The Debate Over Gates

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:01


The most important appointment decision Obama will make during the transition, bar none, is who becomes, or remains, Secretary of Defense. As I have noted in the past, the Department of Defense oversees the expenditure of 52% of all discretionary spending, rendering it literally impossible for any other cabinet Secretary to oversee as much federal money. Further, keeping Gates on would only worsen Democratic image problems on national security, as he would be the second consecutive non-Democratic Secretary of Defense nominated by a Democratic President. The message would be clear: even Democrats agree that Democrats can't run the military.

There is a debate about this inside the Obama transition team:

The speculation over Gates' tenure has been most intense inside the Obama transition team. The team received a request from Gates that, were he to stay, he would want to retain some of his top civilian assistants. The request led to concerns among the Obama transition staff: "Gates is not a neo-con or even a hardcore Republican," a person close to the process noted, "but the people around him sure as hell are." A former Bill Clinton administration official who has been deployed by Obama to conduct a series of "meet and greets" with top officials at the Pentagon scoffed at the notion of a continuation of Gates' tenure: "The [presidential] election was a clean sweep," he says, "and that includes Bob Gates. It's called a change in government."

But others inside Obama's close-knit group of advisors think that a continuation of Gates' tenure can provide Obama with a bridge to the nation's military leadership - essential, they say, because of US troop commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. These advisors point out that Richard Danzig, a former secretary of the navy and reputed front runner for the Pentagon post ("always the smartest man in the room", as retired four-star US Marine Corps General Joe Hoar describes him), supports a continuation in Gates' tenure. Then too, Gates is apparently admired by Obama himself, who has been in close touch with a number of Gates' former colleagues (dubbed "graybacks"), like Brent Scowcroft, from the first George W Bush administration. "The graybacks have weighed in, and they're all for Bob," a defense official says.

This should be an open and shut case. If there was one message that Obama ran on loudly, clearly, and indisputably, it is that he was going to bring "change" to Washington, D.C.  If Gates were kept on as Secretary of Defense, it apparently would also mean that all of his top advisors would also stay on, and that it all happened because long-time D.C. operatives said it should. Keeping the same guy and all of his advisors at the behest of old establishment types is about as far from change as possible.

Secretary of Defense is the big enchilada. Arguably, due to the vast percentage of federal spending it receives, it is more important than all other cabinet secretaries combined. The President may be Commander in Chief, but it is the Secretary of Defense who is decides how most federal revenue is spent. We need change in the Department of Defense, and keeping Gates along with his entire team of advisors and assistants doesn't fit the bill.

Chris Bowers :: The Debate Over Gates

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
is Congress ready to cut MIC? (4.00 / 2)
Changing the Military-Industrial Complex is no easy task.

Obama is not going to be way out in front of Congress on this.

Voters have to elect a Congress willing to make cuts to anti-ballistic missile weapons, the nuclear arsenal and other big-ticket, Cold War weapons systems.

The identity of SECDEF is not that important if there's no change is the contest in which s/he works.


I think people are ready for cuts. (4.00 / 3)
But, congresscritters that have been there for awhile will remember how the right uses any vote to decrease defense spending as a vote for surrender and against the troops. It's a really common tactic, and it'll take political courage to actually scale back spending. Cutting the ridiculous "missile defense" system would be a good first step, though.

The truth about John McCain.

[ Parent ]
The proper term is: Military/Industrial/Congressional/Complex (4.00 / 2)
It will be cast as a jobs issue, I suspect. Can't cut defense contracts during a recession! Think of all the workers at factories and office buildings across the country that will be put out of work if anyone dare touch a hair on that sacred cow.

Pork with a gun.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
you missed part of the name (4.00 / 1)
"military-industrial-scientific-Congressional complex"

The academic institutions get money from the system too.

We need a long range plan to dismantle the MIC.


