It doesn't make sense to me to keep Gates at Defense if Obama is serious about his Iraq exit pledge

[bigtree]

It doesn't make sense unless Gates is prepared to accept and promote President Obama's agenda for withdrawal. And that prospect is complicated by the reality that for two more months he'll be promoting the 'agreement' the administration made with the Iraqi regime that Bush enabled into power and that Gates has worked to defend which calls for troop withdrawal by 2011 - a longer timetable for withdrawal of forces that of Obama.

Pres. Obama's Iraq position: http://www.change.gov/agenda/iraq_agenda/

"Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month -- which would remove all of them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 -- more than 7 years after the war began."

Gates, in May of this year cast the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan as the same kind of 'ideological' battle that Bush has promoted in defense of his unbridled military aggression across sovereign borders: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49962

"Afghanistan and Iraq are the most important battlefields in the fight today, Gates said, and his priority has been “getting us to a point where our strategic objectives are within reach in those two countries.”

America’s best opportunity to discredit and deflate the extremist ideology is in Afghanistan and Iraq, Gates said.

“Just as the hollowness of communism was laid bare by the collapse of the Soviet Union, so too would success in those countries strike a decisive blow against the ideological underpinnings of extremist movements,” he said.

Obama spoke out against ideology-driven rationales for the exercise of our military forces in March in a policy speech entitled, 'The World Beyond Iraq' : http://thepage.time.com/full-text-of-obamas-iraq-speech/

"History will catalog the reasons why we waged a war that didn't need to be fought, but two stand out. In 2002, when the fateful decisions about Iraq were made, there was a President for whom ideology overrode pragmatism, and there were too many politicians in Washington who spent too little time reading the intelligence reports, and too much time reading public opinion. The lesson of Iraq is that when we are making decisions about matters as grave as war, we need a policy rooted in reason and facts, not ideology and politics," Obama said.

President-elect Obama met with Defense Sec. Gates today in an effort to pave the way for the transition of power in January. It's hard to imagine that Gates came prepared to listen to Mr. Obama more than he came to sell his own ambitiously promoted defense of Bush's transparently political policy in Iraq and everywhere else in the Bush Pentagon's decidedly ideological eye.

If Pres. Obama is going to bring change to the direction and scope of our military engagements and aggression abroad and keep Bush's defense secretary in place, Gates will need to stand down or signal some capitulation right now to the intention and will of the new commander-in-chief of our military forces.

I won't hold my breath for that.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. Obama should get rid of Gates

[peace13]

2. This whole transition thing is getting comical.

I am crapping about SOS yet I think it might not be a bad idea to keep Gates around for a while (even though the Iraq war is my number one issue)Seems like so many of us see this at 180 degrees. I guess I'll just relax and let the chips fall where they may. Peace, Kim

[bigtree]

3. I wonder what moves Gates is making right now on Bush's behalf

. . . in direct contradiction of the priorities of the Obama administration?

from TNR: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/11/20/tension-between-gates-and-the-obama-team.aspx

Tension Between Gates And The Obama Team?

Here's a look at some tensions that could arise if Robert Gates stays on as Secretary of Defense, beyond disappointment from the get-out-of-Iraq chorus.

Since at least spring, Gates has been issuing a series of far-reaching policy documents which explicitly try to set the future direction of U.S. defense policy. As Fred Kaplan has written, "The implication clear: The Army's primary mission --which drives its weapons procurement, its force structure, its culture, everything about it--is to be relegated to secondary status and supplanted by a focus on counterinsurgency, training, and advising." That seems to have rubbed some of Obama's transition people in the wrong way. Here's what Michele Flournoy, who's heading Obama's defense transition team, said last June: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/pl_afp/usobamamilitarytransition

Michele Flournoy, president of the Center for a New American Security, said she was surprised to see Gates issuing such a strategy so close to a presidential election, calling it a "strategy destined to be overtaken by events" because one of the new administration's first tasks will be to write such a defense plan. She said the document appropriately emphasizes irregular warfare--focused on terrorists and rogue regimes bent on using insurgency or weapons of mass destruction--but might go too far.

"I think irregular warfare is very important, particularly in contrast to preparing solely for conventional warfighting, but it shouldn't be our only focus," Flournoy said, adding that countries such as China likely are preparing for "high-end" warfare and attacks involving anti-satellite technologies and cyberspace.

If Gates ends up staying on at the Pentagon, he and Petraeus will almost certainly be able to impose these counterinsurgency-oriented priorities on what Flournoy, who has long-standing plans to revamp DoD, hoped would be a top-down review starting from scratch.

[TheKentuckian]

4. I think Gates has shown to not be cut from the same cloth

as others in the Administration.

I'm not saying its Poppy appointing Seuter but I think BushCo. may have allowed a professional that wants to do right in to their nest. Gates doesn't give me a pol/ideologue vibe.

