Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditBarack Obama will be getting off on the wrong foot, to put it mildly, if he does what seems likely now: allow Robert Gates to stay on a secretary of defense.
For reasons that are unclear to me, many in Obama's inner circle seem to believe that it's important to bring so-called "moderate" Republicans into the president-elect's national security team. That is an awful idea, for two reasons: first, even though many of the names being floated -- such as Gates, Dick Lugar of Indiana, and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska -- come from the traditional wing of the GOP, and they are not neoconservatives, they are almost guaranteed to push for an expansion of the US military budget and a bigger armed forces. And second, by doing so Obama would be conceding many critics' argument that Democrats are somehow not suited to control the national security apparatus.
Gates has reportedly already been working on the transition to an Obama administration, and he certainly hasn't done anything to damp down speculation that he is a candidate for the job under Obama.
His thumbmail bio, for those who've forgotten: Gates spent decades in the CIA as a Soviet specialist, where he consistently inflated the threat from the USSR to justify a US military buildup, especially under President Reagan; he served as a top CIA official under Reagan and Bush I, who nominated him (twice) to be CIA director. The first time, Gates was shot down in the Senate because of his ties to the Iran-contra scandal of the mid-1980s, but the second time was a charm, and he was CIA director from 1991 to 1993.
During the Bush II years, Gates took part in two commissions that helped him earn some praise as a moderate, serving with Zbigniew Brzezinski on a CFR task force on Iran that called for negotiations with Tehran, and then briefly serving as a member of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group in 2006, which called for a phased withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq. (Gates left the ISG to become secretary of defense before its report was issued, so he didn't sign on to its conclusions, but it seems clear that he supported the thrust of the ISG's work.) But since then Gates has been closely identified with the post-2006 "surge" in Iraq, and he has been closely involved in planning the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and the recent pattern of attacks across the border into Pakistan.
Some top Obama officials, including Richard Danzig -- a former secretary of the Navy, who is himself a candidate for secretary of defense -- have said on the record that Obama ought to retain Gates at DOD.
At least one newspaper, the Canadian National Post, is reporting that Gates "has apparently said he wants to retire."
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Geez, Mr Dreyfuss....
obsess much???
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 10:18am
If Pres. Obama retains Gates, we can forget real change in foreign affairs.
The imperial project abroad will continue to be promoted.
And Obama, the project's captive, will sink in the quicksands of preemptive wars.
Perfect for a Hillary primary challenge in '12.
And a Bloomberg purchase of the '12 GOP nomination.
Posted by sloper at 11/05/2008 @ 10:21am
Well, according to the MSM and the inner circle, it would be to Obama's advantage to keep Gates for at least a year or so because there won't be enough transition time to brief a new Sec of Def on what's happening.
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 11:01am
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 11:01am
Precisely. Gates in a lot of ways has to be kept on until they can fully brief someone new on the situation. You can just hand over a war to someone who is entirely uninitiated.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/05/2008 @ 11:17am
Lets please have some new faces in this forthcoming administration. There is a myriad of experience at the implementation level. Lets have new people at the cabinet level. Change means just that! Any ripple effect will soon resolve itself.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/05/2008 @ 11:36am
It was amazing here in Russia: radio and TV all night reporting about the US elections and everybody seemed to be totally excited about the result. The first question for Russians of course will be: will Obama make a difference in terms of the relationship between our countries. I certainly hope so, but I am not sure. Obama's reactions on the conflict with Georgia didn't give much hope for a better understanding, but maybe his reaction at that time was influenced by the heat of the campaigning process. But if he would appoint Gates as his foreign secretary, we can almost be sure that not much will change. And that would be very sad: the Russian people would like the US to be part of their dream as well.
Posted by danceart at 11/05/2008 @ 11:44am
Obama was definitely NOT a peace candidate before the election. So now that he won and is now considering Gates for Sec of Defense, this is painfully obvious. He announccd already that while he shuts down the war in Iraq he also intends to pursue the one in Afghanistan. The left needs to push him this issue. If left to his own devices, he will merely repeat the military errors of the past, which were as much errors of Democrats as of the GOP.
Posted by klingsor at 11/05/2008 @ 11:49am
"For reasons that are unclear to me, many in Obama's inner circle seem to believe that it's important to bring so-called "moderate" Republicans into the president-elect's national security team."
Obama ran on a promise of postpartisanship. That means Republicans will be in the mix.
Did you think he was lying?