[ Parent ]
True enough (4.00 / 2)
However, I've heard that Eisenhower included "congressional" in a draft of the speech where he coined the term "military/industrial complex". Pretty sure it was in a documentary on PBS (but years ago). Although I've not been able to confirm that from any linkable source.

I am a scientist (basic medical research) and it always pains me to hear a fellow reseacher say something to the effect that we "owe" a good deal of the modern day equipment and materials that we use in the laboratory to the investment by the military in the "early days". I remember going to a seminar, must be 6 or 7 years ago, by a ornithologist that studied small songbirds. He was thrilled by the newly available radio tracking devices that were now light enough to be used with the tiny birds he studied. As a side-light, he mentioned that such was the result of military research that had produced these little wonders about 10 years before his use of them in the field. Now, he saw this as a positive result of military spending.

I see it differently. If we had an academic/scientific/industrial complex instead, then he (and other researchers like him) would have had the technology 10 years sooner. The military connection imposed a decade long delay in his access to this technology.

That should be part of the plan to dismantle the military industrial complex. Maintain the cash flow, but redirect the priorities.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Barney Frank is (0.00 / 0)
Frank's been talking about cutting the defence budget fairly heftily.

Sure, there are Blue Dogs who will likely whine about this, but Congress isn't lock-step committed to more defence spending.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
oh really? (0.00 / 0)
There's a pretty strong coalition opposed to cuts in military spending.

If you want to cut a generic military hardware project, call it Project X, what's the base you start out with for votes?

Provided nobody in the Progressive Caucus has manufacturing connected to Project X in his or her district there's a base of a few votes.

Add a few members who favor fiscal discipline, again with the caveat that members will almost never vote against money to their own district.

This base is somewhere between 20-40% of the votes needed to cut a project.

Where do the other votes come from?


[ Parent ]
I read that the Congressional Black Caucus (0.00 / 0)
was going to make cutting defense spending part of their platform. In the past, Barbara Lee has spoken in favor of these cuts (there's a video on YouTube); she now chairs this committee.  

[ Parent ]
Barbara Lee sincerely wants to cut military spending (0.00 / 0)
Black Dem Reps from the South are more pro military spending.

And a whole bunch of Black House Dems vote their campaign contributions.


[ Parent ]
Imho it's Obama interrests vs. long term Dem interests here (4.00 / 3)
Obama's main concern is making his administration a success, and that conflicts with the desire of many liberals to strenghten the national security image of the Democratic Party. Having a conservative SoD certainly doesn't improve liberal credentials in that field, so this is a strong argument against Gates. On the other hand, there are more important issues for Obama now than caring about military issues (but, of course, not the Iraq strategy), so it's understandable he doesn't want to create additional problems by changing horses in the Pentagon. Imho progressives could live wiht that, in exchange for other influential positions going to left wingers.

But Gates insisting on keeping his staff is too much. This wouldn't only preserve a dangerous neocon influence, it would also take away the chance for liberals to raise an offspring of officials which could become senior advisors and cabinet members in the future. Just look at the Clintonites that started as freshmen 1992 and have qualified this way for important positions in 2008. No, that's a point where Dems can't let short term interests of the president trump necessary spadework for the future. If Gates is too inflexible to accept staff changes, he has to go. Imho that's not something that is negotiable.


People seem to be forgetting something ... (0.00 / 0)
it is highly doubtful that Gates will serve until 2012 ... besides .. Gates is perfect cover to start drawing down troops in Iraq .. if Gates can accomplish Iraq withdrawal .. it will silence the nutters .. then come 2010 .. when Gates has accomplished that .. and wants to get back to Texas .. Obama can give the job to Danzig(Mother!! .... sorry .. I had to .. I still remember the mid 90's too well) .. Clark or Zinni

[ Parent ]
but if Gates gets to keep all his staff (4.00 / 3)
then it makes the transition to a Democratic Pentagon that much harder.

I could reluctantly accept Gates for 12-18 months as SecDef to guide the withdrawal from Iraq, with the understanding that Obama would appoint some of his people to be various undersecretaries, etc, one of whom could then transition to the top job.

