By picking Bob Gates as SecDef, Obama can move his progressive agenda faster and further
Kari Chisholm
By all indications, tomorrow morning the President-elect will name his national security team - including Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Jim Jones as National Security Advisor, and Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense.
Update: It's official. Obama has named Gates, Clinton, and Jones, as well as Susan Rice as UN Ambassador, Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, and Eric Holder as Attorney General.
Like many in the lefty blogosphere, I've been skeptically pondering these picks for a few weeks now. But I think I'm going to reach a different conclusion.
For the Obama Administration, I think it's a good thing that Bob Gates, the current Secretary of Defense, is going to stay on for the next year or so.
As a political hack, my first thoughts go to the political ramifications. Now, it's true that I'm concerned - as many are - that picking a Republican sends the wrong message: that Democrats can't operate the military.
But as a political hack who came of age in the Clinton years, I remember one thing about Bill Clinton's presidential transition: how distrustful the military brass was of the young fresh-faced liberal who hadn't served in uniform and was promising lots of big changes. It led them to manufacture the gays-in-the-military debacle as a way to "teach him a lesson", and immediately jammed up the Clinton team in its earliest days (and led to the absurd don't-ask/don't-tell policy - Clinton's attempt to walk a tightrope out of that mess.)
Now, we've got Barack Obama - another young fresh-faced liberal who hasn't served in uniform and is promising lots of big changes. (And don't forget, a certain chunk of the population is convinced he's a crypto-socialist and secret muslim who pals around with terrorists.)
If he's going to be a successful president - and any measure of success for him must include the safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq - then he's got to move quickly to gain the trust of the military.
(Sure, the obvious response is, "Why does he need their trust? He's the commander-in-chief, they'll follow orders!" And that's true - but only to an extent. Without the trust of the military, especially the brass, they'll ONLY follow orders. They won't provide creative leadership, share their best advice, and worst of all, the best and brightest will leave.)
So, yeah, I've decided that I'm OK with keeping around the Secretary of Defense for a little while. In addition to quickly establishing trust, the move will also communicate loud and clear that the Iraq debacle was and continues to be Bush's Folly. Keeping Bob Gates around to wind things down is a way to say to the world: the Bushies made this mess, they're going to fix it.
And keep in mind: Gates was the principal author of the Iraq Study Group report, which was very critical about the way that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld went to war and managed the war. It's easy to paint all Republicans with the same brush (god knows, I do that all the time), but the Robert Gates position on Iraq is much closer to Barack Obama's than George Bush's.
It's clear that Obama is setting up a national security team full of strong personalities - unlike the Bush team, all of whom were subservient to Dick Cheney and his neo-conservative vision for a satellite state in Iraq.
In particular, Jim Jones will be a strong national security advisor with his own independent views and influence inside the Pentagon. After all, he's a former general who was the top military aide to the Secretary of Defense in the Clinton years. On Face the Nation today, Bob Woodward noted that Jones fought against the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal:
Jones comes out of the Rumsfeld Pentagon as one of the renegades, to a certain extent, who would say publicly that Rumsfeld had emasculated the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So Jones is strong and he's going to be a voice.
And then, there's the most important point: Barack Obama is the president, and he'll be the one setting the agenda. Unlike some candidates for president, his positions have been consistent and clearly stated throughout the campaign -- and with his big electoral victory, it's clear that he has a mandate to pursue his position.
As David Axelrod told Fox News last week:
There's one person who's going to set policy in this administration, and that's the president of the United States. That's true on the economy. It's true in foreign policy.And what he wants are the people who are — who are most able to help advance that agenda. But the agenda will come from Barack Obama. He has a very clear sense where he wants to lead this country.
The people who he's recruiting for these jobs understand what that vision is. And they wouldn't be joining the administration if they're not willing to support and advance it.
And everyone who voted for Barack Obama can have great confidence that he's going to follow through on the commitments that he made.
I want President Obama to be successful. And not "successful", as in avoiding controversy and getting re-elected. I mean actually successful in achieving the progressive vision he outlined in the campaign - bringing our troops home from Iraq, universal health care, an economic strategy that values work and families, and a true commitment to energy independence and global warming.
