Obama and US generals at odds over boots on the ground in Iraq

For several weeks now there has been an apparent tension between Obama and some US generals with respect to the role of "boots on the ground" in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq.

Chair of the US House Armed Services Committee, Buck Mckeon a Republican from California claims that the generals who are in command of the US operations in Iraq have been pushing for US troops to actively join combat: “Our military commanders have all laid out scenarios where we need more troop... if we don’t put boots on the ground, we can’t form the coalition.” Obama has insisted that a ground war with US boots on the ground is not even being considered.
In part, the Obama position simply ignores the reality that the US already has "boots on the ground" in Iraq, about 1,600 of them. The official position is that these troops are simply advisers but there are reports that they have actually entered battle with the Kurds even though officially they are not on a combat mission. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told Congress that the US has not officially reengaged in the war in Iraq at least on the ground: “Instead, these advisers are supporting Iraqi and Kurdish forces in supporting the government’s plan to stand up Iraqi national guard units,”
Both Robert Gates, Obama's former Defense Secretary and former president George W Bush, doubted that Obama could achieve his goal of defeating IS without US ground troops. Gates told CBS: "They're not gonna be able to be successful against ISIS strictly from the air, or strictly depending on the Iraqi forces, or the Peshmerga, or the Sunni tribes acting on their own. So there will be boots on the ground if there's to be any hope of success in the strategy. Gates thought that it was a mistake for Obama to continue insisting that there would be no boots on the ground as he was trapping himself into a position he would later need to abandon.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also indicated he would recommend U.S. ground troops if he thought this was required and told reporters: 'I stand by the statement,' he said when asked about testimony before a Senate committee last week in which he first made the assertion. ‘I will recommend… what it takes to destroy ISIS.' Dempsey insisted there is no 'air power alone solution' and it may take the use of boots on the ground to defeat the Islamic State. Obama agrees but wants to use proxy forces as boots on the ground rather than the politically risky use of US forces.
 Top officials in Anbar are also asking that the US send troops into the province. However, these officials are only still top officials there because Iraq was unable to hold elections in Anbar because of security issues. The Iraq government itself does not want US troops on the ground. A cleric associated with the Al Sadr bloc has even threatened to attack any US troops. Many Iraqi Sunnis in areas occupied by the Islamic State prefer them to the Shia-dominated central government. They will likely help defend the Islamic State against the US and central government forces.
Obama could very well be drawn into an open-ended quagmire in Iraq. What started out with a few advisers has even now reached 1,600 and their role appears to be gradually becoming more extensive with engagement in the front lines on occasion. I expect special forces are already engaged in secret unreported missions. It would hardly be a giant step to send a thousand or so more actual boots on the ground with Obama deciding that he should follow the recommendations of his own key military figures.

U.S. may equip Pakistan with drones.

Note that the drones to be supplied are surveillance drones not those capable of making attacks. Gates seems to be acting as a cheerleader (and enforcer as well) to push Pakistan towards even further attacks on Islamic militants in the tribal territories.

CSMonitor.com.

US may equip Pakistan with drone aircraft, Gates says
US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told leaders on his visit to Islamabad that all of South Asia faces instability if Al Qaeda goes unchecked in Pakistan.




By Ben Hancock Correspondent

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates landed Thursday in Islamabad with the goal of pressing Pakistan to stamp out Al Qaeda and other terrorist factions that he earlier warned could destabilize South Asia.

In his first visit to the country since the inauguration of the Obama White House, Mr. Gates said the US is considering supplying Pakistan with unarmed drone aircraft. While Pakistan has publicly called America's use of drones a violation of sovereignty, Islamabad has requested the technology for itself, Reuters reported.


"We are in partnership with the Pakistani military and we are working to give them their own intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance vehicles, both aircraft and drones," Gates said.



Until now, the US has not been willing to share the technology, The Hindustan Times reports.