[bigtree]

5. he's selling the exact same ideological garbage as the Bush league

. . . in defense of Bush's militarism in Iraq. He's stated repeatedly that he views Iraq as the 'main battlefield' against 'terror.'

He may mouth a moderate version of the Bush Doctrine, but he's been implementing it without any regard to moderation at all. Remember, it was Gates who put himself out front and 'recommended' a slowdown of even the withdrawal that had been announced: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/11/AR2008021100162_pf.html


BAGHDAD, Feb. 11 -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Monday that he would support a temporary halt in the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq this summer, a move that elicited anger from Democrats backing a speedier military exit from the country.

The remarks, made after Gates met with senior commanders during an unannounced visit to Iraq, marked a significant shift from his previously stated hope of achieving a continual drawdown to about 100,000 troops, which would include 10 combat brigades as well as support troops, by the end of this year. His backing of a pause in the withdrawal makes it unlikely that troop levels in 2008 will drop much beyond the 15 combat brigades -- about 130,000 troops, including support forces -- that were deployed before the so-called surge began a year ago.

"I think the notion of a brief period of consolidation and evaluation probably does make sense," Gates told reporters traveling with him. He did not say how long such a period would last.


. . . we're still waiting

It's just going to be more of the same type of hedging on withdrawal that we've suffered from him and the administration since his appointment if he stays.

[Greyhound]

6. "if Obama is serious about his Iraq exit pledge"

:rofl:

[bigtree]

7. right. If he intends to exit as he's proposed

. . . he needs someone committed to that policy from the start. Not a hedging, equivocating, idealogue who's actively working to promote Bush's cynical agreement which contains a longer timetable.

[stillcool]

8. I don't have a whole lot of warm and fuzzies...

for anyone who has been involved at the level he has in the Alphabet Soup of our Defense Apparatus. But the man obviously knows his way around the Defense Department. I have a problem picking apart any of his picks as wrong-headed. While there may be aspects of the persons past that I take issues with, I don't know how that translates to them being the wrong person for the job they have been chosen for. I guess maybe I don't know how these people should be evaluated.

[bigtree]

9. judge them by their words and actions

Obama said himself that he wasn't perfect. I have a problem with perceiving all of his decisions as perfect.

In Gate's case, he's proven himself willing to bend to Bush's autocratic and ideological exercise of our military forces. I really don't have anything more concrete than that to base an opinion on.

[RB TexLa]

10. If Gates is asked and agrees to stay on it will be after lengthy discussions over the planned policy

of the Obama administration. I think Gates is a capable administrator and if he feels the desire to serve the president and the president wants him to serve I don't see any problem.

[bigtree]

11. has Gates been a 'capable administrator?'

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Compared To What Came Before, Yes

But, that's a pretty low bar to clear. Sure, he's better than Rumsfeld, but my dog would have been better than him.
The Professor

[noamnety]

12. You didn't quote Obama's full position on Iraq

"Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel."

http://www.change.gov/agenda/iraq_agenda

"Insiders in Obama's campaign suggest that his "residual force" that stays in Iraq to "target any remnants of al-Qaeda, protect remaining U.S. troops and officials and train Iraq's security forces" could include as many as 50,000 troops. "

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2RmYjI3NTJlZDc1ZjBlY2RiNDIzOTQ0ZTE4MDBkZDI=

Maybe the appointment makes sense in that light. We keep 1/3 to 1/2 the same troops, doing the same mission they already have, but call them "residual troops" instead of "combat troops."

Gates is probably fine with that.

[bigtree]

13. that's my worry about Gates

. . . that he'd be fine with that.

He's not the point man Obama needs and neither is Petraeus.

[NNN0LHI]

15. After Obama becomes the Commander In Chief he will fire Gates pronto

Take my word on this one.

Don

[PRETZEL]

16. I've read a few things on Gates and to be perfectly honest I'm ok

with him staying on board for a while until P-E Obama can get a full and unvarnished view of the situation in Iraq and what the future needs of our military will be.

Gates comes strongly recommended by Brent Scowcroft who, if my short term memory is still intact, is someone that Obama has respect for. Gates was also on the Iraq Study Group and, again if my memory is correct, was an advocate of talking to the neighboring countries to find an equitable solution that not only serves our own best interests, but also the best interests of the region.

I serioiusly doubt that Gates will stay past a year but given Secretary of Defense is of greater importance that what would be seen in a peacetime administration I'd rather have someone who already has more knowledge of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan than someone who would need a couple of months to get up to speed.

[bigtree]

17. What purpose and sense is there in setting up his Defense Dept. with a Bush crony?

It makes no sense unless he's prepared to accept the direction that Gates has imposed on the military structure behind Bush's ambitions and political whims.

I don't see why Mr. Obama isn't relying on the team of Defense advisers who counseled him throughout the campaign and isn't prepared to elevate one of them to this position. If he wants continuity, that's what the rank-and-file military is there for.