And to do that, he's got to move fast and on multiple fronts. Keeping Bob Gates around is smart politics and the fastest way to bring our troops home from Iraq, and move on to a progressive agenda that goes beyond cleaning up after George W. Bush.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Dec 1, '08
If a passenger plane is headed for the side of a mountain, do you leave the drunken pilot at the controls on the theory that "he got us into this mess and he should get us out"? If you are watching the plane from the ground, perhaps you give that idea some brief consideration. On the other hand, if you are riding on the plane, I doubt you would endorse that approach regardless of your desire to discredit the pilot and the (former) management of the airline. As a passenger on the US of A, I would like to see Gates replaced before we hit the side of another mountain - perhaps a mountain named Iran.
I was really hoping that Obama would sweep the government clean. Staffing the govt. with Clinton retreads and a few Repubs is not the kind of fresh start that I had in mind.
Dec 1, '08
Greg D: Who would you have, then? Finding a SecDef who has no ties to either the Bush or Clinton administrations, and who has enough experience to handle the job at this point would seem almost impossible.
Personally, I'd like Wes Clark, but he has to wait 10 years from his last date of active service, as I understand. Which could be another reason for a "carry-over" of Gates.
Dec 1, '08
Stupid, stupid.
9:41 a.m.
Dec 1, '08
If a passenger plane is headed for the side of a mountain, do you leave the drunken pilot at the controls on the theory that "he got us into this mess and he should get us out"?
This is essentially my feeling about Gates. I think this is a major error by Obama. But I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong.
I was really hoping that Obama would sweep the government clean. Staffing the govt. with Clinton retreads and a few Repubs is not the kind of fresh start that I had in mind.
I don't mind the Clinton "retreads", frankly. I think Clinton had a lot of smart people around him--and I'm willing to cut slack and reserve judgment to see what happens there. I also don't mind a few Republicans if it helps pave the way in moving the incremental changes that Obama seems to have in mind.
I think its a fundamental mistake to insist that the country lurch hard back to the left immediately. The righty sinkhole where we've been mired for the 8 years happened because Bush and the GOP shoved us hard in that direction. Shoving hard back the other way doesn't seem smart, either.
The country isn't prepared or ready for a hardcore shift to the left in one ginormous swoop. We need to move with small bites at a time--and if it takes some Republican backs to do the lifting on that to make it easier, fine by me.
Dec 1, '08
It's nice to see some common sense from Kari Chisolm, which I see has already earned him a brickbat from a die-hard in the first comment.
Perhaps Greg D thinks that "Robert Gates" is "Donald Rumsfeld." If so, he's quite wrong.
10:49 a.m.
Dec 1, '08
If a passenger plane is headed for the side of a mountain, do you leave the drunken pilot at the controls on the theory that "he got us into this mess and he should get us out"?
No, Bush is the drunken pilot - and we've replaced him with Barack Obama. Gates is the capable first mate who knows what all the buttons and levers do - and he'll be taking orders from the pilot.
Dec 1, '08
And keep in mind: Gates was the principal author of the Iraq Study Group report, which was very critical about the way that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld went to war and managed the war.
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst on Gates and the Iraq Study Group.
Dec 1, '08
Hillery to State is a huge mistake although I can see why Brack would want to keep his two primary enemies close where he can keep an eye on them. Sending a girl over to get the attention of Arabs and Israelis is pie in the sky make-believe. Like it or not, appointing women and Jews to head State simply will not work in a rapidly expanding Muslim man's world. Diplomacy is based on pragmatism; I wish it were different but it ain't.
Personally, I want the Governator to head up State; he in charge of the sixth largest economy in the world; a place that is at the cusp of the globalization paradigm, he's got hand's-on experience with CA's numerous ethnic groups and understands the impact of "illegal" immegration; he is the GOPs' last hope for the presidency - so why not stck a dagger right into the heart of the right wing machine and bring a Republican moderate into the Democratic mainstream, he married a Kennedy, and lastl,y Arnold is a impending physical pressence that gets attention to leaders that persist in nefarious behavior.
Clinton failed at Health Care miserably because she was secretive, she failed at the presidency because she entrusted incompents to strategic planning positions and she'll fail at Middle East peace because she has little experience at diplomacy other than picking the china out for visiting dinataries and dodging make-believe bullets.
In two years she'll resign to get a real job as governor of the Empire State. And hopefully that will be the end of the Clinton legacy.
10:55 a.m.
Dec 1, '08
Gates has been a breath of fresh air in the Pentagon and frankly has helped keep us out of a war with Iran that Cheney and Lieberman kept pushing. Gates has been pushing for negotiations with Iran, not war. If you look at his strategic goals they line up more with Obama than Bush. The real issue that I haven't heard discussed is the replacement of the civilian appointees below Gates. Some of them are still dangerous and could do harm to the Obama administration if not replaced soon.
Overall, I agree with Kari. This is a good move for Obama and will help get support in Congress and the Pentagon for an Iraq withdrawal in a timely fashion. Those above who are criticising the move imply that Gates will be in charge of our military/foreign policy, not Obama. They also assume that Gates will be pushing a Bush/Republican agenda which does not reflect who Gates is or his own stated positions.
Dec 1, '08
Gates has a history of doing what's best for Gates. The near future may prove that Gates' self-interest will coincide with the nation's (kind of like what was good for General Motors was supposed to be good for the nation) but only time will tell. I wouldn't bet either way. Nor would I be optimistic since I gave up wishful thinking.
11:54 a.m.
Dec 1, '08
Thanks, John. I should have mentioned that all the reports are that Obama is installing his own team under and around Gates. That's a good thing.
As for this crap from Luther....
Sending a girl over to get the attention of Arabs and Israelis is pie in the sky make-believe. Like it or not, appointing women and Jews to head State simply will not work in a rapidly expanding Muslim man's world.
...well, you're just wrong. Be the change you seek in the world.
Dec 1, '08
Gates has a good understanding of how DOD, Intelligence and State interact. You might consider his comments about mid this talk on strengthening State: http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1262 . Clark is brilliant, but has narrow military background. Nonetheless he would be a great appointee in foreign policy or defense. Richard Clark would be a great returnee as well.
At DOD the challenge will be to dismantle weapons programs which benefit individual congressional districts but are unneeded or outmoded. Believe it or not, Rumsfeld, in McNamara technocrat clothing, was unable to do so. It will be especially hard in the job-challenged economic climate to close down bases or weapons factories/ development facilities. Gates can't do that alone.
It has to be done though.
We don't know as a country how to relate to and influence tribal societies. We need to figure it out or Afghanistan will become a quagmire. (applies to several other major regions too)
Dec 1, '08
At DOD the challenge will be to dismantle weapons programs which benefit individual congressional districts but are unneeded or outmoded. Believe it or not, Rumsfeld, in McNamara technocrat clothing, was unable to do so. It will be especially hard in the job-challenged economic climate to close down bases or weapons factories/ development facilities. Gates can't do that alone.
There is a way to make this transition, but it may not be profitable enough for the military-industrial complex. However, this is what could be done. Give the war armaments industries something oriented towards peace to build to ensure profits and keep the workers employed. Here is one area where that could work. Instead of building warships, build hospital ships. In the 1980s I was indirectly involved with a cruise of the US Naval Hospital Ship Mercy that toured the Philippine Islands giving out free medical and dental care at many ports around that impoverished land. That created an enormous amount of goodwill. Consider the possibilities if American shipyards built a fleet of these hospital ships and sent them around the world providing medical and dental care and using them to train local doctors. Now compare that with the bombs our military has a recurring habit of dropping on wedding parties and other groups of innocent people. By the same token, makers of warplanes could be given the job of building air ambulances to serve inland locations away from maritime ports. With a little creativity this policy could be spread to other areas. What would this cost? A hell of a lot less than our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we wouldn't have to worry about blowback.
Dec 1, '08
We shall see won't we Kari. By the way, change for the sake of change isn't neccessarily change for better. Sometimes one must use one's mind and only not one's heart to affect events. If we use history is a precendent for women's success at State; I think we can agree that Albright and Rice didn't accomplish much of anything! If they did; I'm all ears Kari.
Now as for Gates, and more importantly CIA Director Michael Hayden, Obama is out-triangulating those that invented the concept. By allowing those that were supposed to fix an unfixable problem to remain in power as "fixers" buys Barack time. That is a pragmatic position. American liberals can not allow the US generals to intimidate Obama into deviating from the mission that he was elected to secure; removing American troops from Iraq. I was hoping that Barack would create a new cabinate level office by appointing Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of Peace and authorize him to immediately withdraw US troops from Iraq. But that would be wrong right? Pshaw...
4:25 p.m.
Dec 1, '08
Now as for Gates, and more importantly CIA Director Michael Hayden, Obama is out-triangulating those that invented the concept.
Who said anything about Michael Hayden staying in his CIA post?
4:26 p.m.
Dec 1, '08
I was hoping that Barack would create a new cabinate level office by appointing Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of Peace and authorize him to immediately withdraw US troops from Iraq
And unicorns and puppy dogs might fly out of my ass. Puh-leeze.
Dec 1, '08
It's impossible to know what the apparachicks are really about. A true operative will obey his new master. Why make it so public, when everyone wil be evaluating his every move if it's smoke and mirrors? Spooks usually equate "coming out of the shadows" with going legit. I would overreact to Bill Clinton's prob with gays in the military, and this could be his version of it.
I worry more about what the shadowy characters in the current Administration are doing right now.
Dec 1, '08
Robert Parry on Gates
Dec 1, '08
Last week I suggested that Obama should bring back Rove if he really wants to reassure the elites. But now Rove, Kissinger, Baker, Lieberman, David Brooks, Max Boot, Michael Goldfarb, and many other members of the Reich indicate that they're already reassured:
James Baker: "I see them as being sort of center-right of the Democratic party"; Karl Rove: "Reassuring"; Joe Lieberman: "Virtually perfect ... "; David Brooks: "Superb ... the best of the Washington insiders ... this will be a valedictocracy -- rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes"; Max Boot, former McCain staffer and neoconservative activist: "I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain ... this all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign ... [Hillary] Clinton and [James] Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for 'neo-liberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neo-conservativism'"; Michael Goldfarb of the neoconservative Weekly Standard: "Surprising continuity on foreign policy between President Bush's second term and the incoming administration ... certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush ... "; Henry Kissinger, war criminal: "Hillary Clinton will be 'outstanding' as Secretary of State". (Right-Wingers and Neocons Love Obama's Cabinet Appointments)
The important thing is that a president looks like he's changing things even if he's not. McCain never would have looked like he was changing things, and that's why your vote wasn't wasted. Appearances are what counts, as any decent product marketer could have told you, right Kari?
Dec 2, '08
To the casual reader: It is my opinion that Mr. Chisholm has no discernible beliefs save those that allow his po-dunk little political consultancy to flourish. To wit, he ain't no Kos... just another base political hack looking out for numero uno!
1:14 a.m.
Dec 2, '08
Oh, Peter, I do love you so! Smooches!
Dec 2, '08
Mother Jones has an interesting collection of articles on Gates: The Curious Retention of Robert Gates and The Rise and Rise of Robert Gates are two of the featured articles.
Dec 2, '08
Whoa KC, mediamatters.org would admire the way you hyperlinked my Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of Peace idea to an infinitate horizon time-line reflecting his views on reproductive freedom. How very Clintonista! For the record Kari here's the facts since February 2003: "...said NARAL President Kate Michelman. "I do accept, and I do welcome, that he believes the right to choose is fundamental." (www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0223-05.htm)
Now about those unicarns and puppy dogs, don'cha think its time that American liberals think and act at the same scale as, say, the Boston Abolitionists during the early 1860s? Here's an idea challenge for a future rumination from from ya KC; List the most radical ideas that have become socially accepted standards since the inception of the Union. I got mine -- what are you waiting for, more Centrist focus group findings?
Dec 2, '08
An error by Obama?
That assumes this is his decision to make and he's not just following orders from higher powers-that-be.
If you are completely close-minded to the possibility that the system no longer works like we were taught in school, then the scope of this post is valid for debate.
Dec 2, '08
From the 12/2 NY Times article on Obama and the CIA, the following:
"Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, another top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were “legal, humane and noncoercive.” But Mr. Wyden declined to say whether C.I.A. techniques ought to be made public."
Is Ron Wyden supporting torture by using the coded language of Bush & co.? Can someone start a new thread on this subject?
Munir in Eugene
Dec 3, '08
If you are completely close-minded to the possibility that the system no longer works like we were taught in school, then the scope of this post is valid for debate.
Whoever received a typical civics or government course in school can figure around 90 per cent of it was myth. Almost all government bodies from Congress to city hall are at least strongly influenced if not dominated by corporate influences. Follow the money at opensecrets.org