Why the Gates Pick Works

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

Comments

[demfriend]

I agree that there would be a whole lot of issues if another other than Gates was chosen fo the get go as there's a mountain of stuff going on right now even. I understand Bush is trying to get agreemens signed which will affect the war and how Obama can get things done for up to another two-three years. This could monkey up any withdrawel plans and Bush is lousey enought to do anything he can to affect the war situation for Obama. At least Gates will understand some of the underhanded dealings too as a newbie would be sunk in the munk of all Bush has done. Stablity is all we can hope for with the crew in place now and if anything were to happen Gates would be up to speed where as no on being chosen could be brought up to speed fast enough and all hell would happen with our soldiers. Obama had no other choice for now.

[deminmo]

Gates is for pre-emptive strikes against anyone designated as
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?

[SimonNZ]

Gates will stand as the sole successful appointment of the Bush Administration. Let's not forget he was appointed only reluctantly in response to the abject failure of his predecessor Rumsfeld, and all those in the Neocon movement.

[poundpj]

Keeping Gates is a good move for now. The puzzle palace needs time to complete the clean up of the mess Rumsfeld and company made. Gates has made tough calls, and will continue to make tough calls. There probably is a better choice out there but it would be hard to find one with two years experience on the job.

[oldgeek1]

Gates showed me something when he fired first the Secretary of the Army and then the Secretary of the Air Force and the 4 Star. The future of our deployment in Iraq will not rest on Gates but with the NSA and the SEC of State and finally the President. I have no doubt Gates will manage well what is is asked to manage.

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.

[lastams]

News flash.
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.

[Frank Naif - Huffpost Blogger]

When I was just a little junior intelligence analyst at CIA, Gates was the DCI. What I remember best about him was his hatred of Power Point, which I now understand as representing disdain for Washington hallway pomposity, especially the kind that crawls the corridors of the Pentagon.

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.

[Rule Of Law]

And undermining his president, Carter, during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, fits into this how?

[ObamaSheeple]

Can you educate me please? I am unfamiliar with your point. A link would be appreciated.

[DuPageDem]

Heck, it wouldn't be the White House without a few Iran-Contra criminals hangning around.

[rr52]

Organized people can do whatever. Gates is organized and of course he will do a different job under Obama because as Secy. he oversees policy development to bring the troops home. He literally orchestrates the whole scenario to move a massive amount of troops taking care of their health and safety, travel, needs in general, while practicing fiscal responsibility. In other words he orchestrates the whole movement.

Gate's job isn't about idealogies or partisanship, it's about quick and effective organizational skills.

[KeysDan]

After Gates was appointed, it was reported that the former secretary, Rumsfeld, continued to have an office at the Pentagon.. I wonder if this "gracious gesture" will continue?

[jjgildersneeze]

Apparently there are plenty of people for whom "change" was merely a campaign slogan, and who are ready to be apologists for just about anything Mr. Obama does.

Perhaps we can get Don Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales to come back? That "works" too, right?

[Erdgeist]

Being a good civil servant takes someone who has an appreciation of virtue since doing a good job will be their primary reward. Gates probably falls into this category as do many who work in Washington. It is really a terrible tragedy that being a good civil servant under Reagan, Bush I and II became a bad thing in which the federal government, essentially, became an arm of Republican conservatism which was bent on destroying the New Deal gains of FDR.

[DuPageDem]

Oh, Gates did a great job under Reagan & Bush I -- covering up their sale of arms to Iran and illegal war in Nicaragua. That's the kind of can-do work ethic we need to get out of Iraq. And if a few transports full of weapons end up disappearing this time, who'd complain about that?

[Rule Of Law]

Once more--Let's hope that Obama has deep connections at FBI, CIA and NSA to watch his back. After what Gates did to Carter during the Iran Hostage Crisis, hiring him for Sec Def is like hiring Rasputin for the head of your security detail.

[Lahonda]

PE BO is doing as much he can without picking any new fights... God knows he has enough to deal with already. Gates kept things square enough that we stopped the Rumsfeld agenda. Now the mission has to be restated. Otherwise, Mr. Gates has to dutifully carry out the present boss's agenda of conquer and command.

[gfs5541]

In short, having Gates is like having and not having a Republican. Moreover, just because Gates is staying on doesn't mean that other Bush appointees under him are staying.

[tonysmith]

Obama apologia.....It's just amazing. If Clinton had kept Bush's war man, then the left would be spewing out of control. But because it's Obama, "it works." LOL.

[larazon]

I support Obama and I think keeping Gates on for more than a few months to get the new Secy up to speed S-UCKS, but wait, there is no new Secy, Gates IS the new Secy. That s-ucks even more.

[nk007]

larazon,
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.

[larazon]

I support Obama and I think keeping Gates on for more than a few months to get the new Secy up to speed S-U-CKS, but wait, there is no new Secy, Gates IS the new Secy. That s-u-cks even more.

[OptimisticMF]

Yeah, uh...no. Read the article.