Obama's War Cabinet, WSJ Says

Wall Street Journal:

The names floated for Barack Obama's national security team "are drawn exclusively from conservative, centrist and pro-military circles without even a single -- yes, not one! -- chosen to represent the antiwar wing of the Democratic party." In his plaintive post this week on the Nation magazine's Web site, Robert Dreyfuss indulges in the political left's wonderful talent for overstatement. But who are we to interfere with his despair?

If reports are correct, on Monday the President-elect will ask Robert Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense and name retired Marine General James Jones as National Security Adviser. These are the Administration posts most critical to the successful conduct of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to possible entanglements with Iran, North Korea and who knows who else. With these personnel picks, Mr. Obama reveals a bias for competence, experience and continuity. Hence the caterwauls from his left flank.

Read the whole story: Wall Street Journal

Comments

[KeysDan]

Gates was appointed to one of the Republican slots on the Iraq Study Commission, co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton. He resigned (to be replaced by former Sec of State Lawrence Eagelburger, under Daddy Bush) upon his nomination as Sec. of Defense, however, the bulk of the findings were complete by that time. So apparently, he agrees with the findings to work with Iran and Syria and to phase-out troops in accord with a timetable. The only part Bush accepted was the surge (advocated by member, Charles Robb) to give "breathing space" for a diplomatic solution. Gates is a survivor and tucked in his convictions while in the employ of Bush. He is likely to take new cues based on the prevailing winds--not a great personal trait, but maybe he can be co-opted in the service of peace, if we are lucky.

[LightSword]

Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!

[teron678]

is that you MAc???

[geobushono]

How considerate for Huffpo to link a WSJ article that slams The Nation....­..........­...Where is the CHANGE?
Amerika slides towards corporate fascism with Obama barely slowing the descent.
Don't let Obama do this to us.

[Hawka]

Paranoia hitting you much?

[jdw1981]

"Anti-war wing of the Democratic party"? The article makes it sound like Democrats who are against the war are somehow on the fringe. The fact of the matter is, THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE AGAINST THE WAR. Obama said he would get us out of Iraq. We'll see how good he is at honoring his word.

[ID-TenTango]

As it stands we'll be out of Iraq by 2011. However, most of those exiting units will be reallocated to Afghanistan. So the numbers in Iraq will gradually decrease until the 2011 deadline but the surge in Afghanistan will likely offset the total decrease in the region to a great degree.

[geobushono]

or more accurately, our Troops will be out of the cities, so long as the Iraqis prove to us that they can run THEIR Country.
So that just leaves all the American mercenaries to be the face of democracy.
Are you getting the picture yet?

[Coinyer101]

we are now called the 'fringe'..­..........

[ID-TenTango]

I was extremely critical and concerned about Obama's foreign policy directions during the election. His selections have shown, at least to me, that he is truly putting the country before partisan politics. If that is how he defines "change" then I'm all for it.

General Jones will be crucial in defusing any escalating situations with Russia and Gates will continue to oversee effective strategy in Iraq until they are required to be out of the country in 2011. I'm confident with these men in charge they can accurately assess the situation in Afghanistan and with Iran and deal with them responsibly and accordingly.

[Coinyer101]

republicans are certainly happy.....­....

[Madmac]

I like the choices. These choices are pragmatic in nature. Mostly politically agnostic. From what I see of both the Economic and National Security teams, these are people with no agendas, no ideology, and appear to be both competent and experienced. This is the change we need right now. The adults are back in charge.

[Bustinurbal]

Can you say Bush III,

Obama is Just another puppet like the bushes and clinton and reagan and ...
Get a life

[rudyinbama]

Nonsense.
We would not be in the mess we are today if the Republican Supreme Court hadn't selected George Bush to be president instead of allowing the recount in Florida to proceeed and elect Gore.

[Hawka]

What's that? Clinton's surplus that Bush squandered was bad now? Stopping genocide in Yugoslavia was something we shouldn't have done? Well lets just harp on good old FDR for WWII while we're at it!!

[LightSword]

I love this team. Really reassuring :)

[Bustinurbal]

Can you say Bush III,

Obama is Just another puppet like the bushes and clinton and reagan and ...
Get a life

[Jazzcomedian]

Good for him. I'm cool with all his choices so far. I want to see how he directs and utilizes them. Having read Audacity of Hope, I've got confidence in his pragmatic philosophy, thinking and judgement.

[Bustinurbal]

Can you say Bush III,

Obama is Just another puppet like the bushes and clinton and reagan and ...
Get a life

[Jazzcomedian]

Since you seem to have such a vibrant, well-informed life, who would be your choice for a non-puppet president, and who would be your choices for a national security team?

[Social Construct]

I think President-elect Obama will himself provide the more progressive representation in the national security circle; and rightly so. This is territory where a president should not delegate his direct input as far as policy is concerned.

[Coinyer101]

NO THANK YOU! WE WANT HAGEL/RICH­ARDSON/WES­CLARK! THESE ARE THE WORST CHOICES! DONT BOTHER BASHING ME AS 'CHANGE TROLL', EITHER! IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE SOME FOLKS THAT REALLY WANT TO GET US OUT OF IRAQ! STOOPID CHOICES!

[drauz]

what a crappy apologia, signifying nothing.