Posted by BlueSpark at 11/05/2008 @ 12:02pm
Posted by danceart at 11/05/2008 @ 11:44am
Sorry danceart, but don't count on Russia begin a "good" dance partner. At some point they're gonna step all over the new administrations toes and laugh while they're doing it.
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 12:04pm
Looks like Dreyfuss is getting his first touch of reality. Does he honestly think Obama's the died-in-the-wool liberal he wished for. Gates is a responsible statesman, and Obama, who is not interested in maintaining the devisiveness of the past but ratherin making wise decisions no matter whose feathers he ruffles, may very well hold onto him.
I'm thinking some of the writers here are going to be in for a rude awakening as they discover that THIS guy isn't interested in left or right but in doing whats necessary and smart.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/05/2008 @ 12:21pm
BlueSpark wrote: "Obama ran on a promise of post-partisanship. That means Republicans will be in the mix.
Did you think he was lying?"
Gosh, isn't this the same Barack Obama who ran in the Democratic primary on promises of voting against the FISA bill and opposing off-shore oil drilling? Isn't he the same Barack Obama who promised to take public financing if the Republican candidate agreed to do so?
I forget -- what did he do once he became the defacto Democratic candidate?
Obama is a politician. In other words, when he thinks it is to his political advantage, he lies and he breaks his promises.
The presidential election is over. Obama won. Now it's time for we Democrats to set aside all the campaign rhetoric, open our eyes, and stop ignoring Obama's not very progressive or polulist political track record.
As for bipartianship -- remember that the Republicans defined that as another way to spell "date rape." Let's see some evidence that they've abandoned their rapist mentality before suggesting we go steady.
Posted by Bill Kelsey at 11/05/2008 @ 12:43pm
Rahm Emmanuel as chief of staff?
Bad sign. Hardly an omen of change.
Posted by sloper at 11/05/2008 @ 1:42pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/05/2008 @ 11:17am | ignore this person | warn this person
the pres elect has over two months to get up to speed. how did Bush spend those two months?
Gates will NOT be in the new administration.
hey all you dorks who predicted an Obama loss:
EAT SH*T
Posted by emile duBois at 11/05/2008 @ 2:33pm
Sorry danceart, but don't count on Russia begin a "good" dance partner. At some point they're gonna step all over the new administrations toes and laugh while they're doing it.
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 12:04p
What was it that Jimmy Carter said? "I can't believe the Russians LIED to us!"
Posted by usc1 at 11/05/2008 @ 4:24pm
maybe the russians lied to us. so what. our pres Bush and all his minions lied to us. that's far worse.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/05/2008 @ 4:27pm
Another fine post from Mr. Dreyfus.
Thanks.
Also, to readers here I cannot recommend highly enough the three part sequence by Roger Morris at Tom Dispatch.
Morris' writing is nothing short of enthralling.
Part One:
tinyurl.com/2jo32o
You might as well print these off, read 'em and then give 'em to a friend. I pretty much guarantee that you'll be hooked.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/05/2008 @ 5:03pm
Obama lied to us too.
I promise to take public financing.....oops never mind.
Posted by jimmylove at 11/05/2008 @ 5:07pm
Not sure on who really would want the job? Any recommendations?
Posted by OneVote at 11/05/2008 @ 5:46pm
As I recall, Gates was a reluctant appointee called in to save Junior's ass. Wasn't there lots of arm twisting and pleas from Papa Bush?
Posted by OneVote at 11/05/2008 @ 5:49pm
Frontline had a recent program on Afghanistan. One of the main points that they made was that the more troops you have on the ground, the less firepower you need, and collateral damage is reduced. In other words, fewer civilian die. We have never had enough troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Even with the surge, there was never enough troops to secure Iraq. Shinseki wanted close to a half million troops to secure Iraq. We would still be in a world of hurt, if the Sunni insurgents hadn't turned on al-Qaida. I still want us out of Iraq, but 9/11 came out of Afghanistan, and al-Qaida will not quit attacking us. This is the real world and it is not pretty. We also need the draft to have a proper armed forces. Even if we were not involved in two wars, we need to provide for the common defense. I also believe we could safe a ton of money if we got rid of those worthless missile defense system and those 'blood sucking" private contractors. I would go with Powell or Jim Webb as Secretary of Defense.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/05/2008 @ 5:53pm
'Only 22 months ago, Mr. Gates turned down President Bush's invitation to become the first director of national intelligence. After agonizing for more than two weeks, Mr. Gates later recounted, he decided during a tearful, late-night walk that he "could not leave" the university to return to Washington.
But since March, as a member of Mr. Baker's Iraq Study Group, Mr. Gates has been pondering the central defense policy quandary facing the administration. Summoned to the president's ranch over the weekend and offered the defense secretary's job, this time Mr. Gates said yes.
