The San Diego Union-Tribune - We are currently unavailable in your region
The Meet the Press Podcast. By Chuck Todd, Meet the Press .. Bob Gates talks Vladimir Putin, Spies in America, and College Sports, In a special. A 'deep state' wouldn't last very long in Washington DC, former Sect. of Defense Robert Gates said on Meet the Press on Sunday. I mean, the. JANUARY 27, – Former Defense Sec. Robert Gates exclusively told “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd that “people are assuming.
George refused to cooperate with Independent Counsel and was indicted on September 19, George subpoenaed Gates to testify as a defense witness at George's first trial in the summer ofbut Gates was never called. The evidence developed by Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment Gates served as a member of the Board of Visitors of the University of Oklahoma International Programs Center and a trustee of the endowment fund for the College of William and Mary, his alma materwhich in conferred upon him honorary degree of Doctor of Humane Letters.
Gates has also written numerous articles on government and foreign policy and has been a frequent contributor to the op-ed page of The New York Times. As the university president, Gates made progress in four key areas of the university's "Vision " plan, a plan to become one of the top 10 public universities by the year The four key areas include improving student diversity, increasing the size of the faculty, building new academic facilities, and enriching the undergraduate and graduate education experience.
He returned on April 21,as the speaker for the annual Aggie Muster ceremony. Eisenhower spoke in Among the task force's primary recommendation was to directly engage Iran on a diplomatic level regarding Iranian nuclear technology. Key points included a negotiated position that would allow Iran to develop its nuclear program in exchange for a commitment from Iran to use the program only for peaceful means. Bush to the position of Secretary of Defense, Gates was also a member of the Iraq Study Groupalso called the Baker Commission, which was expected to issue its report in Novemberfollowing the mid-term election on November 7.
He was replaced by former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger. Gates, however, took the weekend to consider what his final decision should be, and ultimately decided that he was unwilling to return to Washington, D. On November 8,after the midterm electionPresident George W. Bush announced his intent to nominate Gates to succeed the resigning Donald Rumsfeld as U. During his confirmation hearing on December 5,Gates replied to a question that, in his opinion, the United States was neither winning nor losing the war in Iraq.
Under the Bush administration, Gates directed the war in Iraq's troop surgea marked change in tactics from his predecessor.
Robert Gates - Wikipedia
With violence on the decline in Iraq, inGates also began the troop withdrawal of Iraq, a policy continued into the Obama administration. However, I have decided that at this moment in our history, the nation, our men and women in uniform, and General Pace himself would not be well-served by a divisive ordeal in selecting the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
On December 1,President-elect Obama announced that Robert Gates would remain in his position as Secretary of Defense during his administration,  reportedly for at least the first year of Obama's presidency. One of the first priorities under President Barack Obama's administration for Gates was a review of U. The Washington Post called it "a rare decision to remove a wartime commander".
The Washington Post described the replacement as one of several replacements of Generals who represented the "traditional Army" with Generals "who have pressed for the use of counter-insurgency tactics". Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have "forged a formidable partnership", speaking frequently, "comparing notes before they go to the White House", meeting with each other weekly and having lunch once a month at either the Pentagon or the State Department.
Robert Gates: Mueller a 'Man of Extraordinary Integrity and Character' | az-links.info
Since the repeal inhomosexuals are able to serve in the military openly. Gates called the guideline changes, which went into effect immediately, a matter of "common sense and common decency" that would be "an important improvement" allowing the Pentagon to apply current law in "a fairer and more appropriate" manner.
The Pentagon's legal counsel, Jeh Johnson, said the new regulations are by no means a moratorium on the current law and stressed that cases would move forward under the new standards.
In Augustspeaking to Foreign Policy magazine Secretary Gates said that he would remain as Secretary of Defense until and then retire.
In AprilGates proposed a large shift in budget priorities in the U. Department of Defense budget. The budget cuts included many programs geared toward conventional warfare, such as the end of new orders of the F Raptorand further development of Future Combat Systems manned vehicles.
However, these cuts were counterbalanced by increases in funding for programs like the special forces. Military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny. The gusher has been turned off, and will stay off for a good period of time. Secretary Gates said that "It is important that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, where tough economic times or the winding down of a military campaign leads to steep and unwise reductions in defense,".
Gates said "As a matter of principle and political reality, the Department of Defense cannot expect America's elected representatives to approve budget increases each year unless we are doing a good job, indeed everything possible, to make every dollar count". NATO comments[ edit ] On January 16,Gates was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying NATO forces in southern Afghanistan do not know how to properly combat a guerrilla insurgency and that could be contributing to rising violence in the country.
Between members who specialize in "soft" humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and talking tasks, and those conducting the "hard" combat missions. Between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership—be they security guarantees or headquarters billets—but don't want to share the risks and the costs.
This is no longer a hypothetical worry. But they ended up having to give that up, or they gave that up in the negotiation. When you have a -- a program as expansive as the North's, you have to have "any time, any place" inspections. You have to have a huge number of inspectors that can go around the country and can observe destruction of facilities, who can monitor that they stay destroyed, that they aren't being rebuilt someplace else, in secret.
So -- so the magnitude of the -- of the monitoring and the verification of any agreement would be, I think, an order of magnitude more complicated and bigger than is the case and has been the case in Iran.
What do you put the odds of success at? Well, I think if you can change -- I put the odds of immediate success as very low. But the odds of a -- of a -- of getting something accomplished over a longer period of time, and a kind of step-by-step approach, beginning with what the president has already gotten in terms of their willingness to talk and the cessation of the testing and so on.
But, look, just very briefly. Kim looks at the world and he sees that Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program, he's dead, his regime is gone. Saddam never had nuclear weapons. His regime is gone.
Ukraine in gave up two thousand nuclear weapons in exchange for a guarantee by Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom of its territorial integrity and it's lost half its country. Kim looks at this and says, 'Why would I give up my nuclear weapons? And yet you hear, from John Bolton on "Face the Nation" just a few weeks ago, he said that Libya model is what they're looking at. What does that say to you? I mean, does that signal that the diplomacy isn't serious?
Or is he being literal -- SECY. I think they have to give up the whole program. And I mean, kind of just doing it part way, or kicking the can down the road five or ten years, isn't good enough. And particularly if -- if the end game involves some change in our military deployments in South Korea, some change in the way -- in our relationships with South Korea and Japan, or our naval operations out there. Any of those kinds of things. If we're going to do any of that, we have to have really total assurance that the North Koreans aren't playing "hide the ball" with us.
What is the immediate impact of exiting the Iran nuclear deal? Well I think in the short term it -- it isolates the United States. I think it was a flawed agreement.
We were supposed to get "any time, any place" inspections, and to have an inspections regime where the Iranians can say, "You can't look at any of our military facilities" -- where -- where would you most logically put a nuclear program except on a military facility? So I think that and the -- and the limited duration of the agreement are the two big flaws.
Now, there are two other flaws. Another flaw that's actually not part of the agreement, in my view, and that is what to do about the ballistic missiles. I negotiated, I was part of the negotiating teams that did strategic nuclear weapons negotiations with the Soviets for 25 years. We never negotiated anything outside the nuclear programs.
Robert Gates: 'Deep State' Cannot Last Because All of DC 'Leaks'
But there was an acknowledgement that the competition would go on in all of those other areas, in the third world, and everywhere else. And, so what, where the failure was in my view -- people forget that right after the agreement was signed, the U. Security Council passed a resolution unanimously, with Russian and Chinese support, telling the Iranians that they couldn't develop ballistic missiles for eight years. And then the Security Council, including the United States, essentially ignored that.
And so when the Iranians began to test their missiles, nobody did anything. And instead of saying, "Okay, if you want to do that" -- and the Iranians said, "We don't -- we're not subject to that resolution. Why do you think that was?
The hesitation to enforce? I think they were afraid -- I think the administration was afraid that the Iranians would kick over the nuclear agreement itself. And they were so worried about preserving the nuclear agreement, they ignored not only Iran's ballistic missile testing program, but other Iranian activities in the region.
And -- and I think those are the issues that people have complained about, where the -- where the agreement fell short. It hasn't stopped Iranian meddling in the Middle East.
It wasn't meant to, as you say. I think that, you know, this is just my opinion, but I think the reason that President Obama agreed to a time-limited agreement was his belief that, with the additional financial resources, that Iran would invest in its people and in opening up its economy.
