Duty

Memoirs of a Secretary at War

By: Robert M. Gates

Narrated by: George Newbern, Robert M. Gates

Length: 25 hrs and 38 mins

Publisher's summary

From the former secretary of defense, a strikingly candid, vivid account of serving Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When Robert M. Gates received a call from the White House, he thought he'd long left Washington politics behind: After working for six presidents in both the CIA and the National Security Council, he was happily serving as president of Texas A&M University. But when he was asked to help a nation mired in two wars and to aid the troops doing the fighting, he answered what he felt was the call of duty.

©2014 Robert M. Gates (P)2014 Random House Audio

Great American - A model for how public service

Would you consider the audio edition of Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War to be better than the print version?

Great insight into how the government works and does not work. A man who respects others, even when they have very different opinions or beliefs.

A fantastic book

A really outstanding book that I found to be inventive and didactic. The intonations and inflections were perfect and I found this book to be developmental and maturative for a young man coming of age like myself. I further highly recommend this book.

Great Insight into the Iraq/Afghan Wars

Great book with very extensive detail on the machinations of the SECDEF job during the Iraq/Afghan Wars. Great insight into the White House/Congress political machines.

A distinct air of falseness

In both the professional reviews and the user reviews here, everyone seems to be impressed by Gates' candor and even-handedness. If I agreed, I wouldn't bother cluttering the site with another me too review, but I don't. To be sure, Gates takes us behind closed doors, both of the Pentagon and the White House, and is open about those he disliked, most often members of Congress. But in Gates's telling, very serious people are always very serious, and most leaders (especially himself) just love the troops and always find visiting wounded soldiers the most heartwarming of experiences. I kept thinking of the anecdote in Leibovitch's This Town in which Richard Holbrooke told Obama that he faced a momentous decision comparable to Johnson's over Vietnam, to which the president apparently responded "do people really talk like that?" In Gates' Washington, they do.

It's not that I didn't enjoy the book, or that I don't recommend it. I enjoyed listening to it, and found myself eagerly turning it on whenever I had downtime, which is really my standard for a good audiobook. More than anything else, it takes you back to a strange period of our recent history, when whether or not to support "the surge" was the biggest political question of the day. Additionally, Gates offers up a unique vantage point on a number of issues beyond the central themes of the Iraq and Afghan wars and internal reform at the Pentagon, from the repeal of DADT to negotiating missile defense with Russia. I do think at times the book felt repetitious, and I would have preferred it have been shorter. A note on the narration: it's slow. I recommend listening at 1.5X speed.


What follows is less a review and more a response to the book:

Ultimately, I found myself generally liking Gates, but still disagreeing with him and somewhat disapproving of his style of leadership. It seems to me that he does not present well and then dismisses the arguments of those he disagrees with. A small example first: on supplying mine resistant vehicles to troops in Iraq, he basically attributes the resistance at the Pentagon to a fear that money spent on MRAPs would mean less available for other expensive procurement programs. I don't doubt that this was a factor, and ultimately I think Gates was largely correct about the value of MRAPs, but there are many strong arguments that the enormous investment in them was a boondoggle with a little payoff and that the process was mismanaged. But if there's one group of critics that Gates seems to enjoy dismissing altogether, it's members of Congress, especially democrats. Again, I don't entirely disagree with him that many congressmen played politics with war funding bills, but it also seemed to me that when these congressmen grandstanded over being lied to by the Bush administration and even military leaders, they had a lot to point to. Obviously there was the WMD claim of 2003 (a topic Gates glosses over early in the book, saying he too, as an ex-head of the CIA, believed what he'd read in the newspaper), but beyond that there was the constant refrain that yes we were winning and no the administration had not underestimated the troop requirements, right up to the start of the surge.

If there's one thing Gates seems to hold dear (besides the troops, who he cares about more than anything, has he mentioned that recently?) it's being a team player and never ever leaking anything--leakers are a pestilence, and generals and admirals who publicly disagree with administration strategy are almost as bad. In differentiating himself from his predecessor, Rumsfeld, Gates makes clear that he welcomes vigorous debate before a decision, but that after a decision is made, he expects that subordinates either publicly support it fully or quit. I agree this can be appropriate on some matters (at its best, the view is Lincolnesque), but applied too broadly it seems to me to justify the very behavior by congressmen (using hearings to score political points rather than to honestly gather information) that Gates abhors. It also encourages the insular group think that led us into war in the first place. I got the sense from that book that Gates' big advantage over other Bushies was that he was just plain smarter, and was more often right for that reason. But in many ways he was no more open to opposing views than was Cheney.

The view that Gates most often misrepresents and dismisses in the book was the case for early withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely, he keeps arguing, nothing could be worse for US security than losing the war(s). Maybe the Iraq War itself was a mistake, but the worst thing now would be leaving without finishing the job. This was classic late-Bush administration justification. But the argument of those favoring a preemptive withdrawal--and let me be clear, I wasn't one of them; I strongly opposed the war at the outset, but was guardedly in favor of the surge, although I'm still not sure whether I was right on the latter point, while I absolutely was on the former--was not that it would be better to let Iraq fail than to spend the blood and treasure to save it. It was (of course I'm simplifying here, there were many people with many related reasons) that Iraq was already lost, and however long we stayed we were just delaying the inevitable slide into chaos that would happen after our departure. As this book comes out in 2014 and we get word of the fall of Fallujah, this argument is again looking prescient. And honestly, having read Duty, I'm not entirely sure whether Gates disagrees with it or never really understood it.

About what you would expect

Would you listen to Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War again? Why?

No of course not. Why would you listen to a memoir a second time?

Was this a book you wanted to listen to all in one sitting?

No way, way too long.

Any additional comments?

A few insights. Somewhat tedious in stretches. Treatment of Bush and Obama seems pretty even-handed. I did get tired of listening to a Republican acted shocked and appalled over and over that a Democratic administration had different policies than the one before.

Excellent, Entertaining, & Insightful:

This fly on the wall perspective of the career of Robert M. Gates is excellent in its presentation and important in the honest analysis of the current state of affairs of the United States military. This book is guaranteed to open your eyes to many misconceptions about the office of the Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, and the status of the United States in the world.

Anyone who doubts the quality and commitment of America's leaders need only read this book. My biggest regret is that Mr. Gates has left the post!

This is not a political review! This is a review of a man who sincerely loves his county!

Enjoyed this memoir!

Where does Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War rank among all the audiobooks you’ve listened to so far?

First

Who was your favorite character and why?

Sec. of Defense Gates. Great leader, Troops first!

What does George Newbern and Robert M. Gates bring to the story that you wouldn’t experience if you just read the book?

Tone! Plus, I felt like I was in many of the meetings.

Did you have an extreme reaction to this book? Did it make you laugh or cry?

Surprised of the politics of every decision. Laughed at his responses to the candid comments of his Generals and VP.

Any additional comments?

Enjoyed every minute!

An insightful autobiography

I met him several times while serving on the Joint Staff when he became Secretary. I was impressed at how he treated us (compared to his predecessor) and his insightful questions at what was an initial discussion of a contentious issue. I enjoyed the follow up sessions on the topic and his narrative reflects that same great attitude across national security issues. Highly recommended for anyone in or out of government service.

Not sure about this book

Any additional comments?

Pretty clear that given Mr Gates career, the best stuff was left out. His arguments against the wars sound good now, but did he express them AT THE TIME?

Presidential

Gates certain possessed the experience and similar path as George HW Bush. He ran a War department not a defense department. Very intelligent person and America should be proud to have him as a leader during a very dangerous time. The story is in depth and contains the minutiae needed to make sense