Gates’ Gag Too Tight

Gates’ Gag Too Tight

Congressional aides have been complaining for several weeks that they are having trouble reacting to Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ budget proposals because they can’t get data or analysis from the Pentagon with which to counter Gates.

It’s clearly ticked off some of their bosses, as evidenced by a letter released this afternoon, citing concerns about Gates’ “gag order” forbidding officials from discussing the budget or any of its details.

A group of 11 House lawmakers told Gates they are  “concerned that 1) this agreement is not strictly limited to predecisional discussions, and 2) that Congress may be excluded from oversight and engagement due to the restrictions put in place by this agreement.” According to the accompanying press release, the members said “the new restrictions will severely and unnecessarily limit Congress in its Constitutional duties.”

While reporters have always chafed against the Alice in Wonderland Pentagon policy that officials are barred from discussing anything labeled “pre-decisional,” lawmakers have had a much easier time getting data and analysis from Pentagon supporters, people who want to ensure their program’s own survival and Pentagon officials eager to curry favor with the Hill for whatever purpose. But Gates has succeeded in cutting of that information flow for the first time in the 12 years I’ve covered defense.

Rep. Randy Forbes, lead author of the letter, said that Gates “is essentially preventing Members of Congress from asking the questions necessary to ensure our soldiers are equipped to do their jobs, and is prohibiting media and public awareness on important defense issues.”

Forbes, top GOP member of the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee, noted that the Army recently refused to testify before Congress about the Future Combat System, saying any discussions would involve budget decisions and senior Army officials couldn’t discuss them because they had signed Gates’ non-disclosure agreements.

Forbes stuck a stick in the administration’s side, noting that the gag order and classification of Navy readiness reports “are direct contradictions to an Administration that has prided itself on transparency. Especially in these economic times when every defense dollar should be used on the most important priorities, the budget process should be as transparent as possible.”

Of course, Gates probably smiled as he read Forbes’ letter, hearing from the Hill that his restrictions are having exactly the kind of effect he hoped they would.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

Colin is doing good work…this is dangerous.…and places military leadership in a very precarious position.

Power corrupts. And Gates has clearly given in to temptation here.

This is a direct attack at constitutional oversight and shouldn’t stand.

Thats a plus then!It never happens.….Therefore
getting kicked in the guts and stay down.…Quit
using unlawful cash.

Colin; GREAT reporting! You are showing EVIDENCE of “HIS” smelly dirty diapers…with #1 & #2 inside. PLEASE keep up the very good reporting & keep your pedals (fingers) full throttle! (to the keyboard).

Dunno how much of this story is being driven by complaints by members of Congress who are looking to cherry pick data from their usual suspects, and how much is being driven by members of the press upset at the fact that the military is not talking to them either.

The amount of lobbying to preserve military programs by the uniformed services that the civilian leadership has targeted for cancellation would have been grounds for discharge as insubordination 20–30 years ago.

To those who think Gates and by extension, the Obama administration is lacking transparency or is skimping on defense, I beg to differ.

I think Gates realizes that Congress will fight some of the Pentagon’s decisions NOT based on a concern over true warfighting capabilities, but rather parochial concerns of whether jobs that will affect their district are cut. Congress as a whole sees the defense budget or programs as a campaign funding/voting mechanism rather than something that should be looking at threats and addressing them.

The great majority of the budget CONTINUES to be focused on the big war items and Gates simply is trying to ensure that “hybrid war” programs or weapons and thinking solidifies and becomes institutional.

That is all. There isn’t anything nefarious about this.

…what Nick said.

In Washington, the fastest way to let any cat out of the bag is to tell a member of Congress or their staff.

Can’t blame Sec. Gates for trying to keep a lid on the rumor mill.

Nick: Really? Ending F-22 is focused on “big-war”? Killing TSAT and FCS and C-17 and DDG-1000 are “big-war”? I’d like to see how you reconcile those ideas.

Saroff: “The amount of lobbying to preserve military programs by the uniformed services that the civilian leadership has targeted for cancellation would have been grounds for discharge as insubordination 20–30 years ago.”

20–30 years ago we wouldn’t be killing the most advanced fighter aircraft the world had ever seen. 20–30 years ago we wouldn’t be saying “sorry, we just don’t think there’s any use for high-bandwidth satcom”. 20–30 years ago we were still going to die in an atom war with Russia, and the only way to save ourselves was military spending and technological advancement.

Density Duck,

I’d say that what Gates is trying to do is go after the big war programs that have lagged in development and killed funding for other programs that can be almost as effective yet not cost 150%(My arbitrary number) more than the other solution that can be implemented faster and cheaper.

You mention FCS. It’s a program that I initially supported, but after having attended various AUSA conferences and talking with Boeing reps on the show floor even back in 2005, with IED’s at their height, there was no discussion or plan on how to counter IED’s. There really wasn’t more of an emphasis either on detecting targets in urban or difficult to detect cluttered terrain. Anyway, I digress, Gates has already come out and said FCS funds WOULD be rolled back to the US Army so that they can move on a better plan for the armored vehicle portion.

As for TSAT, if you follow Aviation Week, you’d know that its capabilities have slowly been watered down and there was NO longer plans to implement laser burst transmission of data. THUS obviating the description TRANSFORMATIONAL Satellite.

Gates is going for program that are effective and are showing results in tests and with prototypes that HAVE favorable feedback.

If you choose to use my argument against me on teh point of the F-22, I’d say that Russia can’t afford even the SU-33’s let alone any PAK-FA’s so let’s not talk about fifth generation threats. Also one of the other issues I have with the F-22, is the loss of one of its key selling points: supercruise. The Saab Gripen recently achieved supercruise in some testing.
Granted it was probably at a shorter duration than the F-22, for a comparitive dollar for dollar capability, I find it INCREDIBLY disappointing that ANY country could achieve supercruise in so short a time. We should have seen NO country achieve what we could until at least 20 years or so, yet the Swedes did it.

Look at the S. Koreans with their develepment of an airbursting grenade launched from a rifle, akin to our cancelled and long developed OICW. This all speaks to the problem with getting systems/weapons to actually work. And this is what Gates is trying to fix and address.

c-17 is a huge cut we can not afford…

On the C-17, here’s where I don’t agree with gates.

Cherry picking,is the same as violating ids!
HA,the economy problem.…A holistic particle of
memory loss.…New age ism…

Nick: Ah, I see what it is; I misread your comment as suggesting that *Gates* was focusing on “big-war”.

No problem DensityDuck, I could have been clearer.

Anyway, we’re both agreeing that Gates deserves a pat on the back for what he’s trying to do.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement