|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:56 am Post subject: Robert Gates, a Cautious Player From a Past Bush Team |
|
|
Robert Gates, a Cautious Player From a Past Bush Team
By SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 � In choosing Robert M. Gates as his next defense secretary, President Bush reached back to an earlier era in Republican foreign policy, one marked more by caution and pragmatism than that of the neoconservatives who have shaped the Bush administration�s war in Iraq and confrontations with Iran and North Korea.
Soft-spoken but tough-minded, Mr. Gates, 63, is in many ways the antithesis of Donald H. Rumsfeld, the brash leader he would replace. He has been privately critical of the administration�s failure to execute its military and political plans for Iraq, and he has spent the last six months quietly debating new approaches to the war, as a member of the Iraq Study Group run by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton.
Mr. Gates last served in Washington 13 years ago, and Mr. Bush made clear on Wednesday that he regarded his nominee as someone who would bring new perspective to the final two years of his tenure.
It was under Mr. Bush�s father that Mr. Gates first rose to influence, as deputy national security adviser and then director of central intelligence. He was not part of the group that advised the current President Bush during his 2000 campaign, and he has publicly questioned the administration�s approach to Iran, saying in a 2004 report for the Council on Foreign Relations that its refusal to talk to the Tehran government was ultimately self-defeating.
[I have my misgivings about Mr. Gates, but I prefer people of the mold of Bush senior than the neo-conservatives. They are more balanced in their approach.]
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt592.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, Gates is more guarded - better than gates not being guarded, I suppose ...
I've heard some analysts compare Rumsfeld to Kennedy's also "brash" Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara, who was partly responsible for Bay of Pigs and Viet Nam failures. He later apologized for his mistakes and was let go (according to some...) when his recommendations to President Johnson (LBJ) "amounted to him saying that all the policies he had been promoting for years were wrong, and that his strategy for winning the war was a failure..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara
I don't think that Rumsfeld is ready to admit that just yet, and he had to be replaced by someone who at least symbolized change, and who in fact has been critical of U.S. conduct of the Iraq war and foreign policy in that region (including not speaking to Iran...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Robert McNamara, who was partly responsible for Bay of Pigs... |
This is a stretch.
On April 4, 1961 at approximately 1800, JFK convened an NSC-level review of the proposed Bay of Pigs invasion -- something he had personally tweaked over the preceding few weeks.
McNamara was certainly present, with Paul Nitze, and representatives from JCS, including CNO. So were many others, including Sen. William J. Fulbright, at JFK's personal invitation, and Dean Rusk, Thomas Mann, William Bundy, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Adolf Berle, and CIA's planning/briefing staff officers, and others.
JFK asked them whether the U.S. govt should go ahead with the op. All but Fulbright said things like "I say 'let 'er rip!'" (this happens to be what Berle said). Fulbright then assumed a righteous posture and lectured the President on morality. Bundy later complained that Fulbright turned the meeting into "a charade." "...these [were] bridges we crossed long ago." In effect, Fulbright inspired the President's advisors to rally around the commander-in-chief against the preachy dissenter -- thus providing another example that we can either tear someone up and alienate them for their immorality or we can take another, less confrontational approach, and actually persuade them to do something else. But we can rarely if ever have both.
As journalist Peter Wyden has shown us, the executive branch's decision to give CIA a green light to move against Castro was a unanimous one at this point.
So, in any case, if you want to stress that McNamara is "partly responsible" for the Bay of Pigs, I guess that is not technically inaccurate. It is just too selective a recounting of the events that led to this.
And I think when talking about these kinds of things -- e.g., "McNamara is partly responsible" for this or that -- we need to be sure we have untangled each and every strand of the web to be sure we are speaking with absolute precision.
| Rteacher wrote: |
| and Viet Nam failures. |
Here you are on much more solid ground. After all, Vietnam is also known as "McNamara's War."
| Rteacher wrote: |
| I don't think that Rumsfeld is ready to admit that just yet... |
McNamara published In Retrospect, his mea culpa, in the mid-1990s, more than two decades after he had resigned his Pentagon position, and long after Vietnam had ended and become clearer to everyone, including, finally, himself. It is perhaps unfair to expect Rumsfeld to come to such a position within forty-eight hours of leaving his post or so, and while the Iraqi War continues to rage... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Partly responsible", while rather vague, is certainly more precise than "largely responsible", and it's hardly a stretch with respect to Bay of Pigs, considering the regret expressed by McNamara himself for his role in it:
When McNamara left office in 1968, he told reporters that his principal regret was his recommendation to Kennedy to proceed with the Bay of Pigs operation, something that "could have been recognized as an error at the time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess so. Still, if I were looking to uncover the Bay of Pigs's causes and origins, on the U.S. policymaking side, I would have far bigger fish to fry than McNamara, who literally had hardly anything at all to do with it.
At worst, he failed to object to something that others had been planning and promoting since Eisenhower.
At this point in his life, where you are getting your cite, he had lost faith in himself, was soulsearching, and being overly self-critical -- partly to establish and bolster his own credibility with his audience, who, as he makes clear in his introductory remarks in his book much later, was the cynical, antiEstablishment mob; partly because he had been wringing his hands with much guilt over Vietnam for quite a while, to the point where, I think, he was somewhat overcome by it.
We cannot simply take things people say at face value. No matter what McNamara may have said, the factual record does not show him as responsible, not in any meaningful way, for the Bay of Pigs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|