The Pakistan government, which has opposed US drone attacks in its tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, had been pressing the American administration to provide it unmanned aerial vehicle technology so that its armed forces could carry out attacks on Taliban fighters. Till now, the US had refused to provide drones or UAV technology to Pakistan, which has a small number of indigenously developed spy planes.

Gates arrived after a meeting in India with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other leaders. He told reporters there that focusing antiterror efforts on a single group would be a grave error, reports The New York Times.


“It’s dangerous to single out any one of these groups and say, ‘If we could beat that group that would solve the problem,’ because they are in effect a syndicate of terrorist operators,” Gates said. In short, he said, “the success of any one of these groups leads to new capabilities and a new reputation for all.”

The secretary also warned that a Pakistani failure to keep domestic terror cells in check could escalate into an international incident, referring to the 2008 rampage in Mumbai, which was blamed on the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. “I think it is not unreasonable to assume Indian patience would be limited were there to be further attacks,” Gates said.

His visit comes amid increasing local concern about growing US involvement in Pakistan, reports the BBC. That compounds anger over civilian deaths in drone attacks along the country’s border with Afghanistan, where US officials believe many Taliban leaders are holding out.

But a recent US aid package that triples nonmilitary assistance to Pakistan, to the tune of $1.5 billion annually until 2015, has left Islamabad’s leadership somewhat bound to American antiterror efforts, says Reuters. Pakistan has lost about 2,000 troops fighting the Taliban so far and is expected to launch a new offensive close to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border later this year, according to reports.

.

Earlier, Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani said the military option is not the only way to fight terrorism, The News reported.


"Only 10 percent success can be achieved through operations while 90 percent success is possible through economic development,” Gilani said.

--


.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greenwald: Cruise Missile Attacks in Yemen

While these attacks are condemned in reports in the Muslim world they are praised in the west, for example by Admiral Mullen. The attacks represent a clear escalation in the conflict and of US involvement.
Cruise Missile Attacks in Yemen At the same time Defence Secretary Gates is pressing for a 2 billion dollar fund to help stabilise unstable regimes. This is from informationclearinghouse.

By Glenn Greenwald

December 21, 2009 - "Salon" -- Given what a prominent role "Terrorism" plays in our political discourse, it's striking how little attention is paid to American actions which have the most significant impact on that problem. In addition to our occupation of Iraq, war escalation in Afghanistan, and secret bombings in Pakistan, President Obama late last week ordered cruise missile attacks on two locations in Yemen, which "U.S. officials" say were "suspected Al Qaeda hideouts." The main target of the attacks, Al Qaeda member Qasim al Rim, was not among those killed, but: "a local Yemeni official said on Sunday that 49 civilians, among them 23 children and 17 women, were killed in air strikes against Al-Qaeda, which he said were carried out 'indiscriminately'." Media reports across the Muslim world -- though, not of course, within the U.S. -- are highlighting the dead civilians from the U.S. strike (one account from an official Iranian outlet began: "U.S. Nobel Peace Prize laureate President Barack Obama has signed the order for a recent military strike on Yemen in which scores of civilians, including children, have been killed, a report says").

Gates: If Iraqis stop feuding withdrawal may be quicker.

Actually there seems little sign of any rapid removal of troops from Iraq. There is not a peep about the referendum on the SOFA agreement that is supposed to be voted on in August. If the referendum does not pass then it will be interesting to see what happens. The demand might very well be for the troops to be withdrawn immediately. Biden claimed that troops might be withdrawn if sectarian violence increased. Hmm...so troops will be withdrawn if there is more violence or if there is less violence as Gates promises. One can be sure given the size of the huge Baghdad embassy that a U.S. military presence in some form will be ongoing no matter what the recent rhetoric may be. The U.S. has made sure that Iraq has no functioning air force so the U.S. can probably control the skies for some time to come.


