Writings reveal cautious Gates

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

Defense Secretary-designate Robert M. Gates in the past decade opposed big changes at the CIA in the face of terror attacks and expressed doubt that Washington could assemble an alliance of nations against al Qaeda.

His writings, mostly in the op-ed pages of the New York Times, also revealed a former CIA director who was protective of the agency and opposed to intelligence inroads by the Pentagon at the behest of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He opposed creating a budget line for the White House Office of Homeland Defense after al Qaeda's September 11 attacks on the United States.

The writings show Mr. Gates to be more cautious and pragmatic than his predecessor, Mr. Rumsfeld, who has transformed the military and aggressively hunted al Qaeda members.

The Senate Armed Services Committee convenes confirmation hearings on Mr. Gates next week. The central questioning promises to focus on how Mr. Gates will change policy in Iraq. The bogged-down war is the reason President Bush nudged Mr. Rumsfeld aside after six years and turned to the Texas A&M University president for a "fresh perspective."

A sample of Mr. Gates' views after leaving Washington in 1993:

• He advocated military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 1997 after his regime continued to block U.N. inspectors.

"Surely, we know now that force is the only thing Mr. Hussein understands," Mr. Gates wrote in the New York Times, a frequent venue for his opinions. "We have known since 1990 that faintheartedness disguised as reasonableness in dealing with him is an invitation to further depredations." The next year, President Clinton ordered five days of bombings against suspected weapons sites.

• After al Qaeda bombed two American embassies in East Africa in 1998, Mr. Gates warned against a transformation of counterterror agencies, including the CIA.

"The great deficiency in American counterterrorism efforts in the summer of 1998 is not strictures against assassination, nor inadequacies in intelligence and law enforcement," he wrote in the New York Times. "The deficiency is political and strategic."

He added, "In truth, Americans can take pride in already existing C.I.A. and F.B.I. counterterrorism capabilities."