Thread: Should Obama keep Gates?

Definately keep Gates. He has done a great job and most if not all of the countries he is involved with seem to be comfortable with him. If they replace Gates then they have to start all over again getting to know the next person Obama would appoint. Gates has done a very good job for the U.S. and IMO it would be foolish to remove him given his track record of accomplishment.

Should he? Unquestionably Yes.
Will he? Ahhh. now that is the question.

A few weeks ago I said "Not a chance"
Now it's looking a little more positive.

I think he will keep Gates. The Kossacks et al will call it a betrayal, etc. but they have yet to realize that Obama still has to govern, and govern effectively (which means not from the far left). Keeping Gates is smart politically, and good for the country and the military.

Already Obama is tapping a former general as National Security Adviser, and one as DNI, and Clinton as SecState, and possibly Tenet's former chief of staff as CIA chief, and Napolianto as DHS head. So the assumption, by anybody, that Obama is going to be some hippy, peace-loving leftist is way overplayed.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

So the assumption, by anybody, that Obama is going to be some hippy, peace-loving leftist is way overplayed.

Oh I agree. A dye-in-the-wool pacifist would be unlikely to appoint a former Commandant of the USMC (and former SACEUR) to be his NSA.

But I still find this assertion from Ironduke's article to be a bit of a giggle-fest

Among Democrats there will be a proud and understandable sense of "We can run Defense too." They can.

Bwahahaha! )))

Yeah. Sure you can.

But hey, at least the article goes on to state exactly how the Democrats can run Defense:

As an added inducement for the president-elect, there will be clamor in the Democratic Party in the next few years to cut Defense, the one sizable chunk of the budget that can be cut and that they'd enjoy cutting.

THERE we go! And the truth shall set you free!!

The Pros and Cons of Keeping Robert Gates

Conventional wisdom in Washington holds that President-elect Barack Obama will soon invite current Defense Secretary Robert Gates to extend his stay in the Pentagon. Conventional it may be, but not necessarily wise, says Lawrence Korb, who served as a senior Pentagon official in the Reagan Administration and is currently a defense expert at the Center for American Progress. "It has more minuses than pluses," says Korb of the idea of keeping Gates in place. "If President Obama wants to make any dramatic changes in the Pentagon, he's going to have to do them in his first year - and if he's got the same secretary, how can Obama do it?"


But Michael O'Hanlon, a defense scholar at the Brookings Institution, disagrees. He says "it's a great idea" for Obama to tap Gates to hang around. "It suggests an awareness of the importance of continuity at a time of war," O'Hanlon argues, "plus a healthy respect for Gates."


To keep or cashier Gates may be the capital's latest guessing game, because there are good reasons for Obama to consider both options:



Keeping Gates would make for a smoother transition amid two wars. (But that's why the uniformed military leaders who are actually running the wars, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, don't change when a new Administration takes over).



Keeping the Defense Secretary would continue his push to focus the military services on insurgencies of the type they're facing in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than on the hypothetical conventional wars for which they prefer to plan - and for which they continue to order up costly weapons. (But continuity would also keep Pentagon spending, already at World War II levels, climbing into the stratosphere on autopilot.)



Keeping Gates would allow Obama to demonstrate bipartisanship in national security, an area particularly dear to Republicans. (But it might also be taken as a sign that the Democratic bench on military matters is so weak the party has to rely on a holdover from a GOP administration.)



Keeping Gates in place would demonstrate Obama's self-confidence in the presidency, entrusting a key post in his cabinet post to a GOP holdover. (But if Obama slows his planned pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq, as some in the military want him to do, he could be seen as deferring to President Bush's Defense Secretary.)


Gates associates have made clear that their boss is likely to stay if asked to do so by Obama, so long as he can keep some trusted aides. Gates, a career CIA man who served as president of Texas A&M University before coming to the Pentagon in December 2006, isn't even a registered Republican, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. (Gates' spokesman said Thursday he didn't know his boss's political registration.) Still, antiwar activists are growing concerned at the prospect of an increasingly hawkish Obama cabinet featuring Gates as Defense chief and Senator Hillary Clinton (who supported invading Iraq) as Secretary of State. But Gates has won praise on Capitol Hill for arguing that U.S. foreign policy is too militarized, and for firing senior officers and officials he deemed to have failed the nation's wounded vets and to have been derelict in ensuring the security of America's nuclear weapons.


The uniformed military, after the bruising it took from Gates' predecessor, Don Rumsfeld, also appear keen to retain the incumbent. At the highest levels, they praise Gates' calm demeanor, and interest in their opinions. "He still comes to the tank every week to hear them out," a Pentagon official says of Gates' regular meeting in the Joint Chiefs' secure conference room.


"Gates is a great choice because of the respect he has gained from all quarters after the fiasco that went before," says Anthony Zinni, a retired four-star Marine who once headed the U.S. Central Command. "He would also provide continuity at a critical time." The key to Gates' sticking around, Zinni suggests, is how many Pentagon political appointees Obama would let Gates keep if he stays, denying Democrats those key national security positions. "I think he won't stay without his team," Zinni says of Gates, "and the [Obama] Administration can't let him keep them." Then, uncharacteristically for this particular parlor game, Zinni adds: "But what do I know?"

Link

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Oh I agree. A dye-in-the-wool pacifist would be unlikely to appoint a former Commandant of the USMC (and former SACEUR) to be his NSA.)

Yeah, and if I recall correctly the NSA does not need Senate confirmation. So he could get away with an appointment like Jones here.

But hey, at least the article goes on to state exactly how the Democrats can run Defense:



THERE we go! And the truth shall set you free!! :

Well that's the million-dollar question, and one that concerns me the most with an Obama administration is if and how much he is going to cut from the DOD. FCS may be dead, and NMD may be scaled back, but I don't think, or at least I hope that he isn't going to make the broad 25% cuts that Congressman Barney Frank proposed a few months ago.

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/11/obam...tary-cut-claim

That will be an early test for Obama is if he holds the line against Congress on this issue. On the domestic stuff he will probably concede a lot, he will have to, though that road has already been paved by Bush. I wouldn't be surprised if he hews right on defense and foreign policy, and thus mollifies and mutes conservative criticism of him, and that frees up his ability to move left slightly on domestic issues.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Oh I agree. A dye-in-the-wool pacifist would be unlikely to appoint a former Commandant of the USMC (and former SACEUR) to be his NSA.

Sir, Obama is a dye-in-the-wool opportunist. He cares about the feelings of his constituents only to the extent that they affect his power and influence. His past promises mean nothing to him. If he thought that Iran, for example, was standing between him and the presidency, Iran would be thrown under the tank tread quicker than you can say "Allah Akbar".

Originally Posted by citanon

Sir, Obama is a dye-in-the-wool opportunist. He cares about the feelings of his constituents only to the extent that they affect his power and influence. His past promises mean nothing to him. If he thought that Iran, for example, was standing between him and the presidency, Iran would be thrown under the tank tread quicker than you can say "Allah Akbar".

No argument there, I'm just surprised at his cabinet choices.

Given the status of forces agreement i don't see where his objections would come from.

Originally Posted by citanon

Sir, Obama is a dye-in-the-wool opportunist. He cares about the feelings of his constituents only to the extent that they affect his power and influence. His past promises mean nothing to him. If he thought that Iran, for example, was standing between him and the presidency, Iran would be thrown under the tank tread quicker than you can say "Allah Akbar".

I think throwing them under a tank tread might not be a bad idea. His cabinet choices really belie your belief. Opportunists pick yes men and cronies not serious people. i won't mention bush appointees like Myers for the Supreme court? Ol Brownie, Gonzolaz or will I?

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

I think throwing them under a tank tread might not be a bad idea. His cabinet choices really belie your belief. Opportunists pick yes men and cronies not serious people. i won't mention bush appointees like Myers for the Supreme court? Ol Brownie, Gonzolaz or will I?

I think that would depend on what kind of opportunist you are.

TH,

As an added inducement for the president-elect, there will be clamor in the Democratic Party in the next few years to cut Defense, the one sizable chunk of the budget that can be cut and that they'd enjoy cutting.

regarding this point- speaking from a DoD perspective, people were fully expecting cuts from the next administration, whether it was republican or democratic. current acquisition cost overruns have been insanely high, and mccain has had a history of challenging pentagon budgets gone amuck.

as SECDEF, i suspect gates would be secretly somewhat grateful for a budget cut- it would support his current position of cutting acquisitions suited for the next war and focus in favor of getting the right budget/materials/focus for the current ones. that was part of the reason why the old AF/CC and SECAF was booted out- they openly defied gates by pushing for the F-22 when gates wanted more UAVs and airlift.

It would be good to keep Gates on for several reasons. A steady hand with extensive experience in intelligence and defense, he conceived a realignment of defense strategy which is still ongoing.

Obama, however, may have difficulty accepting some of his views. In the following excerpt from a speech he gave at NDU recently I've colored blue one view which is somewhat at odds with Obama's position. However, there is more than one way of defining success. On that may hinge whether Gates will fill the bill in Obama's eyes.