But it seems very dangerous to me for Obama to leave the entire Pentagon establishment mostly intact.


[ Parent ]
Gates should go (4.00 / 4)
this shouldn't even be a debate.  Alot of other ways to create a bridge to the military.  One good choice would be, I don't know, Wes Clark.  Yeah, the GOP would go after him with both barrels but when haven't they gone after us with both barrels.  

As far as cutting the MIC, you make small changes at first that amplilfy out in the later years to the bigger changes down the road.  


Clark isn't eligible (4.00 / 2)
You have to be out of the military for a minimum number of years before you can be Secretary of Defense.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
We'd just need a waiver - Marshall got one in '50 (0.00 / 0)
in 1950, I think. http://www.defenselink.mil/spe...

Marshall's appointment as secretary of defense required a special congressional waiver because the National Security Act prohibited a commissioned military officer on active duty within the previous 10 years from holding the post. Although the Senate approved quickly, questions did surface about a military leader holding a position clearly intended for a civilian.

And Wesley Clark, having run for President, is clearly a civilian at this point.


[ Parent ]
What's likely (4.00 / 1)
Given that everybody is expecting Gates to stay on right now, it would be pretty conspicuous to take a circuitous route to appoint somebody else. It's probably not worth the fight that would occur in the senate. Obama already has so much shit do deal with in his first days, that it would not be unreasonable to want to delay a fight like that.

If the goal is "not Gates", you'd probably just appoint somebody else aside from Clark. If your goal is Wes Clark, the simplest route is to keep Gates on "just during the delicate transitional period", then switch to Clark when he becomes eligible (only like a year or 18 months).

This is what I'd do if I wanted Clark ("I" being random know-nothing blogger)... I'd ask Gates to stay on for the transitional period, maybe 12-18 months, but a few of the worst neocon underlings would get sacked, and certain policies would start to change whether he likes it or not (e.g. the practice of using mercenaries, white elephants like missile defense). Then go ahead and appoint Clark when he becomes eligible. If Gates balks at the changes, you can say "well, we tried to work it out, but he was unwilling to work with the new team on issues the American people voted for." Then you can seek the waiver for Clark from better political footing, or just appoint somebody else.

Heck, even if you wanted to appoint a Republican for the appearance of bipartisanship, there are some (traditional) conservatives who would agree with "liberal" positions on defense (cutting wasteful spending, avoiding adventurism, etc.) But I do agree with Chris, that it's important to avoid the appearance that only Republicans can handle national security. Appoint a Republican as ambassador to Canada or something.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!


[ Parent ]
Clark (4.00 / 1)
I could get behind announcing Clark now, but keeping Gates until the 10 exclusion period ends.  The Neoncons must go, though.  I can come up for reasons for keeping Gates for a short time, but not those other guys.

Unfortunately, Clark isn't an Obama guy.  I'm still hoping Hillary brings him in.


[ Parent ]
I like this solution (0.00 / 0)
n/t

[ Parent ]
Why not Gates? (4.00 / 5)
Bush more than doubled the size of the military budget from $325 billion in FY 2001 to $652 billion in  FY 2009.  During that time, the cost of living has gone up only 23.7%.  Knowing W. even this is a dishonest budget with costs hidden in other areas, unrecognized, or pushed off to the future.

We have scrimped on our own troops who do the actual fighting and lavished moneys on overpaid mercenaries who individually cost 3 or four times (or more) what our own soldiers do.  Guess who takes the posts of danger and suffers the casualties?  The troops.  Guess who took the role in insisting prisoners be tortured at Abue Gharib?  The mercenaries.  Will Gates have the stomach to clean house and rid us of the mercenaries?  I doubt it, he's complicit.

