Back when Robert Gates was named the Secretary of Defense, I expressed cynicism on here, noting that the change from Rumsfeld to Gates meant little in the larger scheme of things, unless President Bush changed his view of the world and the role of our military in it. And, indeed, the president did not change his view, or his playbook, so on the larger picture, the change to Gates meant nothing.
At the same time, where he was free to change things, Gates was effective and gained the respect and confidence of the uniformed military. Gates wasn't there for Abu Ghraib or Walter Reed or armor shortages, but he came in during the aftermath and was tasked with not just cleaning up the mess, but making sure those critical errors were not allowed to happen again. Gates moved confidently and swiftly, unencumbered by any doctrinaire view from the president on these "smaller" issues, and proved himself a very adept administrator. It's for this reason that we went from six retired Generals calling for the Secretary of Defense to be fired, to none.
Now, with a new Commander in Chief with a very different view, Gates provides the perfect short-term bridge between the eras of pre-Iraq-redeployment and post-Iraq-redeployment. And, that seems to be what President-Elect Obama sees Gates as -- a civil servant who does the job he's tasked with, and does it well. Politically, it also gives some cover to Obama from the right, to use one of George W. Bush's team to carry out a dramatic change in policy.
For those who worry that Gates will somehow drag President Obama to the right on Iraq, I think that fear is really unfounded. If the first question one must ask is, "Why is Obama picking Gates?" then the second question has to be "Why does Gates want to stay with Obama?"
It's not because Gates wants to preserve some neo-con view in the administration -- after all, Gates is a Bush I guy, a moderate who sees more eye-to-eye with Brent Scowcroft (an opponent of the war) than Paul Wolfowitz. It's not to preserve the current course, because Gates is smart enough to know that with Hillary Clinton, James Jones, and Barack Obama, staying the course will never win out.
The only reasonable answer is that Gates clearly understands that there will be a new course for our military, that includes redeployment from Iraq, and wants to make it work. If he didn't, he had a very nice private sector life that he could have gone to.
There is little time to spare here, as has been made clear by the timelines for redeployment that the Iraqis are calling for. By keeping Gates, the Department of Defense is the one place in government that will be spared the pains of leadership transition. Gates won't have to "hit the ground running," because he's already running. And now -- finally -- with a new mission from the top, Gates is well positioned to help Barack Obama keep the promises he made during his campaign.
Crossposted at www.VetVoice.com
Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz
a real or perceived threat. Would or could Obama go for that?
And once the Iraqi's vote on the agreement, can Obama pull troops
out sooner? I wonder if Obama will butt heads more with Clinton,
or Gates?
I do hope he cleans house of the political appointees who were less than competent and bluntly inept hacks. The wasteful spending had reached epic proportions with slogans over ideas and management non existent. Hopefully professionalism will be brought to the Services, but that kind of change will not happen overnight and not without some people just being flat out fired.
When we elected Obama as President, the current power structure in Washington didn’t pack their bags and leave.
They didn’t pave over K-street.
They didn’t level the Pentagon.
What Obama requires is the strength of leadership to direct the abilities of able men regardless of their political aspirations and work within a system to offer the country a new direction.
If he does his job exceptionally well, he will undoubtedly piss off both sides of the aisle.
Obama is doing well by our fighting men and women by keeping this old-school national security professional at the helm of DoD. Gates has brought quiet, no-nonsense, and most significantly, strong leadership to a Pentagon ravaged by know-nothing ideologues like Rumsfeld and Feith. He has called for the closure of Guantanamo and cracked the whip on the Air Force for not playing a more significant role in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gate's job isn't about idealogies or partisanship, it's about quick and effective organizational skills.
Perhaps we can get Don Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales to come back? That "works" too, right?
Obama campaigned on the slogan to change the country from being so pre-occupied with partisan battles and hatred. I am a loyal progressive who would have like to see a clean sweep of the former Bush/Clinton partisans. But I have to ask myself if that is in keeping with Obama's pledge to end partisan divisions in order to achieve the common good. If by keeping Robert Gates means the continuation of Bush agenda then I will join forces with those who are highly critical of Obama. If, on the other hand, keeping Gates is Obama's signal of his determination to transcend partisan divisions, while at the same time ensuring the implementation of his foreign policy vision, then I don't see why all the fuss about his choice. Unless of course you don't trust Obama to make good on his pledges to change policy.