by Robert M. Gates


Yes, the title reminds you of poo. Moving on.

Duty is Gates’ memoir about his time serving as Secretary of Defense, under Presidents Bush (fils) and Obama. Appointed by the former to fix the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was asked to stay on by the latter, presumably to add a bipartisan flavor to Obama’s cabinet and Department of Defense. Duty describes Gates’ time at the Pentagon and provides his perspective on each administration.

If you’ve read about the book, you’ve probably heard the gossipy accounts of the successive administrations: who got along with whom, etc. I think one question everyone wanted answered was, “Who do you think made better decisions as President?” DutyWell, Gates knows enough to steer clear of that one, though he’s less comfortable with the Obama team than he is around Republicans or the military. On the other hand, he shit-talks Vice Presidents Dick Cheney and Joe Biden about equally, thinking that both were too political and too vocal in foreign policy meetings, while just about professing his undying love for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. So he at least keeps an open mind.

But most of what Gates talks about is actually bureaucratic intransigence within Defense. His biggest problem at the Pentagon was that most of the top brass were focused on potential future wars, to the point of obsession. While this focus on upcoming problems and conflicts isn’t necessarily a bad thing- I’m glad that they think about tomorrow- Gates found that this attention came at the expense of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he felt he was brought in to fix. His mandate, as he saw it, was to realign the massive bureaucracy with the goal of winning our current wars. I find it hard to believe that the military paid as little attention to the wars it was fighting as Gates indicates, but he’s quite proud of his accomplishments in this area, especially the accelerated procurement of the life-saving MRAP, which I’ll get into in just a minute.

Though his book was interesting, by and large, I would get kind of annoyed when I felt that Gates was using his bipartisan label to elevate himself above decisions he didn’t like. In addition to disagreeing with and arguing against these decisions on their merits- which, to his credit, he does- he tends to adopt the posture of a neutral observer. The implication of this is that if you disagree with him, you’re behaving like a partisan hack. Gates consistently tells us that everything he did, by contrast, was for our country and our troops on the front line. While I don’t doubt that he’s telling the truth, I can see how it would get frustrating dealing with a man who believes his motives to be purer than anyone else’s in the room.

A couple months ago, while I was reading DutyNew York magazine came out with a cover story about race in the Obama era. In case you missed it, Jonathon Chait basically said, “Sure, Republican policies and politics can be racist, but Democrats are just as bad when they call Republicans racist. Everyone’s at fault.” What bothered me about this line of reasoning was best articulated by Elias Isquith on Salon as “the view from nowhere.” Essentially, Chait needs to retain his credibility as a neutral journalist, meaning that he can neither fully endorse either side’s actions or fully impugn either side’s motives. If he did so, he would immediately cease to be ‘neutral.’ The result? A piece pretty much devoid of actual content, all in the name of fairness.

I don’t think it would be fair to put Gates on the same level as Chait, but his tone sometimes bothered me. There are a few people in government that he would respect, even when he disagreed with them, but there were many whom he would often accuse of being hacks. The Obama White House, and particularly Joe Biden, are singled out as making foreign policy decisions based almost purely on politics. This is an especially strange charge given that during the Bush Administration, by Gates’ own account, national politics had a very strong influence on war policy in Iraq. Motives are not called into question in this case, but because Gates has taken the stance of an impartial observer, we’re supposed to trust that he knows the difference between a ‘political decision’ and an ‘informed’ decision.

Similarly, Gates likes to claim that he’s not a politician, and moreover that he has weak political instincts. A closer look reveals that the opposite is the case. In the aforementioned example of Iraq, Secretary Gates, the civilian team at the Pentagon, the military, and the White House were very adept at setting timetables for the surge, knowing how far away a deadline would have to be to avoid immediate accountability, while dodging a situation in which they could be criticized for setting a ridiculously distant (and therefore nearly irrelevant) date. This is not me calling them out for trying to outmaneuver Congress and the nation without us noticing. Go read the book. Gates is pretty open about politics driving aspects of decision-making in his time at Defense before the 2008 election.

A more subtle example of Gates’ political instincts is the MRAP program, which is credited with saving many, many lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gates writes that he had to fight the Pentagon for the procurement of these vehicles, which were better-suited than any other to withstand IEDs, and therefore protected soldiers on patrol. If his account is accurate, this means that a) top officials at the Pentagon didn’t place the highest priority on protecting their soldiers, at least not to the extent that they would go around the normal procurement process to do so, and b) the Pentagon and the White House failed to recognize that American casualties were driving opposition to the war in Iraq. I think it’s fair to say that American opposition to wars largely develops when we see our fellow Americans fighting and dying for reasons we don’t understand. A good way to keep opposition from spiraling out of control, therefore, would be to place the highest priority on protecting American lives. Hence, the MRAP. If Gates was as integral to the MRAP procurement as he tells us, either the Bush Administration and the military were incredibly obtuse about the impact of casualties on American war fatigue, or Gates is much more politically savvy than he lets on.