The placement of military bases in this country is notoriously inefficient, inflexible, and political.  There is a reason that terrorists could attack the Twin Towers twice with impinity.  Nearby bases like the Brooklyn Navy Yard have been dismantled and help had to come from south Jersey.  Meanwhile Charleston, Sc is so ultra-safe.  Will Gates and hios cronies take this on.

Money was shoveled into Afghanistan and Iraq with no accountability to the point where huge sums were just lost.  Will Gates take this on?

Military intelligence was compromised for political ends (uranium in Niger).  In fact, it was also re-shaped to fit the politics of Bush.  Will Gates take this on?

Petraeus, who was coached politically was promoted.  Generals who spoke the truth were pushed out of service.  Will Gates take this shameful legacy on?  Will only the "conservative" version be heard under a fake truth policy?  

Establishment guys don't have the guts to take on the corruption of the Bush era military.  Gates hasn't done it so far and he won;t do it now.  Give the guy and his buddies the boot and do it now.


Good points. (4.00 / 5)
Someone really needs to explain why the most advanced military in the world has to hire mercenaries. Couldn't the jobs be done more effectively and cheaply using soldiers or marines?

The truth about John McCain.

[ Parent ]
WHY ARE YOU CRITICIZING HIM!?!?!1 (3.00 / 4)
Gates hasn't even been picked yet. How can you criticize the decision before it's made and implemented and we've had the benefit of hindsight to judge the whole issue. Look, Obama is the second coming of Eugene V. Debs, and will be the most liberal national leader this side of Scandinavia. You can't judge him on the decisions he has made or is likely to make.  

The truth about John McCain.

And the US is ultra liberal (0.00 / 0)
So all is well.... http://dissentingjustice.blogs...

PS: I would agree though that "judging" someone based on an unmade "decision" can get out of hand....


[ Parent ]
I don't know. (4.00 / 1)
This is a political blog. It's purpose is to discuss politics. The choice of Secretary of Defense is a big political issue right now, just like the choice of president was the big political issue for the last 18 months. What else are we going to talk about if not the leading political issues of the day.

The truth about John McCain.

[ Parent ]
Troll rated, tatere? (0.00 / 0)
I hope that was a mouse slip.

The truth about John McCain.

[ Parent ]
Don't Ask Don't Tell (4.00 / 2)
Gates is horrific on the gay issue. But this really isn't Obama's "thang." So, it's probably not even part of the calculation. http://dissentingjustice.blogs...

Which is why I'd prefer Sam Nunn - if he changes his mind (0.00 / 0)
I realize that he was the worst on "don't ask don't tell".

But as long as he's willing to shift his stance, I think he'd be the person best qualified to bring that policy down, in the rhethorical "only Nixon could go to China" mode.

And his stances on other defense issues was correct (he opposed - both - wars in Iraq, for example).  


[ Parent ]
yeah, (0.00 / 0)
it's like when the US used to go to war to fight imperialism and nazism using segregated troops.  

[ Parent ]
How did we get here? (4.00 / 4)
Where an Democratic President coming off a huge victory is considering retaining a Republican-appointed Secretary of Defense who has a staff full of conservatives?

Even worse, this is happening with no discernible outcry from the left.

Great post.


no outcry from the left (0.00 / 0)
Probably because there is no discernible left! The left has left....

[ Parent ]
Last time we changed Presidents during a "time of war" (4.00 / 1)
Was the transition between Truman and Eisenhower.

Eisenhower brought in his own man on inauguration day, who was ironically the CEO of GM at the time, ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

And Wilson was SecDef as we withdrew from Korea.

Thus, "continuity" is not a reason to keep Gates.


We need change, not Gates (0.00 / 0)
The US has the most powerful military force ever in the history of the world, far exceeding the power of any of our potential adversaries and capable of completely obliterating the world. And yet the Right and the military industrial Congressional complex continually complain that we are vulnerable to attack. If having the most powerful military in the world is not sufficient to avert attack, then obviously military means are not the best to prevent attack. Maybe we should try diplomacy and cooperation -- cheaper and more effective than military bullying.

