Obama's retention of Gates as Secretary of Defense signals, above all, a clear unwillingness on Obama's part to engage in politically difficult fights at the start of his administration. Consider what Rahm Emanuel stated would be Obama's first legislative priorities when he becomes President:
Asked what Barack Obama was elected to do, and what legislation he's likely to find on his Oval Office desk soonest, Mr. Emanuel didn't hesitate. "Bucket one would have children's health care, Schip," he said. "It has bipartisan agreement in the House and Senate. It's something President-elect Obama expects to see. Second would be [ending current restrictions on federally funded] stem-cell research. And third would be an economic recovery package focused on the two principles of job creation and tax relief for middle-class families."
There is a connection between these three pieces of legislation that goes beyond Obama backing them during his time in the Senate and in his campaign. Specifically, all three of these pieces of legislation were already passed by at least one chamber in Congress, but blocked because Bush was President. In other words, they are the lowest hanging fruit possible. The same also goes for withdrawing from Iraq, which Obama pledged to do today. Withdrawal legislation was first passed through Congress 19 months ago, and thus there won't be any serious opposition to it now, either.
Picking Gates is in line with this desire to avoid fights early in Obama's tenure. David Corn:
Second, Gates is no agent of change when it comes to the Pentagon budget. In the Bush years, the regular military budget has increased by 40 percent in real terms (not counting so-called "emergency" supplemental spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan)--partly because of hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns. During the campaign, Obama talked about the need to cut "billions of dollars in wasteful spending" from the military budget. But Gates has yet to demonstrate he is truly interested in reworking the Pentagon's out-of-control budget. Keeping Gates in place sends the signal that Obama, who faces a host of hard jobs, is not eager to take on the Pentagon at the start of his presidency. "There are so many problems at home," says one of the critics, "Obama may not want to do anything fundamental about the Pentagon."
Keeping Gates on as Secretary of Defense allows Obama to avoid a confirmation fight, thus maintaining Obama's pattern of grabbing the low hanging fruit. Obama's rationale for avoiding early fights probably comes from the start of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he was "tamed" by the military:
The "taming of Bill Clinton" came two weeks into his presidency, on January 25, 1993, when the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) showed up in the Oval Office to question his promise to allow gays to serve openly in the military. Clinton was in a weak position: the military was arrayed against him. JCS chairman Colin Powell offered a compromise: stop asking and stop pursuing.
Clinton agreed, but he had little choice. As Clinton's de facto press secretary George Stephanopoulos later noted: "Their [the JCS] message was clear. Keeping this promise will cost you the military. Fight us and you'll lose - and it won't be pretty." The military's victory over Clinton in the early days of his presidency set the tone for the next eight years. On any sensitive military subject, he took the views of the JCS into account: as later confirmed, he couldn't "afford a break with the military".
Obama appears to be doing everything possible to avoid a similar fight. His goal appears to be to rack up a quick series of smaller victories achieved with overwhelming b-partisan support. Such a strategy will undoubtedly build upon his political capital rather than spending it, thereby hopefully avoiding the many difficult fights Clinton faced early in his first term.
However, a lack of early fights will also result in less than sweeping change early in Obama's tenure. Now, I have no real desire to argue over ultimate vague terms such as "change," as it is always difficult to compare campaign rhetoric to any specific reality. Still, in regards to more specific fights, like defense spending, Obama's current pattern of avoiding early fights will probably carry over into that area as well. Even though I still think there are reasons to remain optimistic over defense spending, early on the improvement that Obama makes, if any, will probably be of the incremental, near-consensus variety. What this specifically means for things like missile defense, Pentagon "waste," and contractors / mercenaries remains to be seen. The next supplemental Department of Defense appropriations bill will probably come sometime in April or May, and it is possible that after his first 100 days, Obama will be more willing to take on some larger battles. Our job, as progressive activists, should be to help lay the groundwork for those battles when they occur.
|