News From Antiwar.com - http://news.antiwar.com/2009/07/29/gates-us-may-speed-pullout-if-iraq-leaders-curb-feuds/print/ -

Gates: US May Speed Pullout if Iraq Leaders Curb Feuds

Posted By Jason Ditz On July 29, 2009 @ 5:49 pm

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said there was “at least some chance” that the US might speed up its withdrawal of troops this year if Iraqi and Kurdish leaders settle their differences. This might mean the US would remove another 3,000 to 4,000 of its 132,000 troops, a level which the Pentagon is currently planning to maintain through early 2010.

The comments were almost the exact opposite of those made by Vice Presdient Joe Biden during his Iraq visit earlier this month, when he suggested the US might speed its pullout if the nation reverted to the sectarian and ethnic violence that has wracked the nation since the 2003 US invasion.

There has been considerable dispute between the Iraqi national government and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in recent months, as the largely autonomous region attempts to annex neighboring parts of Iraq.

The national government has attempted to curb the region’s unilateral moves on its oil industry, amid fears that it will eventually attempt to secede from Iraq. The KRG Prime Minister has even warned of the prospect of open warfare between the Iraqi military and the KRG’s Peshmearga forces.

Record Afghan bombings in May

This is from the impeccable non-left publication Navy Times.

As the article mentions this record comes despite the constant complaints about the bombings and the civilian casualties caused. I have included after this article a recent article in which Gates claims that more care is being taken even as more civilians are killed. There seems a lot more concern about public relations than civilian deaths. Of course the policy probably reduces troop deaths.
Given that there was a peak in May no doubt if the June figures both for bombings and casualties go down this will be taken as proof that there is more concern being shown for civilian deaths even though both figures remain at high levels.

Afghanistan bombings top charts in May
By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writerPosted : Friday Jun 12, 2009 16:30:41 EDT

Air Force, Navy and other coalition warplanes dropped a record number of bombs in Afghanistan for May, Air Forces Central figures show.
During May, warplanes released 478 bombs, the highest May count since numbers started being tracked in 2004.
The increase came despite Afghan complaints that on May 4, an Air Force B-1B and three Navy F/A-18s killed dozens of civilians in western Afghanistan when Afghan troops and their Marine advisers were attacked by insurgents hiding in a village. The bombing is under investigation by Central Command.
May also marked the fifth consecutive month of an increasing use of bombs, after a decline that started last July.
The munitions release came during 2,196 close air support sorties.
The actual number of air strikes was higher because the AFCent numbers don’t include attacks by helicopters and special operations gunships. The numbers also don’t include strafing runs or launches of small missiles.
Over Iraq, two bombs were released during 725 strike sorties.
Transport crews airdropped 1.5 million pounds of supplies, mostly in Afghanistan, and tankers flew 4,441 sorties supporting Iraq and Afghanistan operations
Reconnaissance aircraft flew 1,566 missions over Iraq and Afghanistan, a 10 percent increase over April’s flights.

________________________________----

- News From Antiwar.com - http://news.antiwar.com -
As Gates Promises to Reduce Afghan Civilian Toll, NATO Kills More
Posted By Jason Ditz On June 12, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates today promised that in the effort to win the hearts and minds of the civilian populace of Afghanistan, NATO would put an increased emphasis on reducing the number of civilians being killed by international forces.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates
Meanwhile, during fighting in Afghanistan’s Kunar Province NATO forces fired artillery at civilians, killing two and wounding five others. NATO declined to provide further details about the killings, but said it was investigating the matter.
Not long after, a NATO military vehicle crashed into a civilian truck in Khas Kunar, killing four other civilians. The growing number of civilian deaths seem not to be slowing down the repeated promises of Obama Administration officials that they have changed their tactics.
Just days ago a US air strike was reported to have killed 10 civilians in Ghor Province. Earlier in the week it was also reported that a US soldier had thrown a hand grenade into a crowd of civilians in the Kunar Province, though the US is denying this claim.
Copyright © 2009 News From Antiwar.com. All rights reserved.

