Fritz W Ermarth - who
worked closely with Robert Gates during his broad
intelligence and policy career - gives his
perspective of what Gates' leadership at the
Pentagon could mean in terms of Iraq, intelligence
gathering and more. In his interview with The
National Interest online editor, Ximena Ortiz,
Ermarth points to what Gates would have done and
could do differently on vital
issues. Ermath served as
chairman of the National Intelligence Council
during the time Gates was director of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
The National Interest: You have worked closely with Robert Gates?
Fritz W Ermath: Yes I have, off and on since 1973, until our ways
parted in the early '90s when he left government and retired from the agency.
So from the early '70s to the early '90s we worked pretty closely, on and off.
TNI: Please give us your perspective as to what this change of
leadership at the Pentagon might mean in terms of US strategy in Iraq and
beyond.
FWE: Well, from everything the president has said, the strategy
won't basically change. Now, I can't guarantee that sitting here in my study,
but the execution you can count on will be very thoughtful and careful. That's
the kind of person Gates is. But until the president signals it, I don't think
you ought to look for a change of strategy.
TNI: Indeed, it seems from the president's statements that Gates
was chosen not only for his expertise but also for a compliance with a "defeat
is not an option" mentality in Iraq. How assertive do you think Gates would be
in advocating a redirection of policy in Iraq, and do you think he's
ideologically predisposed to a stay-the-course policy?
FWE: You're picking loaded buzzwords for an interview like this.
These have become bumper stickers. I think he appreciates, strategically, that
for us to just bail out of there and leave it to the Iraqis alone to sort out
the problem would be a disaster for all kinds of reasons - terrorism, regional
stability and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. If you call that "stay
the course", I'm sure he's going to support that. I strongly believe that he
will examine the situation carefully, and if it calls for a change of tactics
or even strategy, he won't hesitate to recommend that.
TNI: Do you think he has the personality traits to recommend such
a change forcefully?
FWE: I don't have any doubt he does.
TNI: What could Gates's Pentagon leadership mean in terms of
intelligence gathering at the Department of Defense and the DOD's cooperation
with the national intelligence director?
FWE: Gates's appointment is a huge plus in the intelligence
department, because, to put it in one pithy sentence, it is really one of the
key things that can make this National Intelligence Directorship and the reform
of our community work. You could put God Almighty in charge of US national
intelligence, and he's got to have a good relationship with a secretary of
defense who understands and supports intelligence.
And that is Gates, par excellence. It is going to be a real plus for
intelligence because it'll put to rest a lot of this nonsense about turf wars
between the secretary of defense and the national intelligence director.
There's just no way you can cut that baby in half, and he is the man in the
Pentagon that could make that work.
TNI: : Is there anything you would like to add on your
perspective of Gates?
FWE: Yes indeed. In addition to the intelligence role that he
will play, and a definite muting if not elimination of the tensions between the
Pentagon and the national intelligence director, he brings two big things to
the party. One, he understands big agencies, big programs, lots of people and
lots of money - from being the director of central intelligence, being in the
national-security business all these years and running a big university. If
you've ever been in a university faculty or administration, you'd know what I
mean. That is really demanding, and he's evidently done that very well.
But let me underscore a point I made earlier: This is an extremely thoughtful
man. He's got his values, he's got his principles, you might even say he's got
his ideology. He checks everything. He does not get pushed into decisions on
impulse.
Frankly, if he'd have been secretary of defense in 2003, I guarantee you
there'd have been a backup plan that would have avoided or certainly minimized
the problems that we've had since.
TNI: You said: "You might even say he's got his ideology." Is
there something in his ideology or in his career experience that would now make
him particularly suited to put into effect such a backup plan?
FWE: He's very realistic, and he's very committed to the exercise
of American power in a thoughtful way, and I think for all those reasons he's
an excellent choice.
TNI: What would you say his ideology is?
FWE: He's a national security professional. He comes from a camp
with which I personally identify. He understands strategic realities such that
he'll know we can't back out of the situation we have in Iraq, but we can't
stay in it either without behaving very deftly and getting as much support as
we can.