"Because so many of America's sons and daughters in our armed forces are in harm's way, I did not hesitate when the president asked me to return to duty," Mr. Gates said at the White House ceremony on Wednesday.'
Excerpt from:
Robert Gates, a Cautious Player From a Past Bush Team; NY Times, Scott Shane 11/09/08
Posted by OneVote at 11/05/2008 @ 6:33pm
Correction
Robert Gates, a Cautious Player From a Past Bush Team; NY Times, Scott Shane 11/09/06
Posted by OneVote at 11/05/2008 @ 6:34pm
Posted by jimmylove at 11/05/2008 @ 5:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
when Bush lied, many people died.
Obama changed his mind. he decided he wanted to win.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/05/2008 @ 6:43pm
Yeah, he's also "changing his mind" on immediate withdrawal from Iraq....and more people will die.
Posted by jimmylove at 11/05/2008 @ 7:59pm
Yeah, he's also "changing his mind" on immediate withdrawal from Iraq....and more people will die. Posted by jimmylove at 11/05/2008 @ 7:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
not true. he has said he would bring the war in Iraq to an end. there is no immediate withdrawal, it will take some time. withdrawal will likely be under fire.
let the guy assume power before you ascribe actions to him.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/05/2008 @ 8:03pm
Well of course he'll bring it to an end eventually! Duh. Whoop-dee-doo. Nixon brought Vietnam to a close too.
The reality is that he has continuously softened his town on withdrawal. First it was immediate...then it was 16 months, I think....now where is it? He was strongly opposed to the surge and now says it was "successful beyond anyone's imagination." Oh...could it be that now, perhaps, it is based on conditions on the ground? After he finally decided to visit the area after 900+ days?
Stop being an apologist for him. Hold him accountable just like you would any Republican.
Posted by jimmylove at 11/05/2008 @ 8:17pm
Hold him accountable just like you would any Republican. Posted by jimmylove at 11/05/2008 @ 8:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I and the country will hold Obama responsible, once he's in office. Bush b y contrast has never been held accountable. he would not have had a second term if he had been.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/05/2008 @ 8:21pm
The economy. It has it's ups and downs, blaming Bush is easy and OK by me. It'll get back on track even without Obama's help, though it may take longer.
BUT! The reason for the Obama phenomenon owes a great deal to the "get out of Iraq" folks. Obama cannot fold on this. He opposed the war, Hillary did not. He opposed the war, McCain did not. He's where he's at today due in a large part to his anti-Iraq war stance.
He has got to get out of Iraq.
Posted by bleedingheart at 11/05/2008 @ 9:56pm
Keeping Gates for the time being is a smart move. Why would you immediately switch SECDEFs right in the middle of a war? It's called being responsible, not partisan. I saw somewhere that Chuck Hagel is being considered for Gates eventual successor. Remember folks, Robert Gates is not Donald Rumsfeld.
Some people before Election day hit on the fact that the hard-line liberals will be disappointed because Obama will govern more toward the center instead of pursuing 100% liberal policies.
Posted by palehorse67 at 11/06/2008 @ 09:23am
Why would you immediately switch SECDEFs right in the middle of a war?
why not? Rumsfeld was fired in the middle of a war.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 12:33pm
Oybama! In addition to Rahm Emanuel you could give us Gates?
Anyone who was fool enough after the FISA, oil-drilling, NAFTA and campaign finance reform lies to have voted for Obama deserves to have him appoint Emanuel and Gates. Those willing to take a bath are always easily helped into the tub.
As has been his style, this clown is going to hide on every major issue confronting this country. This is no FDR, this is a Stephin Fetchit who's ready to do the bidding of AIPAC and those large corporate contributors that purchased him during the campaign. And you believed him.
Posted by john lowell at 11/06/2008 @ 1:21pm
Rumsfeld resigned. There was nothing ol' W could really do about it.
Posted by palehorse67 at 11/06/2008 @ 1:23pm
I'd like to see Jim Webb get Secretary of Defense. Nothing says defense better than actually bringing your gun with you to the Hill.
Posted by palehorse67 at 11/06/2008 @ 2:00pm
Posted by john lowell at 11/06/2008 @ 1:21pm
I don't know who you've been watching this campaign season, Obama doesn't just capitulate to anyone. He said that it He likes having differing viewpoints so he can see the bigger picture, much like JFK did.