I threw a few extra paragraphs that I though folks here might find informative.

As we think about the security challenges on the horizon, it is important to establish up front that America’s ability to deal with threats for years to come will depend importantly on our performance in the conflicts of today. To be blunt, to fail – or to be seen to fail – in either Iraq or Afghanistan would be a disastrous blow to our credibility, both among our friends and allies and among potential adversaries.

In Iraq, the number of U.S. combat units in-country will decline over time. About the only argument you hear now is about the pacing of the drawdown. Still, no matter who is elected president in November, there will continue to be some kind of American advisory and counter-terrorism effort in Iraq for years to come.

In Afghanistan, as the president announced earlier this month, U.S. troop levels are rising, with the likelihood of more increases next year. Given its terrain, poverty, neighborhood, and tragic history, Afghanistan in many ways poses an even more complex and difficult long-term challenge than Iraq – one that, despite a large international effort, will require a significant American military and economic commitment for some time.

In the past I have expressed frustration over the defense bureaucracy’s priorities and lack of urgency when it came to the current conflicts – that for too many in the Pentagon it has been business as usual, as opposed to a wartime footing and a wartime mentality. When referring to “Next-War-itis,” I was not expressing opposition to thinking about and preparing for the future. It would be irresponsible not to do so – and the overwhelming majority of people in the Pentagon, the services, and the defense industry do just that. My point was simply that we must not be so preoccupied with preparing for future conventional and strategic conflicts that we neglect to provide, both short-term and long-term, all the capabilities necessary to fight and win conflicts such as we are in today.

Support for conventional modernization programs is deeply embedded in our budget, in our bureaucracy, in the defense industry, and in Congress. My fundamental concern is that there is not commensurate institutional support – including in the Pentagon – for the capabilities needed to win the wars we are in, and of the kinds of missions we are most likely to undertake in the future.

What is dubbed the war on terror is, in grim reality, a prolonged, world-wide irregular campaign – a struggle between the forces of violent extremism and moderation. In the long-term effort against terrorist networks and other extremists, we know that direct military force will continue to have a role. But we also understand that over the long term, we cannot kill or capture our way to victory. Where possible, kinetic operations should be subordinate to measures to promote better governance, economic programs to spur development, and efforts to address the grievances among the discontented from which the terrorists recruit. It will take the patient accumulation of quiet successes over a long time to discredit and defeat extremist movements and their ideology. As the National Defense Strategy puts it, success will require us to “tap the full strength of America and its people” – civilian and military, public sector and private.

We are unlikely to repeat another Iraq or Afghanistan anytime soon – that is, forced regime change followed by nation-building under fire. But that doesn’t mean we may not face similar challenges in a variety of locales. Where possible, our strategy is to employ indirect approaches – primarily through building the capacity of partner governments and their security forces – to prevent festering problems from turning into crises that require costly and controversial American military intervention. In this kind of effort, the capabilities of our allies and partners may be as important as our own and building their capacity, is arguably as important if not more so, than the fighting we do ourselves.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

It would be good to keep Gates on for several reasons. A steady hand with extensive experience in intelligence and defense, he conceived a realignment of defense strategy which is still ongoing.

Obama, however, may have difficulty accepting some of his views. In the following excerpt from a speech he gave at NDU recently I've colored blue one view which is somewhat at odds with Obama's position. However, there is more than one way of defining success. On that may hinge whether Gates will fill the bill in Obama's eyes.

I threw a few extra paragraphs that I though folks here might find informative.

I don't see the conflict. The article almost sounds like it was written by Obama's campaign. It's the Iraqis pushing us to be in bases in 6 months. It's Bush who has agreed to that. We have achieved the stated military goals of the campaign. We have removed Saddam. There are no Wmds present in Iraq at risk of falling into terrorist's hands. We have suppressed the Al Queda groups that sprang up post invasion.

The failure we risk in Iraq is one of strategic thinking. If Iraq falls into Iran's sphere of influence it isn't the failure of our military, it's just one more failure in risk analysis by the invasion's neo-con planners. Gates isn't Rumsfield. He hasn't been trying to assume State's responsibilities. I can't see him leaving because of Obama's Iraq policy after the status of forces agreement Bush negotiated. The slate in Iraq is already written militarily. He will stay if he wants to impact Afghanistan and i have not seen the conflict between the two in that area.

Obama has been pushing for more troops and Aid in Afghanistan longer than anyone in the national spotlight. Dollar/envoy diplomacy may work in Afghanistan it isn't going to in resource rich Iraq.