And that in 10 years, Iran would be a different kind of country.
1947: The Meet the Press Podcast
That's a huge bet. And we kind of made that bet on China, that if you had a middle class of hundreds and hundreds of millions of people, that the political system eventually would open up. That has not happened.
And I think it's a very highly risky bet, with respect to Iran as well. But do you think President Trump, breaking a U. I am -- my own view, would have been, it would have been better to stay in the agreement at least for another six months, and essentially lay down an ultimatum to our allies.
And say either you join us in very heavy penalties against the Iranians for the ballistic missile programs. And, you join us in resisting Iranian meddling in the Middle East and trying to build this Shia arc from Tehran, through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon, that is positioning against Israel.
Either you help us with those things, or in fact I will walk away from this agreement. I think -- I think we could have pushed the Europeans a lot harder, to work with us.
And then in six months, basically if they hadn't done that, then you would be in a much stronger position. But as it is now, at least for the time being, we're the country that's isolated. Since the president exited the Iran nuclear deal, you have seen an acceleration in the sniping at each other between Iran and Israel, within Syria.
Do you think they're directly related? I think -- no. I think that the Iranians are building a position in Syria, to complement their relationship with Hezbollah, that basically surrounds Israel in the north and puts Iran in a position directly on Israel's borders, in effect, operating from Syria.
And, Prime Minister Netanyahu has made clear, for a long time, that they will not allow -- Israel will not allow Iran to establish a military presence, a permanent military presence in Syria. So, I see this more as this playing out of the relationship, an adversarial relationship between Israel and Iran, really independent of the -- of the nuclear deal. But do you see us escalating that?
I mean, are we headed towards a regional war? Are we in one already? I think there's a very real risk of that escalating. The -- the Israelis have drawn some very tough red lines. When the Israelis draw a tough red line, they tend to enforce it. And -- and the Iranians I think see an opportunity to strike directly at Israel, without making Tehran the target.
And it would not surprise me at all to see this escalate. And all of this is playing out in Syrian territory, right now. You, in the past, had called for more U. The president now says he wants to draw down U. What would be the implication of that? Well my -- when I was calling for U. I think both presidents are -- have been loathe to see the United States get deeply involved, and particularly militarily involved in a way that might involve significant numbers of troops. I think that President Obama eventually came around to a more significant advisory and assist role, that has been continued by President Trump.
Somewhat increased under President Trump. But I think, what both of them have in common is -- is not at all wanting to get involved in a way that looks anything like Iraq or Afghanistan. Is that position sustainable? Or do you see, because of the escalation, the U. I don't think we have to get more involved. I think -- I think it's key not to have mission creep. That's where we've gotten into trouble in the past. And there are a lot of other players out there that have a lot more force than we're prepared to put in.
And -- and so we need to help our friends and allies where we can, particularly with equipment, with intelligence, perhaps with advisers, special forces advisers. Does that include redevelopment?
Those funds have been frozen by President Trump. Well I think my perspective would be, it would depend on how effectively those redevelopment funds could be used. If -- if you're going to use them in a village, and the village is going to be taken over by the bad guys the next week, then what's the point? So I think, you know, I wouldn't rule out the use of development funds. I particularly wouldn't -- I particularly wouldn't cut money that has been allocated to try and provide some humanitarian relief and refugee relief in the region.
I think -- I think we have an obligation to to try and help there. Much of the president's national security team cautioned him against moving the U.
That's about to open this week. Do you see this as sort of a propaganda risk, emboldening our enemies? Or is it a negligible impact? Well, first of all, I think it's -- I think that remains to be seen, because it's just, we haven't even done it yet. I think that the reluctance always before -- because as has been pointed out, several previous presidents committed to move the embassy to Jerusalem. I think the hesitation has been, that it would end any prospect of an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
I think the prospects of an agreement between those two parties, at this point, is so low that the other consequences of moving the embassy are probably more modest than they -- more manageable than they would have been at any time in the past, mainly because the diplomatic connection to the Israeli-Palestinian issue is less important.
The two state solution -- SECY. On life support, barely. Sounds like Jared Kushner has his work cut out for him, then. I want to switch to Afghanistan.
President Trump has yet to visit our troops in Afghanistan.