Gates vs. Pentagon Procurement Bureaucracy

Defense Secretary Robert Gates continues to pull no punches in challenging the institution he leads. In a speech at National Defense University yesterday, he again took issue with the Pentagon's approach to procurement:

Support for conventional modernization programs is deeply embedded in our budget, in our bureaucracy, in the defense industry, and in Congress. My fundamental concern is that there is not commensurate institutional support -- including in the Pentagon -- for the capabilities needed to win the wars we are in, and of the kinds of missions we are most likely to undertake in the future.

"In recent years," Gates said, major defense platforms "have grown ever more baroque, ever more costly, are taking longer to build, and are being fielded in ever dwindling quantities." He questioned whether an emphasis on such systems had taken the focus away from procuring "specialized, often relatively low-tech equipment for stability and counterinsurgency missions."

And how do we institutionalize procurement of such capabilities â€" and the ability to get them fielded quickly? Why did we have to go outside the normal bureaucratic process to develop counter-[improvided explosive device] technologies, to build [mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles], and to quickly expand our [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] capability? In short, why did we have to bypass existing institutions and procedures to get the capabilities we need to protect our troops and pursue the wars we are in?

Conventional military modernization programs, Gates said, "seek a 99 percent solution in years. Stability and counterinsurgency missions -- the wars we are in -- require 75 percent solutions in months. The challenge is whether in our bureaucracy and in our minds these two different paradigms can be made to coexist."