He has said that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon during the campaign, which he probably drew off of his experience with Dick Lugar and the cooperative threat reduction (nuclear proliferation) legislation he's done. Now that he's President, the AIPAC conspiracy nuts will say that he's being paid off.
And what big corporations sponsored Obama? I mean really! Put down that crackpipe son!
Posted by palehorse67 at 11/06/2008 @ 2:23pm
Rumsfeld resigned. There was nothing ol' W could really do about it. Posted by palehorse67 at 11/06/2008 @ 1:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
hahahahaha. you are naive. Rummy was fired.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 2:51pm
I seriously doubt that George W. Bush would submit himself to actually listen to the people calling for Rummy's job and fire him.
Posted by palehorse67 at 11/06/2008 @ 2:54pm
apropos Rummy, the stench of failure was too great. his party was pissed off at him, that he didn't sack Rummy BEFORE the elections, when it might have done them some good. do you read ANY newspapers? anything at all?
Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 3:07pm
"I say I listen to all voices, but mine's the final decision. And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He's not only transforming the military, he's fighting a war on terror. He's helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld. I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense. " -George W. Bush, April 18, 2006
Now because George Bush didn't tell Rummy to resign, that doesn't mean that Cheney or Rove didn't. But let's suppose for a moment that they did, are you suggesting that Obama follow in Bush's footsteps and replace the Secretary of Defense in a time of war?
Posted by palehorse67 at 11/06/2008 @ 3:37pm
By contrast, Andrew Card, President George W. Bush's first Chief of Staff, was not regarded as being as powerful. Some have speculated that this was due to Card being "overshadowed" by the influence of Karl Rove, the Senior Adviser and Deputy Chief of Staff who was "the architect" of Bush's political rise.[7] Similarly, President Bill Clinton's Chiefs of Staff were not particularly powerful.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 4:02pm
are you suggesting that Obama follow in Bush's footsteps and replace the Secretary of Defense in a time of war? Posted by palehorse67 at 11/06/2008 @ 3:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
yes. it is a new administration.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 4:06pm
Robert Gates is temporary. No one is talking about him being there for the duration of the term.
Posted by palehorse67 at 11/06/2008 @ 4:34pm
We aren't at war, we are occupying.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 11/06/2008 @ 5:05pm
We aren't at war, we are occupying. Posted by stpwarsnow at 11/06/2008 @ 5:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
not in Afghanistan. that country is twice as large as Texas. we cannot occupy Afghanistan. we cannot even defeat the Taleban. they have the support of at least half the population.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 7:25pm
We are already opening the gate of partisan rancoeur by, without being in the loop, telling the President Elect how to be president. We are thus setting ourselves for disapointmemnt and subsequently, throw the kichen sink at him when we can't explain why he didn't grant our wishes
Posted by demesvarc at 11/06/2008 @ 9:50pm
not in Afghanistan. that country is twice as large as Texas. we cannot occupy Afghanistan. we cannot even defeat the Taleban. they have the support of at least half the population.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 7:25pm
We can't beat the Taliban if we have the wrong strategy (air strikes) and not enough boots on the ground. The Powell Doctrine does not apply here, I believe we need a small nimble force along with good intel and law enforcement to get the job done.
Posted by palehorse67 at 11/07/2008 @ 2:09pm
We can't beat the Taliban if we have the wrong strategy (air strikes) and not enough boots on the ground. The Powell Doctrine does not apply here, I believe we need a small nimble force along with good intel and law enforcement to get the job done. Posted by palehorse67 at 11/07/2008 @ 2:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you are contradicting yourself above. not enough boots and small nimble force, which is it.
the fact that this war has dragged on for six years should tell us something.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 3:32pm
I don't agree that Robert Gates is a poor choice. gates is a "good soldier". We need to heal a country that is still deeply divided because of the zero sum game of politics. Being a purest progressive/liberal Democrat is really not a solution that wears any legs. There are bound to be mistakes in these difficult times, and giving the opposition fuel for their anger is really not going to be terribly productive. This is really an opportune moment to be magnanimous.
Posted by lachatte at 11/10/2008 @ 7:01pm
the current secretary of defense has done a wonderful job in changing the failed policies of the previous sec. of defense. he is highly intelligent and is well informed in the things that are happening in the intelligence community today. keeping him would be one of the best things the president-elect could do. i speak from experience. because i am currently in the special operations community and have been all over the world advising on these issues. you people think that you have such a well informed opinion on today's foriegn policy issues when in fact you know nothing. just let the president make his decisions based on what he knows and spare us all on your uneducated guesses on what our policies should be.
Posted by job111 at 11/11/2008 @ 7:40pm