if it were ever to work), or how many F-22’s would be needed to “win” against China (Saxby Chambliss again). In all cases, two things are sure to happen, or rather not: Gates will not provide a concrete answer, and the questioner will respond not with a follow-up question, but a new one — almost certainly entirely unrelated — that is again read off or summarized from a staff memo.

It will be on the basis of this Kabuki dance that the Senate Armed Services Committee will endorse Robert Gates to be secretary of defense and that the full Senate will follow its advice.

I hope I am wrong, especially regarding the Democrats. We already know from 12 years of experience from Republican control on this committee that one of Congress’s most important duties — oversight — has been deeply interred. It would be a welcome and important new development if the Democrats have awoken from their slumber, have disinterred a few investigative skills, and choose to ask real questions and extract meaningful answers.

WINSLOW T. WHEELER is the Director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information and author of The Wastrels of Defense. Over 31 years, he worked for US Senators from both political parties and the Government Accountability Office on national security issues. He can be contacted at: winslowwheeler@comcast.net.

 

 

 

Winslow T. Wheeler is the Director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight.  He spent 31 years working for the Government Accountability Office and both Republican and Democratic Senators on national security issues.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 22, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
Joseph E. Lowndes
From Silent Majority to White-Hot Rage: Observations from Cleveland
Paul Street
Political Correctness: Handle with Care
Richard Moser
Actions Express Priorities: 40 Years of Failed Lesser Evil Voting
Eric Draitser
Hillary and Tim Kaine: a Match Made on Wall Street
Conn Hallinan
The Big Boom: Nukes And NATO
Ron Jacobs
Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class
Jill Stein
After US Airstrikes Kill 73 in Syria, It’s Time to End Military Assaults that Breed Terrorism
Jack Rasmus
Trump, Trade and Working Class Discontent
John Feffer
Could a Military Coup Happen Here?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Late Night, Wine-Soaked Thoughts on Trump’s Jeremiad
Andrew Levine
Vice Presidents: What Are They Good For?
Michael Lukas
Law, Order, and the Disciplining of Black Bodies at the Republican National Convention
Victor Grossman
Horror News, This Time From Munich
Margaret Kimberley
Gavin Long’s Last Words
Mark Weisbrot
Confidence and the Degradation of Brazil
Brian Cloughley
Boris Johnson: Britain’s Lying Buffoon
Lawrence Reichard
A Global Crossroad
Kevin Schwartz
Beyond 28 Pages: Saudi Arabia and the West
Charles Pierson
The Courage of Kalyn Chapman James
Michael Brenner
Terrorism Redux
Bruce Lerro
Being Inconvenienced While Minding My Own Business: Liberals and the Social Contract Theory of Violence
Mark Dunbar
The Politics of Jeremy Corbyn
David Swanson
Top 10 Reasons Why It’s Just Fine for U.S. to Blow Up Children
Binoy Kampmark
Laura Ingraham and Trumpism
Uri Avnery
The Great Rift
Nicholas Buccola
What’s the Matter with What Ted Said?
Aidan O'Brien
Thank Allah for Western Democracy, Despondency and Defeat
Joseph Natoli
The Politics of Crazy and Stupid
Sher Ali Khan
Empirocracy
Nauman Sadiq
A House Divided: Turkey’s Failed Coup Plot
Franklin Lamb
A Roadmap for Lebanon to Grant Civil Rights for Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
Colin Todhunter
Power and the Bomb: Conducting International Relations with the Threat of Mass Murder
Michael Barker
UK Labour’s Rightwing Select Corporate Lobbyist to Oppose Jeremy Corbyn
Graham Peebles
Brexit, Trump and Lots of Anger
Anhvinh Doanvo
Civilian Deaths, Iraq, Syria, ISIS and Drones
Christopher Brauchli
Kansas and the Phantom Voters
Peter Lee
Gavin Long’s Manifesto and the Politics of “Terrorism”
Missy Comley Beattie
An Alarmingly Ignorant Fuck
Robert Koehler
Volatile America
Adam Vogal
Why Black Lives Matter To Me
Raouf Halaby
It Is Not Plagiarism, Y’all
Rev. Jeff Hood
Deliver Us From Babel
Frances Madeson
Juvenile Life Without Parole, Captured in ‘Natural Life’
Charles R. Larson
Review: Han Kang’s “The Vegetarian”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail