The Gates appointment: Obama slaps antiwar voters in the face

[IndianaGreen]

The Gates appointment: Obama slaps antiwar voters in the face

28 November 2008

The agreement by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remain at the Pentagon under the incoming Democratic administration—widely reported in the US media over the past 24 hours—is the starkest and most brazen rebuff given by President-elect Barack Obama to the tens of millions who voted for him based on the false promise that he would bring “change” to Washington.

George W. Bush appointed Gates to head the Pentagon in November 2006, two years ago, following the Republican debacle in the congressional elections and the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. While millions voted for the Democrats in 2006 in an effort to compel an end to the war in Iraq, the Bush administration went in the opposite direction, escalating the US military intervention through the “surge” of an additional 30,000 combat troops. (The congressional Democrats dutifully went along, appropriating the funds required to pay for the surge and confirming Gates, General David W. Petraeus and other top officials).

Gates played a key role in these events—the appointment of Petraeus as chief US commander in Iraq, the bloody fighting of the spring and summer of 2007, with the highest US casualties of the war, the enormous increase in aerial bombardment, with a shattering effect on Iraqi society, and the combination of bribery and repression that split both the Sunni and Shi’ite opposition to the US occupation regime.

Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination over Senator Hillary Clinton in large measure because he appealed to the same antiwar sentiments that had propelled the Democrats to their victory in the 2006 congressional elections. His mantra throughout the primary campaign—a rebuke to Clinton and other rival Democratic candidates who had voted for war in the Senate—was that he would end the war in Iraq, “a war that should never have been authorized and never been fought.”

Now, with the retention of Gates at the Pentagon, and the widely reported offer of the State Department to Clinton—as well as the selection of a slew of pro-war figures for lesser national security positions—Obama is reassuring the military, the intelligence agencies and the ruling elite as a whole that he will be firmly committed to the defense of US imperialism, including clinging to every inch of territory and every drop of oil secured by the Bush administration’s criminal aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n28.shtml

[Lerkfish]

1. not to defend Gates at all, but there really is a commander in chief

and the military chain of command is highly adhered to.
Gates could not have done any of what he did if not ordered to or allowed to do so.
I do not think Obama will be the same sort of commander in chief.

that having been said, as an antiwar person, I never considered Obama the best candidate on that issue... better than Clinton, but nowhere as good as Kucinich would have been.

but let's wait and see what happens. I would consider a sane approach to war a step in the right direction, even if it is not as far as I'd like it to go.

what we have right now is completely insane batshit crazy approach to unjustified preemptive war. Any improvement on that is appreciated.

[Idealism]

2. Gates didn't create the war

He didn't implement the failure known as "Shock and Awe"
He didn't lie us into war



He did his job, as directed by Bush. And he did it better than anyone Bush put into office. So, because the guy did his job, it must be a slap to keep on a competent person in their job, when he's advocated for the scale-down of troops from Iraq?

[tabatha]

3. In fact, if it were not for Gates, we would probably be at war with Iran.

[Idealism]

4. Or North Korea... agree with you there

Hes not a warmonger, by any measure.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Keeping Gates will keep the neocons in place in Pentagon

From Gordon England on down!

[Thrill]

7. BS. Obama is appointing a Deputy Defense Secretary

rumor is Hagel or Richard Danzig

[IndianaGreen]

9. It ain't happened yet.

The word is that Gates' condition for staying was for no personnel changes by Obama.

[Thrill]

10. The Gates appointment ain't happened yet.

[Thrill]

13. And I value the opinion of Jack Reed over the author of this article

And he said he told Obama it would be smart to keep Gates.

Jack Reed is no war hawk. He voted against the Iraq war.

[Captain Hilts]

16. The 'For' and 'Against' IWR votes is not a clear demarcation line. nt

[Idealism]

8. I doubt it.

If Gates wanted to keep with the status quo, he wouldn't have bothered to voice opposition to the Bush doctrine, and its implementation. If Gates wanted to keep things the way they are, he wouldn't have accepted the post in the Obama administration, knowing it will be a vastly differant ideology.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Look at Gates' record at CIA, and what he did to SOVO (Soviet desk)

and you will see the sort of fella that Gates really is. Then there is this:

CIA Veteran: How Robert Gates Cooked the Intelligence
Washington Dispatch: An interview with the most interesting witness senators won't hear from this week.

By Daniel Schulman

December 4, 2006

Intelligence cherry-picked for ideological purposes; the claims of a single, unreliable source treated as fact and stovepiped straight up to the White House; a National Intelligence Estimate riddled with dubious claims; efforts made to connect an enemy regime with international terrorism. Echoing the prelude to the Iraq War, these are, in fact, a sampling of the allegations directed at Robert Gates 15 years ago, when the Senate Intelligence Committee considered Gates' nomination to be the director of Central Intelligence.

Back then, the Senate hearings on Gates — who is now President Bush's nominee for secretary of defense, and who is expected to be confirmed as early as next week — were lively, controversial, and went on for a full month. Senators heard from a variety of witnesses, including a handful of Gates' former colleagues at the CIA, who painted a damaging portrait of the nominee.

Among them was 24-year CIA veteran Melvin Goodman, a friend and fellow Soviet buff who came up with Gates at the agency during the height of the Cold War. Goodman told the senators that Gates had helped manipulate intelligence to fit the hawkish perspective advanced by officials in the Reagan administration — in particular by seeking to link the Soviet Union with acts of terrorism, including the 1981 assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II. "Frankly, I worry about the signal that would be sent by returning Gates to the environment he created," Goodman testified on October 1, 1991. "I worry about the effect this would have on the standards of others back at the Central Intelligence Agency to be led by someone so lacking in vision, integrity, and courage."

When Gates appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week, he's unlikely to face the level of scrutiny he did in 1991 — when 31 Democratic Senators voted against him — or, for that matter, in 1987, when lingering questions about his role in Iran-Contra forced him to withdraw from the confirmation process altogether. Nor will senators hear from Goodman, who is now a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for International Policy and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University. When I caught up with Goodman recently, I asked him why he decided to testify against his boss — and friend — back in '91.

Melvin Goodman: The issue was politicization for me — that is, the way that Bob Gates was taking intelligence and spinning it towards a policy purpose. My direct experience was on matters dealing with the Soviet Union and particularly the papal plot assessment of 1985, but actually intelligence was being politicized on a variety of issues dealing with Iran, Central America, Afghanistan, and the Middle East.

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2006/12/melvin_goodman.html

[Idealism]

26. Don't put too much faith in propaganda

The claims in this article are backed by one random supposed informant, and I've heard rumors of worse from Gates. Kind of odd how you have 'friends' testifying against him, especially since this was under Republican rule... very strange testimony that I have inclinations to discount. I'd rather put stock in reputable news sources for my information than supposed comments on a web blog.

[HuckleB]

30. Hardly.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_to_break_the_neocon_lock_on_washington

[napi21]

6. Everyone needs to remember the PRESIDENT tells the military

what he wants to accomplish, and THEY provide their best recommendations of how to accomplish that goal. God knows what the hell Shrub told them HIS goal was????? I think keeping Gates on for a while is a good idea because it provides continuity, and that's important right now.

[IndianaGreen]

12. "Continuity?" Kinda keeping General Jodl in charge during Allied occupation.

Gates is a sniveling lying sack of shit!

[pokercat999]

14. Agreed. we should keep all the murdering thugs from this

criminal administration. Why not bring back KKKarl Rove too, he can help secure re-election. IF President Obama keeps Gates I'll lose some respect for him. He's not perfect and we all know that, but somethings are beyond stupid, this is one.

I hope it doesn't happen.


no edit

[Captain Hilts]

15. No, it's not that simple. And Gates personally lobbied against being more aggressive...

toward Iran.

[babylonsister]

17. Why are you linking to the World Socialist website to begin with? nt

[IndianaGreen]

18. Why shouldn't I?

They were opposed to the war in Iraq when the Democrats were in the Rose Garden supporting Bush on IWR.

[babylonsister]

19. Because this isn't socialist underground? nt

[IndianaGreen]

24. It is not babylonsister's authoritarian underground either!

Up yours!

[tomp]

25. this isn't underground anything.

[Jim Sagle]

36. It used to be.

[Peace Patriot]

20. I don't think it's a slam at the voters, so much as it is an example of how not to get

whacked--literally, or reputation/career-wise in the corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies.

Obama voters were/are naive to think "change we can believe" means the end of the Forever War. I tried not to discourage people by hammering away at this warning, because I think that the activation of our citizenry in the political and environmental realms--something that Obama's candidacy certainly did--is essential to restoring democracy here, as well as saving our dying planet. But I am a long time Democrat voter. My first vote for president was in 1964. I voted for the "peace candidate"--LBJ. And what I got for that vote was 2 MILLION people slaughtered in Southeast Asia, including over 55,000 U.S. soldiers. My caveat: Beware of Democrats bearing peace.

Bi-partisan war. Forever War. That is what we are up against. Bush has killed a million people, at least. Now Obama will work on the second million, by moving the Forever War to Afghanistan, and possibly South America (to grab the oil), while maintaining a huge military presence in the Middle East to protect Exxon Mobil's and Chevron's oil contracts, and Israel. Any leader with viable aspirations to the White House who doesn't do these things WILL get whacked, one way or another. We are RULED BY war profiteers and associated global corporate predators. We need to get that through our heads, if we are to devise an effective strategy for throwing off our tyrannical rulers. This tyrannical rule is WHY the fuckers installed 100% non-transparent vote counting systems, with the 'TRADE SECRET' code owned and controlled by far rightwing Bushite corporations, all over the country during the 2002 to 2004 period. There is no other purpose to non-transparent vote counting THAN fraud. And Obama could have been whacked by that EASY election theft capability at any time after he started winning caucus state primaries, which are not counted by Diebold and brethren. After the early, people-counted caucus wins, he faced Diebold/ES&S election theft systems across the country in the remaining primaries, and in the general election.

They let him be nominated, and then they let him win. He HAD TO compromise, and be successfully vetted by our corpo/fascist rulers, in order to get that win. And, as it is, they significantly and fraudulently shaved his mandate, to prevent him from getting any ideas of real reform.

Although a number of his appointments have been particularly aggravating to me, I cannot really say that I am shocked. I understand our nearly totally non-transparent voting system too well to be shocked by anything any more. Most shocking of all: our Democratic Party leadership's collusion in getting that system installed, on a fast-track basis, covering up some blatant, obvious election thefts, and keeping that system in place against the outraged citizens of the election reform movement.

But I digress. What I want to say is: Grow up, people! Understand what you are dealing with, and strategize accordingly. I have little doubt that Barack Obama is a good man, a highly intelligent and skilled leader, and has his heart in the right place. But he has not so much been elected president as he has been crowned emperor. THAT is the problem.

[alarimer]

33. I agree

So many people will be terribly disappointed.

[Enthusiast]

21. I trust Obama's judgement on this. nt

[fortyfeetunder]

32. I trust Obama too.

I think this buys Obama time to find a suitable replacement considering the turmoil the US is already engaged in.

[tonycinla]

22. Provides cover

Sometimes you need the people who constructed the puzzle to help you get out of the puzzle.Also Gates provides cover to help keep the neocons at bay while Obama tries to figure this out.For the near term at least it is going to be dangerous for us internationally.Do not forget what Biden said to a small group of people regarding the testing of Obama.Israel could attack Iran at any time and then we are going to need all hands on deck.Israeli elections are on 2/09/09 if Netanyahu gets elected hold on!

[rhett o rick]

23. Now is not the time to replace Gates. The country will be very vulnerable when PE Obama takes office

We will need stability in the Pentagon during this time. PE Obama will have some control over Gates and can replace him when he gets someone up to speed.

[MasonJar]

27. I certainly did not expect him to retain the Sec of Defense. If he wants

a GOPer in his administration, he should appoint either one in a different position or choose Chuck Hagel for the job. This is the only position that Hagel could possibly have since he is a coocoo Pug on all other issues.

[AmyCamus]

28. ...while stabbing us in the back.

The pro-war vote was either Clinton or the GOP. At least that was our "Hope."

[Boo Boo]

29. Horseshit.

First of all, Obama never expressed any support for, or solidarity with, the views of wsws.org. He never claimed to be "anti-war," so "anti-war" voters don't really have any excuse for feeling like they got their faces slapped. Obama said he thought Iraq was a big mistake, and that he is going to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. That position, AFAIK, has not changed.

He has also been very consistent in saying that he would commit more forces to Afghanistan. So, again, anti-war voters would have to be willfully deceiving themselves to think that Obama is now slapping them in the face.

I don't understand why leftist anti-imperialists like wsws.org would feel betrayed. Are they really so stupid that they actually thought that Obama was their guy?

Ask yourself something: who would Obama have to appoint as SecDef in order to avoid these criticisms? Is there anybody remotely mainstream that would be materially different in this respect than Gates? The truth is that to make wsws.org happy you'd have to appoint Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul. OTOH, I'd bet that Obama could appoint any number of people that would not really be, in the large, any different from Gates, but still avoid a lot of this slap-in-the-face shit simply because it wasn't Gates.

[Gman2]

31. Obama hammers on Gates, and Gates does what Obama orders. WEEEEEEEEEE

hammer on the first president not in the pocket of lobbyists. I'll take Gates. He seems to be a good soldier. I'll take Obama. Why were we miserable again?

[alarimer]

34. It bothers me that Sec of Defense is almost never a Democrat.

It's almost like they have to nominate Republicans in order to prove their bloodthirsty-ness. To avoid the wimp label.

[elleng]

35. Clinton DID try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Aspin

I'm waiting for 2010, when General Clark becomes eligible.