Another Perspective on Obama Keeping Gates

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 13:50


I'm not a huge fan of Robert Gates, but I think it's worth noting that asking for a progressive to lead the Department of Defense relies on the assumption that America will begin to follow a more anti-imperialist foreign policy.  Residual Cold War orthodoxy and the iron triangle is so strong that it's going to even more serious economic shocks before that becomes possible.  So is Bob Gates a reasonable choice to lead the Pentagon, knowing of course that 'reasonable' in modern American politics means only insane as opposed to batshit insane?

I think, yes.  While he did advocate for the US to bomb Nicaragua in the 1980s and was heavily involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, Gates is the reason that America has not yet attacked Iran, and while people don't normally get credit for preventing messes, I'd like to give him some.  A few years ago, Glenn Greenwald implied that a war with Iran was practically inevitable and up to the President's personality, and I assumed he was correct.  This was a reasonable supposition at the time, and Gates deserves a lot of credit for turning Bush away from using force against Iran.  Now, it may yet happen that America goes to war with Iran, since we're only down from batshit insane to insane, but still, we haven't yet gone to war, and with Cheney's itchy trigger finger away from the White House the chances of doing so (or at least doing so joyfully) have dropped.

Here's Steve Clemons.

My hunch is that Gates wants a chance to make the kind of leaps in the Middle East I have been writing about for some time. He wants to try and push Iran-US relations into a constructive direction. He wants to change the game in Afghanistan -- and the answer will not be a military-dominant strategy. He wants to try and stabilize Iraq in a negotiated, confidence building process that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and other regional forces. And he wants to support a big push on Israel-Palestine peace and reconfigure relations between much of the Arab League and Israel.

This is a far more progressive agenda than you'll find among most Democratic hawks, who are quite happily situated in the Obama administration.  Of course, I don't think anyone should expect Obama's policy apparatus to be particularly progressive.  Peace in the Middle East, negotiations with Afghanistan, a partial withdrawal from Iraq, a grand bargain in the Middle East - these are all realist policies.  A genuinely progressive foreign policy would involve all of this plus removing American bases from half the countries on the planet, ending the drug war, restructuring global trade and financial flows to make a more equitable planet that is not dependent on oil, and negotiating a new global social contract.  But that'll have to wait until there's a political consensus for all that nice stuff.

For now, the centrists are in charge, and if Gates and Hillary Clinton want to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine, I will happily watch and encourage them to do so.  Eventually, the folks from Avaaz.org will be in major policy-making roles, and at that moment we can put forward strong alternatives.  
Matt Stoller :: Another Perspective on Obama Keeping Gates

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Another Perspective on Obama Keeping Gates | 29 comments
great post -- agreed on all points. nt. (4.00 / 3)

no (4.00 / 2)
So is Bob Gates a reasonable choice to lead the Pentagon, knowing of course that 'reasonable' in modern American politics means only insane as opposed to batshit insane?

Gates is one of the people who politicized intelligence.

The only thing Gates will do is destroy evidence of torture and fraud so that no one will be held accountable. Gates is much worse than Brennan.

Bob Gates Sounds like Clark Clifford (4.00 / 1)
who perhaps was the only person in the LBJ administration who could successfully dissent against the Vietnam policy of the time.

In an alternate history without Clifford, I believe that LBJ would have gone into Cambodia in '68.

The Democratic Party problem here is worse than just "not having a bench" (4.00 / 2)
This is a far more progressive agenda than you'll find among most Democratic hawks, who are quite happily situated in the Obama administration.

Unfortunately this would be almost as true if you substituted "Senators" etc. for "hawks."  Where is the Democratic Party's Hagel, who could serve as a strong exponent for realistic and productive engagement with the Middle East?  About the most you can hope is that Obama can get away with pursuing choiceworthy objectives through the agency of officials whose per-se-objectionable hawkishness "gives them the credibility" to work towards unhawkish goals.  But that's a high-stakes magnified picture of a party with a hole in the middle of it where they've caved to "national security credentials."