Obama may ask defence secretary Gates to stay on.

This is just symptomatic of the lack of any real difference in foreign policy between the Democrats and Republicans. Both parties share an aggressive imperialist policy that attempts to assert U.S. global hegemony even though it will ruin the U.S. economy, in the end burdening the populace with ruinous debt and wasting resources that could have been used to improve the condition of Americans at home. Also, there is a waste of American lives for foreign adventures that mostly benefit the capitalist cronies of the two main parties who lavishly support them and are richly rewarded with defence contracts and no bid contracts in Iraq and elsewhere.
If the war on terrror did not exist something else would have been invented to hoodwink the U.S. populace. Don't be surprised if China or Russia become new evil empires within a very short while. A new unifying diversion may be necessary as times get harder.
Robert Gates continuing tenure is also symptomatic of what Obama stands for in the way of real change.

Barack Obama may recruit defence chief Robert Gates
Sarah Baxter in WashingtonTimes of LondonJune 29, 2008

In defiance of traditional party labels, Barack Obama, the Democraticpresidential nominee, may ask the defence secretary of President George WBush to stay on if he wins the White House.Obama's top foreign policy and national security advisers are pressing thecase for keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon after he won widespread praisefor his performance. The move would be in keeping with Obama's desire toappoint a cabinet of all the talents.After appealing for unity with former rival Hillary Clinton and hersupporters and big donors last week, Obama, 46, is turning his attention towooing Republicans and independent voters who may be concerned that he lacksthe experience to be trusted with America's defence.Richard Danzig, an adviser to Obama on national security and a former navysecretary, said: "My personal position is Gates is a very good secretary ofdefence and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."The appointment would cause a furore among Democratic party activists butwould have the advantage of providing continuity at a time when Iraq appearsto be stabilising and demanding more independence from America.Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution in Washington, a foreign policyadviser to Obama, said: "Robert Gates is one of the best defence secretarieswe have had in a long time and it makes a lot of sense to keep him."Gates, a former member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, was initiallysceptical about the troop surge in Iraq and has been quietly seeking anorderly transition to a new US administration in January so that hard-wonmilitary gains in Iraq are not thrown away in a hasty withdrawal.At one stage last year, he had hoped that 60,000-70,000 US troops could bewithdrawn by Christmas this year, but he was persuaded to back more modestreductions by General David Petraeus, the US commander. There are still150,000 US troops in Iraq.Obama has declared he will be as "careful" about leaving Iraq as Bush was"careless" going in. His current position is to remove all combat troopsfrom Iraq within 16 months at the rate of "one or two" brigades a month. Heis preparing to visit Iraq and Afghanistan, and will stop over in Britain.Gates recently said Obama and John McCain, his Republican rival, were likelyto take a "sensible approach" to Iraq because "the next president wouldsuffer the greatest consequences if we do get the endgame wrong". RetainingGates would give Obama "cover" for adjusting his policy if necessary, whilereassuring Republicans that withdrawing from Iraq would not imperil nationalsecurity.Gates showed he was comfortable working with Democrats when he appointedJohn Hamre, a former senior official under Bill Clinton, to serve aschairman of the influential Defence Policy Board last year. He alsoappointed William Perry, a former defence secretary who is advising Obama,to the board.Gates has said he finds it "inconceivable" that he would stay on but Obama'sadvisers believe he would respond to the call. "This is a man who believesin service," Daalder said.James Carafano, a defence expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation inWashington, said Obama would be making a "smart move" if he asked Gates tocarry on. "He has clearly adopted a mainstream course on national securitythat would be acceptable to either McCain or Obama."Last month Gates said he backed negotiations with Iran, a policy favoured byObama. "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and thensit down and talk with them," the defence secretary told an association ofretired diplomats.Obama has been attacked by McCain, 71, for being all talk and no substancewhen it comes to forging cross-party alliances. The independent-mindedMcCain has had the courage to buck party lines, Republicans argue, whileObama is a conventional liberal beneath the bipartisan rhetoric.Obama has previously told The Sunday Times he is interested in appointingindependent Republican figures such as Senator Chuck Hagel to his cabinet.Hagel, who opposed the Iraq war, is still considered a leading contender fordefence secretary or another prominent post.Obama has also praised Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography ofPresident Abraham Lincoln, because it showed how Lincoln was able to marshala civil war-era cabinet of former opponents.Last week Obama told Joe Klein, a commentator for Time magazine: "The lessonis not to let your ego or grudges get in the way of hiring absolutely thebest people . . . I have an interest in casting a wide net, seeking outpeople with a wide range of expertise, including Republicans."Speculation intensified this weekend that Obama may offer Hillary Clintonthe position of health secretary after he appointed Neera Tanden, her seniorpolicy director and a key architect of her healthcare plan, to his campaignteam.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4232070.ece

