Robert Gates And ‘Soft Power’… December 3, 2008
Posted by bensix in Uncategorized.trackback
Over at Liberal Conspiracy, Neil Robertson is weighing up the merits of Barack Obama’s recent appointments…
“By giving Samantha Power a role in shaping the US State Department and sending Susan Rice to the UN, Obama has put faith in two women with firm commitments to internationalism and human rights, and with General Jim Jones and the retained Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the guns ‘n ammo part of the government will be overseen by men who, for all their faults, at least understand the virtues of ‘soft power‘.”
The ’soft power’ links to a Talking Points Memo article which attempts to defend Bush’s Defence Secretary…
“Gates has…decried “the gutting of America’s ability to engage, assist and communicate with other parts of the world — the ’soft power’ which had been so important throughout the cold war.”"
A quick google reveals that this quote is enjoying a curious period of popularity, as Democrats hurry to defend the judgement of their leader. It’s extracted from a speech that Gates gave to Kansas State University, entitled “Long Term Success Against Security Challenges Depends Upon Many Elements”.
Many elements, eh…
“I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use “soft” power and for better integrating it with “hard” power.”
Gates was not criticising “hard” power, then, but the US’s post-9/11 application of it. This suggests that he believes that “military firepower” should be accompanied by “pacification, civic action, and economic development“.
More worrying still, this fondness for ’soft power’ is “based on [his] experience serving…as a former Director of CIA“. As Matthew Rothschild wrote in The Progressive…
“Let’s remember: Gates was head of the CIA during Bush I. As such, he was involved in the invasion of Panama, the funding of a genocidal regime in Guatemala, the support of Suharto’s brutal government in Indonesia, and the overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti.”
After the appointment of Gates, it’s difficult to disagree with Matthew’s conclusion…
“[Obama]’s about running the U.S. empire—with less bravado than Bush-Cheney, but perhaps more efficiently.”
What’s wrong with being efficient? (I keed! I keed!)
Hehe,
Well, it means that, while foreign policy will be business as usual, he’ll be a tricky target for satire. Everybody’s a loser.
Ben
Hey, I did write “for all their faults”, which at least suggests that I know they have some! I wouldn’t say that I was ‘untroubled’ by it, but he’s certainly not an ideologue and it’s comforting that the Nat. Sec. team has a decent balance to it. For example, I’m reassured by Obama’s decision to increase the power of Susan Rice’s UN Ambassador role to that of a Cabinet level position.
Also, one of the reasons I linked to that TPM piece was that it brought you to this NYTimes article, which gives an interesting flavour of the changes which might occur:
However this works in practice is difficult to say, of course, but it’s certainly possible to see a rebalancing of ‘hard’ and ’soft’ power, even within the very ‘hard’ realm of national security.
Good point – I’ve altered the post according (sorry if it sounded sickeningly condescending. It wasn’t meant to, but it was late and I was at the “cahhgavenifugginBarackObamaGates” stage).
Not sure if I’m so keen on the issue of balance, though. I’d have preferred to see ruthless purges throughout all levels of the administration.
Ben
The department of defence do all the dirty work, you need a secreatary of defence who has, for want of a better word, balls.
Both boxes ticked on that front.
And I think many of the things you’re laying at the door of the Defence Department can be traced back to other policy makers.
It’s a dirty job but someone’s got to do it.