I feel a little bit bad, because it must seem like I’m criticizing a high-level government official for acting like a politician. I often find myself in the position of defending politicians, even those that I disagree with, when people write them off as self-interested blowhards. I think it’s rare that anyone gets into public service, politics included, without a real desire to see people’s lives improve. From Bob Gates to George Bush to Barack Obama to Stanley McChrystal, I don’t think there’s anyone in Duty that I wouldn’t assume to be a patriot, and it saddens me that Gates is so adamant about certain individuals not always having the public interest at heart. But of course, it’s his book, and he’s entitled to his opinions. It’s likely that Gates is just trying to be honest about his experiences, and I can’t fault him for that.

I’ve kind of gotten bogged down in the political crap, which I really tried not to do, but it is simply amazing to me how openly Gates disdains political theater while just as openly engaging in it. Regardless, most of the book isn’t really about that. Gates talks about the Defense budget, our relationships with Russia and China, changes in military culture (including the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell”), and other challenges that we’re facing or that we will face in the near future. He makes his opinions known, and tells it like he sees it. I’m guessing that Gates’ tenure at the Pentagon will turn out to be an important one, and it’s pretty interesting watching the changes at the Pentagon from the perspective of a man who clearly wasn’t always comfortable with the way things went down.

Duty is a fascinating memoir for what Gates says- the great anecdotes from his relationship with Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc- as well as what he doesn’t say. There’s probably no better vantage point on the foreign policy pivot between the Bush and Obama Administrations.


And the Mountains Echoed

by Khaled Hosseini


I feel the need to preface this post by saying that Khaled Hosseini is probably my favorite author. I was introduced to him, as I expect many have been, through 12th grade English class. We were required to read his debut novel, The Kite Runner. I loved it so much that I read his more female-centric A Thousand Splendid Suns (possibly my favorite fiction novel ever) for a choice book project later that year. He is simply an amazing and creative storyteller, and he writes about a part of the world that I find fascinating. I just couldn’t resist buying and devouring his newest novel.

And the Mountains Echoed begins in a small, fictional village in Afghanistan with a man telling folk tales to his ten-year-old son, Abdullah, and three-year-old daughter, Pari. The story he tells is about a monster, the div that comes to kidnap a child from a poor, starving village. When the father in the story loses his favorite child to the div, he hopelessly decides to track it down. When he arrives at the home of the div, he finds that his child (along with countless others) is alive, happy, and healthy. The div, he finds out, kidnaps children from poor villages to keep them safe and uncorrupted. And the Mountains EchoedWhile the father misses his child he recognizes that life will be better with the div than in their humble village. He walks away with a gift from the div, a potion that will help him forget the child, though it still leaves an inexplicable void in his heart.

This tale perfectly sets up the rest of the book. Abdullah and Pari, the closest of siblings, are torn apart from each other when Pari is sold for adoption to a young, rich woman. While both children become successful (their lives are returned to throughout the story), they feel an emptiness that is only explained by their separation. The relationship between Abdullah and Pari drives the story, and their separation catalyzes a myriad of events that affect the lives of surrounding generations. Hosseini takes the reader from Afghanistan to France, northern California to a small Greek island, while he explores the differences between nature and nurture as relationships are made and broken. Some characters form deep bonds through shared experience with complete strangers, others sacrifice everything for family members, and some cut familial ties altogether. It is these diverse relationships that bring the stories together, as themes of love and loss ripple through the web of connected lives.

Perhaps the most interesting commentary in Mountains is on what makes a place home. Most of the characters are Afghans and many of them fled during the Soviet occupation. A few of these characters returned to Kabul after the fall of the Taliban to deal with property matters or track down lost family members, but they feel isolated from their homeland, detached because they escaped and left their country in turmoil. After returning home, one comments, “the real culture shock has been in coming back” to the US.  The same man, who makes a very deep connection with a little girl in a hospital, finds his connection with Kabul and the little girl diminishing after being back home for a while. Another character, a Greek doctor, makes his way to Kabul during the war to perform plastic surgeries to victims of war.  He makes a home in Kabul and returns to Greece to find that his house no longer feels like home. Pari never feels quite at home because she does not remember where she came from, but she knows her Maman is not her family and Paris is not her home. These themes of home, love and family are reflected and repeated through the different stories in the book.

And the Mountains Echoed is a complex novel covering several generations and a variety of locations.  It can be a little confusing, even disjointed, at points, so if your memory is not so great (like mine) I would recommend keeping a notepad near you while reading so you can draw a map of relationships between characters, as well as location and time frame.  The diversity of experience, education, and ethnicity between characters, however, makes this book very relatable.  The characters make rash decisions and quick judgments, but they love deeply and make great sacrifices.  Their stories are powerful, moving, and universal, and will make you think hard about how to define love and morality. If you’ve read and enjoyed Hosseini’s other books, then this is a must-read. If you haven’t read anything by Khaled Hosseini, stop what you’re doing right now. Go to the nearest library/bookstore/Kindle. Pick up a copy of any of his books.  You won’t regret it.

I’ll leave you with a Miriam Adeney quote that I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. I think it ties in nicely with some of the themes in this book. “You will never be completely at home again, because part of your heart will always be elsewhere. That is the price you pay for the richness of living and loving people in more than one place.”