U.S. warns of 'implosion' of NATO alliance in Afghanistan

If European countries devote much more to the Afghan mission the governments who do so face an implosion of support in the next elections. There is precious little support for the missions among citizens of the countries involved. The U.S. managed to drag NATO into the swamp through the UN and ISAF.
The whole original U.S. led Afghan mission with its ludicrously named Operation Enduring Freedom has managed to restore Afghanistan to the biggest opium producer in the world not too long after Powell had given the Taliban a multi-million dollar check for drastically curtailing poppy production. With the overthrow of the Taliban all this changed. Now the Taliban, plus drug lords, plus Karzai officials are again earning millions from the trade.
The Afghans are free to fly kites but not to convert to Christianity or even to publish material about women's rights. They are not free even to criticise each other in parliament!
The U.S. rescued NATO from oblivion by making it an instrument of its foreign policy aims when the UN will not or cannot meet them. The sooner it implodes the better. NATO is a relic of the Cold War and the sooner its re-incarnation as an instrument to help out the U.S. in its foolhardy and dangerous mission to spread democracy, freedom, etc. meaning U.S. power and securing of resources and markets the better.

Independent.co.uk
US warns of 'implosion' of Nato alliance in Afghanistan
By Mary Dejevsky in MunichMonday, 11 February 2008
Mr Gates said that the transatlantic alliance was under such stress over operations in Afghanistan that it risked imploding. Speaking in Munich to an audience that included presidents, foreign and defence ministers of many EU countries, Mr Gates acknowledged serious shortcomings in Nato operations in Afghanistan.
This was because the alliance was not working properly together to share the burden, he said.
"I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the magnitude of the direct threat to European security," he said. "We must not – we cannot – become a two-tiered alliance of those who are willing to fight and those who are not. Such a development, with all its implications for collective security, would in effect destroy the alliance."
Mr Gates's words took to a new, and far more acute, level arguments that have become ever sharper in recent months and culminated at an ill-tempered Nato summit in Lithuania last week. While the disputes at the Vilnius summit remained mostly behind closed doors, however, Mr Gates brought them loudly into the open at Munich.
Mr Gates was careful to name no names, but suggestions that some allies were less willing than others to sustain casualties have become a sensitive matter in Germany, where politicians are fending off calls from the Nato command either to contribute more troops to the international force as a whole, or to divert some of the troops serving under German command in northern Afghanistan to the more hostile terrain in the south.
Both the German Foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and the Defence minister, Franz Josef Jung, who had already addressed the Munich conference, had been at pains to set the record straight from their perspective. They insisted that the total number of German troops had been limited by the Bundestag, and there was little chance of an increase. They insisted, too, that northern Afghanistan was a dangerous place and Germany has taken casualties. They also argued that if, as Nato has proposed, some German troops were redeployed in the south, this would put at risk the continued success of the operation in the north.
German ministers recognise that their unwillingness to redeploy troops or increase the number is seen in some quarters as evidence of something akin to national cowardice.
While it is possible that France will send an additional 1,000 troops to help out in the south, this will not end the argument, which is partly about the whole performance of the alliance in Afghanistan, and partly about broader issues, such as the Nato command structure and commitment of individual members. As other speakers also noted, there was a deep gulf in public support for the operation between the US and many European countries, where it was doubted that success was even possible.
Mr Gates went out of his way to defend the Afghanistan operation as all of a piece with Nato's "core" purpose: "To defend the security interests and values of the transatlantic community". He presented Afghanistan as the epitome, in practice, of the threats that had been discussed by the alliance in theory during the 1990s – with the combination of an unstable state, terrorists linked by new technology; the nexus between drugs, terrorism and organised crime, as well as a "safe haven" that would allow "Islamic extremists to turn a poisonous ideology into a global movement".