Foreign policy is probably the one area where (however endangered the GHW Bush/Scowcroft wing of the policy is) the Republicans are still the "party of ideas" in the sense that at least they have a spectrum of beliefs (ranging, on the other side, I hope it goes without saying, to the batshit insane we've endured most recently, as Matt says).

Hagel? (0.00 / 0)
Hagel voted for torture. Of course Gates has presided over torture, so what is the difference?
[ Parent ]
while the question of torture is very significant, i think tdub's post was primarily (4.00 / 1)
concerned with broader questions of US policy towards the middle east.  
[ Parent ]
My point about Hagel was clear and specific. (4.00 / 1)
"Where is the Democratic Party's Hagel, who could serve as a strong exponent for realistic and productive engagement with the Middle East?"

My point is that, on these very same crucial issues, on which Matt quotes Clemens on Gates:

He wants to try and push Iran-US relations into a constructive direction. He wants to change the game in Afghanistan -- and the answer will not be a military-dominant strategy. He wants to try and stabilize Iraq in a negotiated, confidence building process that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and other regional forces. And he wants to support a big push on Israel-Palestine peace and reconfigure relations between much of the Arab League and Israel

...on these same issues, Hagel holds firmly any number of correct beliefs about what our diplomatic objectives should be, and how aggressively they need to be pursued, that are virtually impossible to find among Democratic holders of high office.  Yes, Democrats will pay lip service to something like making real progress towards a real solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; so do the most evil neocons, and it doesn't take a genius to tell the difference.  Yes, he also holds beliefs with which I disagree.  But my question stands, where are the Democrats who would have the appropriately pious positions on military commissions etc. and also has a record of joining Hagel in the many positions on which he's a lone wolf standing without any company in his party or ours?

The point is shame at what you can scarcely find in our party, not envy of Hagel as the perfect politician.

[ Parent ]
Really? Levin? (4.00 / 1)
Are there really that many issues where Hagel is to the left of the center of the Senate Dem caucus?  My impression has always been that Hagel had the foreign policy of a standard Dem (Biden, Levin), not that he had a genius foreign policy that was well to their left, and idiosyncratic in the manner of a Feingold.

I accept that I could be wrong, but I'd be interested in any argument to that effect you might offer.

As datapoint number one in your favor, Clemons has a mancrush on Hagel specifically that I have never quite figured out.  So you're not alone in whatever it is you're thinking.

[ Parent ]
This reply is late in coming & won't satisfy you but... (0.00 / 0)
I think the thing most to the point I can say is that I just don't see foreign policy wisdom as a left/right issue.  Yes, there are certain broad and important principles I support that do fit that labeling (international justice regimes in support of human rights, etc.), but when it comes to intelligent attitudes about which steps to push in something as complicated as Israeli/Palestinian negotiations, I don't see a lot of honest and independent-minded people out there, and Hagel has repeatedly stood for good sense and realistic analysis over jingoism on such issues, and I've been impressed.

I think there are some people whose views broadly match up with mine who hold them because they are ideologically left.  But, frankly, I think that group is tiny and stands zero chance of being in influential positions.

Well, that's more than I was going to say, maybe it can satisfy you a little.

[ Parent ]
Well... (4.00 / 3)
It's true that (some) conservative realists are more likely to oppose imperial adventures (and Israel) than liberal hawks, Gates's history is too sordid, to say nothing of the neocons who work for him and the political message it sends about Democrats. Bad.
et tu, Stoller? (0.00 / 0)
I've heard of "going long," in the sense of gradually moving the definition of "center" ever so slightly to the left, but the Gates nomination smacks of, as they say, high-Broderism.  
yes, it is (4.00 / 3)
Don't take this as my approval of the choice.  
[ Parent ]
no (4.00 / 1)
"High Broderism" would be if the reason Obama is leaving Gates in place would be just for the sake of having a token Republican in his cabinet to make himself look bipartisan. On the contrary, there are some good reasons to keep Gates in place, cited by Clemons and some commentators in this thread, which have nothing to do with making a show of reaching across the aisle.
[ Parent ]
Looks like he (0.00 / 0)
had a looking-on-the-bright-side spasm.
[ Parent ]
I like this post. (4.00 / 2)
Also:

If Obama were just consigning foreign policy over to Gates (or, indeed, to Hillary), then I'd be very very pissed.  But I don't think he's doing that.

