Here is a piece from an article on yahoo news posted 2 hours ago that has an excerpt from the new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates:
At one point Gates, just three weeks on the job, told lawmakers, "I would confess I'm no expert on Iraq." Later, asked about reaching the right balance between American and Iraqi forces, he told the panel he was "no expert on military matters."
TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer "Bush war plan draws fire on Capitol Hill ": http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
2007-01-11 17:17:22 · 10 answers · asked by Jessy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
More like cronyism, than expertise.
2007-01-11 23:27:42 · answer #1 · answered by WC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We would like to think so. But I like Gates because he has the cajones to admit he doesn't have the answers and that he isn't an expert.
The SecDef is supposed to present plans and options regardless of the politics in office; to be a neutral party who had the ability to tell the President what the military could and couldn't do. And that was something that Rumsfeld was anything but. That Gates is willing to admit that he isn't an expert means that he will be far more willing to listen and ask the right questions. I have found that in my time in the military, that the best guys to work for were the ones that admitted that they didn't know everything. The last Captain I worked for came from the submarine world and knew nothing about the job he was given. Working for him meant that you really needed to know what you were doing because he would ask questions that you never thought about. We got more done with him as our department head than we did with the Captain that came from our field of expertise.
2007-01-12 01:33:19 · answer #2 · answered by darkemoregan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion not really. Sec McNamara knew nearly nothing about the military except in the most general sense. The Sec Def is a policy maker and advises the President on how best to proceed. The Joint Chiefs also advise and they are supposed to be experts. However IMO our generals (4 star types)are not different enough from politicians now and this is a problem. That's why Gen Pete Schoomaker was brought out of retirement to be Army chief of Staff. Gen Colin Powell although a fine Man and good diplomat was a poor general in my view. He never commanded a division, Corps or much of anything in terms of army units. More politician than soldier.
2007-01-12 01:30:42 · answer #3 · answered by Chuck J 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Secretary of Defense does not have to be an expect in military matters. What he has to be is a very good manager. He has staff below him that provide the necessary knowledge and advice for the Department of Defense to run efficeintly on a day-to-day basis. It would be counter-productive to know too much because he is concerned about the entire operation - not individual matters. Just like CEO's of our large businesses, many do not know about the product that is manufactured. Instead, they are leaders and get the job done. Good question.
2007-01-12 01:25:40 · answer #4 · answered by Coach D. 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That's what subordinates are for. He has advisers and top generals to consult to. He's a manager. I prefer an ex retired military man to do the job. For example, George C. Marshall, a five star general. He was very respected and politicians listen to him. He also got the job done.
2007-01-12 03:03:55 · answer #5 · answered by tyrone b 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was trying to dodge the bullet by pretending ignorance. But remember Clinton didn't like uniforms on his staff.
2007-01-12 01:42:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, he's a civilian. His responsibility is national policy, not military strategy. For that he should listen to those in uniform. He has to know enough to understand what they are saying.
2007-01-12 01:33:30 · answer #7 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would help if they knew what the hell they were doing. Gates is an Aggie, so it's wonderful he put his pants on the right way this morning, and an absolute miracle he tied his shoelaces correctly. ;P
2007-01-12 01:23:11 · answer #8 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I've asked this question before you...but your question and the answers to it will attract more information regarding this issue.
Good Luck!
2007-01-12 01:23:23 · answer #9 · answered by Mehmet Azk 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Seems like a "slam dunk" conclusion, doesn't it?
2007-01-12 01:29:37 · answer #10 · answered by S. B. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