Gates: Israel no nuclear threat to neighbors.

Probably it is no nuclear threat right at the moment since it can well handle any of its neighbors using its huge conventional military might. Of course Israel refuses even to acknowledge it has nuclear weapons just two nuclear reactors but it is well known that it has. Gates made the horrendous gaff of actually stating that it did some time back.
Of course if Iran had nuclear weapons it would change the balance of power in the Middle East that is the problem. Iran would not be likely to use its weapons except as a bargaining chip since any use of nuclear weapons could result in a devastating counter-attack.
Many US citizens seem oblivious to the transparent hypocrisy of their government on the nuclear issue. Gates could easily give his speech in the US without any laughter.

Israel no nuclear threat to neighbors, says Gates



MANAMA (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates defended Israel's nuclear program on Saturday, saying the Jewish state did not seek to destroy its neighbors or support terrorism, unlike Iran.

Asked at the Manama Dialogue conference whether he thought Israel's nuclear program posed a threat to the region, Gates replied: "No, I do not."

The statement was greeted by laughter from a room filled with government officials from Middle Eastern countries.

Israel is widely assumed to have the region's only atomic arsenal, but refuses to confirm or deny it. Washington has long avoided pressing Israel to go public with its capabilities.

Gates did not specifically mention Israel's nuclear weapons or arsenal, but responded to questions about its "nuclear program" -- giving the Pentagon chief room to dismiss any suggestion that he implicitly confirmed the existence of nuclear weapons in Israel.

He dismissed the allegation that the United States applied a double standard on the nuclear issue by supporting Israel while calling for Iran to abandon its enrichment activities, which Tehran says are for peaceful purposes.

"Israel is not training terrorists to subvert its neighbors. It has not shipped weapons into a place like Iraq to kill thousands of innocent civilians covertly," Gates said.

"It has not threatened to destroy any of its neighbors. It is not trying to destabilize the government of Lebanon.

"So I think there are significant differences in terms of both the history and the behavior of the Iranian and Israeli governments. I understand there is a difference of view on that," he said.

Iran denies U.S. allegations that it has armed, trained and funded Shi'ite militias in Iraq, blaming the violence in Iraq on the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.

A year ago, Gates first angered Israelis during testimony to the U.S. Congress by including Israel in a list of nuclear-armed countries in the regions around Iran to explain why Tehran might have sought the means to build an atomic bomb. He has not publicly discussed it since.

Israel admits to having two atomic reactors, describing them officially as research facilities. Its refusal to discuss any nuclear weapons capabilities or accept international inspections at the facilities is a major irritant for Arabs and Iran, which see it as a contradiction in U.S. policy in the region.

(Editing by Andrew Dobbie)



© Reuters2007All rights reserved

Russia feels threatened by US militarism

Here is a view from Russia. The US just seems to ignore the fact that it is natural for countries such as China and Russia to regard the huge military buildup of the US as a direct threat to them.