I think he's making Gates (and Hillary) into his wingmen.  I think he intends to execute the exact same policy he ran on in Iraq, but he's going to do it with Gates having agreed to implement it, since as a member of the Iraq Study Group, Gates actually agrees with the policy on its merits.  Implementing your same policy, but with the brand names Gates and Hillary attached, makes you much much safer from incoming partisan fire.  Republicans and DLC Democrats are crippled in their ability to attack Barack when he's got Scowcroft, Gates, and the Clinton complex beside him.  They'll still attack, of course, but it's awfully hard to accuse Barack of going off the left cliff when he's standing next to Robert Gates.  This is good.

If I thought Obama had made significant policy concessions to either of these people, I'd be livid.  But I don't think there's any reason to believe that he has.  The only likely one that I have heard is that Gates will probably prevent any meaningful inquest into malfeasance of the last eight years as long as he's at SecDef.  That's a small price to pay I think for actually getting the war ended, without a dolchstosslegende Vietnam complex taking root.

As Matt points out, at this point there is a long overdue "centrist" agenda that needs to be enacted.  The first term at least will consist mostly of this, since even getting fairly mainstream notions like a grand bargain with Iran and Syria, and a peace deal in Israel-Palestine, will still take three years or so to actually accomplish.  If, going into 2012, this centrist agenda has gone well and the global economy still exists, we will find out where Obama wants to go with his second term: still in the center, or further to the left with his next round of SecState and SecDef.  But for now, the impossible will take a little while, and the first step to the impossible is to execute a long backlog of the merely less insane.  

Political Consensus? (4.00 / 3)
A genuinely progressive foreign policy would involve all of this plus removing American bases from half the countries on the planet, ending the drug war, restructuring global trade and financial flows to make a more equitable planet that is not dependent on oil, and negotiating a new global social contract.  But that'll have to wait until there's a political consensus for all that nice stuff.

Political consensus, at least among the elites, is the problem.  In the short (and medium) term, we need to seek to break the consensus.  It would be a victory for these sorts of issues to be considered.  Better Democrats will help with this, as will progressives moving up in the caucus.  The challenge to that consensus, if it happens at all, will happen at the local and state levels, and maybe in the House.  It's unlikely that it will come from the Executive Branch.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

a silver lining to a dark cloud. (4.00 / 1)

I'm With Alice Dem (4.00 / 1)
Hmmmm. Steve Clemons' "hunch" vs. Bob Gates' documented record.

Which to believe?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Let's look at his record as SecDef, shall we? (4.00 / 5)
I don't like hunches either, especially when we can look at what a person has done in the position under question.

The Air Force wanted 381 F-22 Raptors. The Pentagon, under Gates wanted to end purchases at 183. The Air Force and Congress put up a stink and Congress allocated $523 million for an additional 20 planes, including $150 million in upfront money. His staff realized that they were required only to spend "up to" $150 million so they only allocated enough money to replace the planes lost in combat (4). The Air Force and Congress (including a bunch of Democrats) weren't very happy.

Gates has also questioned the need for further procurement of the C-17, the CSAR-X helicopter, the Zumwalt-class destroyer, and the Army's FCS initiative. He's also pushing to roll ongoing and predictable costs of conflicts into the main appropriations bill. This will help in regaining control over the total amount of money spent on defense.

He's also encouraged outside the box thinking, promoting capable officers by changing the promotion criteria, reigning in inter-service rivalries, prioritizing the needs of soldiers in the field, and placing personnel ahead of technology. He made a speech at the Air Force Academy dressing them down for failing to adapt to new challenges. In June, he fired the Secretary of the Air Force and his Chief of Staff because of concerns with the direction they were taking. And he did all of this without Bush actively supporting any of it.