It is time to cut our military budget back to a reasonable level. As David Kowalski points out, the military budget is now more than double what it was in FY2001 and that earlier budget was bloated with all kinds of useless Cold War equipment.

Gates is unlikely to cut the military budget or make any substantive changes. We need a real progressive who understands that throwing massive amounts of money at the military is not a good way to provide security.


Um... (0.00 / 0)
Obama has proposed expanding the military and the war in Afghanistan.  So, why on Earth would Gates try to cut the DOD when the President does not want to?  

[ Parent ]
It's almost... (0.00 / 0)
...like some people weren't paying attention.

[ Parent ]
I am rapidly losing faith in Obama (0.00 / 0)
The cabinet choices he is making are not very good.  If he keeps Gates and his gang, I think I will lose all faith that "change" was more than a buzzword.

How old are you? (0.00 / 0)
I do not mean to appear condescending, but I do know that a lot of his most enthusiastic "believers" are young....This is part of growing up: being disappointed by people we respect.  No biggie.  

[ Parent ]
Why keeping Gates is a good idea (if done right) (0.00 / 0)
Okay: I'm going to dissent here. I agree that, all things considered, Obama ought to appoint a Democrat to be his Secretary of Defense. I agree with the critique that we have too often let that department be a Republican fiefdom.

That being said, if Gates stays for ONE YEAR, which is what most sources indicate is being planned, I don't see it as a problem. And no, I don't think this is some "secret progressive" plan of Obama's; I think it's just shrewd politics.

Obama has pledged to withdraw from Iraq, redeploy to Afghanistan and initiate diplomatic engagements with Iran. Gates provides bipartisan and Republican cover for all three. Gates is known to be sympathetic to all three items - even Iraq. Yes, as Defense Secretary, Gates has publicly opposed a timetable. However, as the lead author of the Baker-Hamilton Report, he advocated a timetable. Moreover, the debate over a timetable is moot at this point; there will a timetable, per the wishes of the Iraqis.

The point is that any withdrawal from Iraq undertaken by George Bush's last defense secretary shields Obama and the Democrats from a Dolschstoss/stabbed-in-the-back narrative - the kind of narrative hawks have promoted about Vietnam for decades.

Moreover, it buys credibility from the military brass and the defense establishment, who are likewise susceptible to that kind of narrative.

I think it's a good move -- IF Gates only stays for a year and if the junior staff can be gradually replaced. Thereafter, appoint Richard Danzig, John Hamre or Jack Reed Defense Secretary and keep it in Democratic hands.  


Contrarian: Keeping Gates is a Shrewd Move (0.00 / 0)
I think it makes perfect sense to keep Secretary Gates in place; Obama is just being pragmatic. Gates has not been an ideologue the past two years. He has demonstrated competence, held subordinates accountable, and proven adept at operating in DC.

Most importantly of all, keeping a steady hand at DOD gives the new administration cover to focus on an ambitious domestic agenda.

Where will the new administration need to spend political capital? Not on the ongoing wars in Iraq or Afghanistan;
instead, it will be on spent on issues like Health Care, budget priorities, etc. Better to have a solid national security team so that you can focus on tough domestic issues instead of the foreign crisis du jour, no? In this sense, Hillary is a more controversial pick than Gates.


[ Parent ]
Can someone name the neo-cons under Gastes? (0.00 / 0)
   Details like that help.

[ Parent ]
Honestly Chris... (0.00 / 0)
You're bordering on self-parody at this point. The rumors about Gates have been floating since the summer, Obama fairly clearly implied he was inclined to keep Gates on, at least temporarily, and it's been an open secret that Gates would probably be kept on if he agreed with Obama's withdrawl plans. Without getting into whether or not the politics of this were good or not, the simple fact of the matter is that anyone who actually paid attention to it would have expected this. For you to be bitching about it now stretches credulity, and if it all bothers you that much, you should have supported Nader.  






Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search