Russia is not a clay pigeon on an American shooting range
16:42 | 09/ 02/ 2007



MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Vladimir Simonov) - According to the Western media, "Russian special forces used images of the poisoned former spy Alexander Litvinenko as target practice." I can understand their concern, as permitting such a folly would be absolutely amoral.

I can also understand the outrage of millions of Russians on learning on Friday morning that the Pentagon has put up Russia's image on the army shooting range. Moreover, it appears that Americans are prepared to fire live missiles if they consider the danger coming from Russia excessive.

This is how I interpret the following statement by Pentagon chief Robert Gates about Russia as an adversary.

"We need the full range of military capabilities," including ground combat forces to battle large armies and nimble special operations troops to scout out terrorist threats, Gates told the House Armed Services Committee. "We don't know what's going to develop in places like Russia and China, in North Korea, in Iran and elsewhere," he said.

Did Gates add Russia to the "axis of evil" by mistake? I don't think so, as he said some time later that in addition to waging a war on global terror, the Untied States needed to confront threats created by the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, and unclear positions of such countries as Russia and China, which are also building up their armaments.

I don't know about China, but Gates chose a really bad time for berating Russia. Several days ago, President George W. Bush presented to Congress a draft federal budget for the 2008 fiscal year, where $700 billion out of the $2.9 trillion total is earmarked for defense, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the buildup of American forces, and the development of expensive missile systems.

So, is it the military buildup in Russia, whose defense budget is at least 25 times smaller than the American one, that is alarming Washington or vice versa? Had the Kremlin applied the same alarm scale to the U.S. military buildup, the humankind would have started crying wolf by now.

I was shocked by Gates' reference to the vague positions of countries such as Russia. I cannot believe that Robert Gates, a specialist on the Soviet Union and Soviet leadership, especially of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin era, a one-time White House Russia analyst, and a former CIA director, has any doubts about the Kremlin's current position.

In December 2006, he thought Russia's position was clear enough to explain it in Senate during his nomination hearing. "I think that what Putin is trying to do, frankly, is re-establish Russia as a great power," Gates said. "And I think Putin is trying to restore the pride of Russia. I think he has a lot of popular support at home for the things he's trying to do."

Many people thought Gates would speak for the U.S. administration's more realistic "dove" faction, including as regards relations with Russia. He promised to be quite unlike his neo-conservative predecessor Donald Rumsfeld and former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton.

Idealists were jubilant, sincerely believing that the advocates of the "American age" theory of changing the world according to American values were ceding their positions in Washington. They thought the hawks were being replaced with more tolerant people respecting other countries' opinions, such as Bob Gates.

The first to fall prey to that illusion were American analysts, who heralded a forthcoming thaw in relations with Russia.

Dr. Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said that now that Gates had become part of the administration, an attempt would be made to promote military and military-technical cooperation with Russia.

Unfortunately Cohen was wrong. Washington intends to deploy ballistic missile launchers and radars in Poland and the Czech Republic, and has moved the world's largest Sea-Based X-Band Radar from Hawaii to the Aleutians in the Bering Sea, off Kamchatka.

John Michael "Mike" McConnell, the newly appointed Director of National Intelligence (DNI), has promised to pay more attention to Russia. He has created a "mission manager" position to focus on Russia. The focus of current mission manager positions also includes Cuba and Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Iraq and counterterrorism.

And lastly, Gates said last Thursday that the U.S. army should prepare for a war against Russia.

What has happened to the strategic partnership between the White House and the Kremlin?

This is a multifaceted problem, with one core element. The painful American failures in Iraq, the aborted attempt to turn the Broader Middle East into a testing ground for the Western model of democracy, and the flop of the neo-conservative doctrine of "a new American age" are pushing the U.S. administration to search for external reasons for failure, that is, somebody to blame for American mistakes.

In that situation, Russia with its growing economy, an image of the world's largest energy supplier, and the new confidence of its leaders seemed like an easy "clay pigeon" for the American shooting range.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.