Here are a couple of links for more detail:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c...

So, if our goal is actually implementing progressive change to the Defense Department, Gates looks like he would be able to take what he has done without the support of the President and keep things moving forward. If we replaced him right now, we'd be starting over from scrtch.

[ Parent ]
VERY interesting (0.00 / 0)
And very encouraging.  I'd heard mumblings, but never read such a comprehensive description of how Gates has tackled military spending.  I'm sure some have a counterpoint to these details, but it certainly appears Gates is exactly what we need.

Thanks for the links.

[ Parent ]
Deleted quick hit (0.00 / 0)
I just spent choosing quotes from those links for the quick hits and someone just deleted it.  What the F%$K.
[ Parent ]
Why Not Zinni??? (0.00 / 0)
Lazy pre-T day.  The thoughts come in in dribbles.  My latest seems so obvious, it can only be virual tryptophane that kept me from seeing it before:  Anthony Zinni.  Dude definitely knows what's what.

And was touted by Bush before, well, reality set in.  So he's sort of like Bob Gates' anti-evil twin.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Similar reason with Clark (4.00 / 1)
He's technically not eligible until 2010, because of the 10 year thing.

But in the same way as George Marshall, Zinni could get a wavier too.

[ Parent ]
September, 2010 (4.00 / 5)
Zinni won't be allowed by statute to hold the Secretary of Defense position until September, 2010.  Wes Clark can take the position a few months earlier, May, 2010.

I used to always argue (for Clark) that congress could make an exception like they did for Marshall, but I've since been convinced the exception would be a bigger deal then I originally suspected.

This is actually one of the arguments for keeping Gates a short time, the most obvious Democrats for the position are not yet eligible.  In my ideal world, Obama would announce early on that Clark will be SoD on May 2, 2010 -- the Gates exit strategy.

[ Parent ]
that's a good idea (4.00 / 3)

[ Parent ]
Gates for now, Clark in 2010 / renouncing torture (0.00 / 0)
   I want to thank kjblair and Mark Matson for the information. I did not know much about Gates before today. What I have now learned makes me pretty happy with Obama's choice.
  I certainly agree that once Clark is eligible (May of 2010) he should get the Secretary of Defense job.
  The one negative thing that I have heard here about Gates is that he has gone along with Bush's torture policies. Obama needs to undo the Bush's pro-torture legacy as quickly and thoroughly as possible, for two reasons. First, torture is inherently bad, and needs to be opposed for its own sake. But second, America's moral high ground and our standing in the world was absolutely shredded by Bush. (The only gift of Clinton's that Bush destroyed more thoroughly than our international reputation was our balanced budget... or maybe Bush was equally bad in both areas.)
  It sounds like Gates will not be very helpful in our efforts to renounce torture. But we should be able to work around him. Obama should set up an independent, bipartisan commission to study, and prosecute, acts of torture committed by the Bush administraton.
  If Obama does that, then will Gates present any other problem(s) for us?

1 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV) - "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."/ GOP = Greedy Old Privatizers or Greedy Old Privateers?
[ Parent ]
that would make me very very happy (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I don't know about others ... (4.00 / 1)
...but I never expected Obama to appoint a progressive, Matt - much less a left-progressive - to the SecDef post. I just hoped - despite knowing since May that Gates had a chance and so, probably did Hagel - that we'd get a non-neocon Democrat instead of a difficult-to-pin-down-but-nevertheless-baggage-heavy leftover from the Reagan and Bush41-43 years.  
hopefully keeping gates (0.00 / 0)
on as sec of def is a political move to make leaving iraq more palatable to the msm and americas con horde of war mongers, who i might add have never worn a uniform much less shed the blood they want everyone else to donate on foreign soil for the enrichment of the nations elite chicken hawks, cowards if you like. these people throw the flag in everyone elses face but never seem to love that flag as much they claim, their consistent response to serving is that old refrain, deferment please, better known as the cheney chant.
Another Perspective on Obama Keeping Gates | 29 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox