Katrina vanden Heuvel: Why Robert Gates Is A Terrible Pick

[Hissyspit]

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/109298/why_robert_gates_is_a_terrible_pick

Why Robert Gates is a Terrible Pick

By Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation. Posted December 1, 2008.

The appointment of Robert Gates -- a vocal critic of Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan who will undoubtedly shape policy-- is alarming.

Barack Obama not only had the good judgment to oppose the war in Iraq but , as he told us earlier this year, "I want to end the mindset that got us into war." So it is troubling that a man of such good judgment has asked Robert Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense -- and assembled a national security team of such narrow bandwidth. It is true that President Obama will set the policy. But this team makes it more difficult to seize the extraordinary opportunity Obama's election has offered to reengage the world and reset America's priorities. Maybe being right about the greatest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history doesn't mean much inside the Beltway? How else to explain that not a single top member of Obama's foreign policy/national security team opposed the war -- or the dubious claims leading up to it?

The appointment of Hillary Clinton, who failed to oppose the war, has worried many. But I am more concerned about Gates. I spent the holiday weekend reading many of the speeches Hillary Clinton gave in her trips abroad as First Lady, especially those delivered at the UN Beijing Women's Conference and the Vital Voices Conferences, and I believe she will carve out an important role as Secretary of State through elevating women's (and girl's) rights as human rights. As she said in Belfast in 1998, "Human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights." That is not to diminish her hawkish record on several issues, but as head of State she is in a position to put diplomacy back at the center of U.S. foreign policy role -- and reduce the Pentagon's role.

It's the appointment of Gates which has a dispiriting, stay-the-course feel to it. Some will argue, and I've engaged in my fair share of such arguments, that Gates will simply be carrying out Obama's policies and vision. And a look at history shows that other great reform Presidents -- Lincoln and Roosevelt -- brought people into their cabinets who were old Washington hands or people they believed to be effective managers. Like Obama, they confronted historic challenges that compelled (and enabled) them to make fundamental change. But Gates will undoubtedly help to shape policy and determine which issues are given priority. And while Gates has denounced "the gutting" of America's "soft power," he has been vocally opposed to Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan. And at a time when people like Henry Kissinger and George Shultz are calling for steps toward a nuclear weapons free world (a position Obama has adopted), Gates has been calling for a new generation of nuclear weapons.

For Obama, who's said he wants to be challenged by his advisors, wouldn't it have made sense to include at least one person on the foreign policy/national security team who would challenge him with some new and fresh thinking about security in the 21st century? Isn't the idea of a broader bandwidth of ideas also at the heart of this ballyhooed "team of rivals" stuff?

MORE

[Submariner]

1. Gates, like the rest of the cabinet, will do what they are told

Obama is the boss and I expect he will exercise that privilege. This is not the dummy Bush looking to his cronies to run the show. This will be an entirely different WH with leadership for a change.

[leftofthedial]

16. I like this "mindless drone" meme you apologists are using to defend Obama's

unpopular picks. "Sure, they're all conservatives, supply-siders, Wall Street insiders, pro-occupation hawks, etc., bu they'll meekly and obediently cast aside their entire lifes' work to obey Obama's true progressive agenda."

Ummm... Why pick someone who is not predisposed to your plan? Why pick dozens of powerful, accomplished, headstrong, capable, independent-minded people who are all to some degree opposed to your true agenda? Could it be that we are seeing Obama's true agenda? Could it be that that agenda is to preserve the status quo?

Methinks you are delusional.

[brentspeak]

47. Exactly.

[Submariner]

62. parrot....

[Submariner]

61. As an overseer to the Bush clusterf*ck in Iraq and Afghanland

having Gates stay onboard for a year to transition to a Dem SECDEF is advantageous from a Troop safety point of view. You are the one who is delusional to think some greenhorn, not up to speed about conditions on the ground, can out-do the experienced Gates on Jan 20th. And he will be fired by his boss if he goes astray. If not, Obama could be out of a job in 4 years.

Apologist defending Obama picks?....mindless drone? Get back on your meds.

[leftofthedial]

63. meds? who can afford meds?

[Andyit999]

64. Hillary is a bad pick too

Speaking of cabinet picks... Here's another BAD one.


Hillary Clinton: Gandhi Works In A Gas Station
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo9LP0ATVJc

Watch it.

[Skittles]

74. LOL

you really are naive

[Buzz Clik]

2. "...assembled a national security team of such narrow bandwidth" Translation: not enough left wing

Maddow and vanden Heuvel suffer from symptoms of the same disease.

The violence in Iraq has declined dramatically under Gates. I cannot see any wisdom in running him out on the first day of the Obama administration.

[coalition_unwilling]

5. Are you seriously suggesting that Gates is

responsible for the chimerical "decline in violence"?

I'll wager you also believe "the Surge worked." Gates was also a principal advocate of that PR stunt.

N.B. At least 15 US soldiers died in Iraq in November 2008.

[Buzz Clik]

8. Nice extrapolation, but wrong (as most extrapolations tend to be)

I'll simply stand on my original statement.

But, no, Gates is not personally responsible for the decline in violence, but he was in charge when it happened. He has critical knowledge we need to tap.

How many US soldiers died in November 2007? 35. Is 16 less than 35?

[bigtree]

13. you do know that 800 or so U.S. soldiers lost their lives during their 'surge'

For WHAT?

Now we're supposed to give Gate credit for the reduction of violence which occurred AFTER offensive operations were halted??

[Buzz Clik]

17. I always love having to answer the same question twice.

I don't support the war. Ok?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. The "decline in violence" is likely due to "ethnic cleansing."

Just thought you'd like to know.

[Fumesucker]

22. Agreed, ethnic cleansing is nearly complete in Iraq now. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

29. There's no one left to kill?

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. You think a few thousand U.S. troops really made any difference?

You really think that's a better explanation?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Satellite_images_show_ethnic_cleansing_source_0919.html

[Buzz Clik]

56. You're the third person on this thread to put words in my mouth.

It seems at DU that if a person disagrees with any aspect of any anti-Bush administration post, then that person is automatically deemed a Bush ass kisser. It's a fascinating, though unflattering, phenomenon.

[Fumesucker]

71. Not exactly...

Ethnic cleansing doesn't necessarily mean killing, it also can mean segregating the ethnic groups geographically.

In the case of Iraq, both forms of ethnic cleansing have taken place.

[frylock]

25. i'm sure the ethnic cleansing has nothing to do with the decline in violence..

it was gates and bush' surge that did it.

[Buzz Clik]

30. You're sure? I'm not.

We're all entitled to our opinions.

[frylock]

36. we sure are..

and i'm certain that mine is the correct one. it seems many people feel the same, based on the response you received.

[Buzz Clik]

57. Oh, I get it! Today is opposite day.

Either that or you are fully incapable of directly confronting someone you oppose in an argument.

Must be opposite day. ;)

[frylock]

67. i'm perfectly capable of engaging in a discussion of opposing viewpoints..

i just didn't feel a need to pile on considering you've been getting your ass kicked all over this thread.

[Buzz Clik]

68. It is opposite day!

[sofa king]

75. Mmm. Not a good argument.

The violence in Iraq has declined because we've killed a million people there, many of them the targets of an assassination program that piles up bodies by the dozens at various locations throughout Baghdad.

We've done the same thing in the past--see the Phoenix Project in Vietnam. In the past five years, we've read a story just about every week about dozens of bodies found dumped somewhere in Iraq, usually Baghdad, where traffic is tightly controlled by Americans. But you've never read even one story about a truckload of bodies being intercepted. In five years, no truck full of dead bodies has broken down and been searched on the side of the road. Amazing.

If one wishes to ascribe virtuous behavior to Obama's choice of keeping Gates on, I think the best one can do is argue that Obama isn't yet fully aware of what's been going on there, as most of the rest of us are not aware. But when we find out--and we will, probably within days of Bush's departure--Obama will then be forced to seriously consider tossing Gates' ass out on the street immediately, and perhaps drawing up charges.

[Kolesar]

3. What conversations do you suppose Gates and Obama had leading to Gates' appointment?

Gates was one of old Bush's boys. He knew the war was a fuck up from day one or not long after. I expect that Gates described to Obama a plan to wind down the war in Iraq.

Heretofore, the only reason that we had been staying in Iraq was to save face for the "current president*" bush.

*disputed

[PRETZEL]

4. I don't think that this is the worst pick,

If Gates only stays a year then that's fine.

I haven't had the issues with Gates as many here have. From the things I've read he seems to have a good handle of the Department of Defense.

Some of the things that I think are in his favor relate to his positions taken while he was on the Iraq Study Group, and his closeness to Brent Scowcroft. If I'm not mistaken, I believe I've seen where P-E Obama does hold Scowcroft in some regard.

[Solly Mack]

6. K&R

[hlthe2b]

7. Damn, Katrina... Where were you a week and a half ago?

When this article might have made even a modicum of difference. I love KVH, but this kind of critique after the fact is largely self-serving and does no good at all, if you ask me. It is certainly divisive, but not constructive...

That's my opinion... Flame away.

[Fumesucker]

9. It wouldn't have made any difference..

Not to mention that we have been told to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up until Obama actually *does* something.

[hlthe2b]

10. Perhaps... but it just makes me upset,now.... Powerless & upset...

:shrug:

[Fumesucker]

11. Powerless is a given..

The powers that be got our vote, that's all we are really here for anyway.

Well, aside from *paying* for everything.

I kept most of my misgivings to myself before the election and I'm now told that I should continue doing the same thing until some indefinite point in the future which I suspect will never be reached.

After all, the midterm elections are coming up in only two years and we must be unified or the Republicans might win.

[bushmeister0]

12. Gates seems to be doing a good job at cleaning up Rummy's mess

and he didn't jump on Cheney's 'on to Tehran' bandwagon, to his eternal credit. He seems to be his own man when it comes to the interests of the Pentagon.

I have no problem with him.

Nowadays, anyway, cabinet positions aren't what they used to be. It seems the real influence on a president comes from those closest to him, like the National Security Adviser. The DoD and State are their own power bases from which Hillary and Gates will try to sway Obama, but from the outside.

It will be up to James L. Jones to try and juggle those two for Obama.

He's supossedly an accomplished mediator, he rides his bike to work, he speaks French and he's a highly decorated Marine.

His only drawback appears to be that he likes Toby Keith.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. I agree with Katrina but also think that Obama knows what he's doing

If I were POTUS-elect there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that I would keep Gates. But I am not POTUS-elect, Obama is and I trust that Obama knows what is going to work best for him and his administration.

[gollygee]

15. It's troubling but I'm trying to have some optimistic view of it

It's possible he wants to send a message to the world that we can have a huge change in leadership and still have that level of unity and continuity. I hope that he's just trying to send that message and that Gates will follow Obama's plan rather than the other way around. But I know I might very well be naive.

[bertman]

18. For my money, Katrina is almost always on target with her analyses. I agree with her that

this is troubling, but like all "good" Dems I will withhold judgment until we start to see what's being implemented.

[gcomeau]

20. Oh joy, another one.

Here's the bottom line, and it's a really damn simple one. If Obama says "get us out of Iraq" and Gates does it nobody has cause for complaint. Until there is actually some sign of that not happenning all this whining and bitching and complaining is childish hand-wringing over nothing.

I DON'T CARE what policies Gates has been calling for because Gates doesn't make policy. And no, I'm not saying Gates is a mindless automaton and that Cabinet picks have no say... I'm saying Obama has the FINAL say and we have been given zero reason to distrust what that say will be. I WOULD care if I thought Obama was likely to be convinced by anyone to pursue any military policies I found extremely objectionable... but I don't think that and I don't see any grounds for anyone here to think it either.

Lacking that, this constant unending wailing over the damn Cabinet picks is empty pointless drama seeking. "I can read Obama's mind and intended policy agenda based on who he picks to implement it and now I'm righteously protesting in advance"... yeah, right. Give it a rest already.

[Fumesucker]

21. No reason to distrust Obama's word? FISA, telecom immunity ring a bell? n/t

[gcomeau]

24. Did I miss...

...where Obama wrote, introduced, and personally saw to the passage of the bill and the portions of it that were mostly objectionable? Because as I recall he did none of those things and spoke out against the immunity clauses and tried to call for their removal but the bill had overwhelming senate support and was passing no matter what... and given THAT condition voting against it would have served no purpose and opened him up to attack on the national security argument in the campaign... not to mention that the immunity clauses were hardly the only thing in the entire peice of legislation. I didn't expect him to compromise his efforts to take the White House for NO GAIN then and I don't do it in retrospect now.

[frylock]

27. political expedience always makes such a great excuse..

doesn't it?

[gcomeau]

28. I think rationality does.

In fact, it's the only damn excuse anyone should ever use for anything.

Let me repeat... I'm not just talking about not wanting him to hamper his campaign. I'm talking about not wanting him to hamper his campaign for NO DISCERNIBLE GAIN. The goddamn bill was passing. Period. It wasn't close. At all. He didn't cause it to pass. He didn't permit it to pass. It was doing it ANYWAY.

[Fumesucker]

32. So you are essentially saying that Obama's word is worth nothing.

Which is the point I was trying to make.

Thanks for helping me make my point.

[gcomeau]

33. This is going to be one of *those* conversations* then is it?

I said nothing of the kind. If you aren't interested in a serious discussion then run along and play.

[Fumesucker]

35. Telecom immunity is an abomination...

Obama voted for it after condemning it.

Some things are just that simple, and this is one of them.

[gcomeau]

40. Yes, some things are that simple.

But you got the description wrong. This is not one of them, you apparently are however... and as a result seem incapable of recognizing the non simplicity of the topic.

To illustrate, your attempt to boil this down to "Obama voted for telecom immunity". I don't take that shit from Republicans during the campaign season and I'll be damned if I'll take it from you either. Acting as if what Obama did was walk into a session of the Senate with a Bill on the floor that was titled "Let's give immunity to telecoms" which contained in it's entirety the substance "telecoms get immunity, wheeeee"... and THAT's what he fucking voted for. This is no different than when the Republicans try to say our people vote against the troops because they opposed a federal budget that has items buried in line 3,742 that have to do with troop funding. No, he did NOT "vote for telecom immunity". He voted for a HUGE intelligence bill that had an article in it he didn't like, tried to get removed, but couldn't.

If you can't present an honest argument then piss off.

[Fumesucker]

73. We all know telco immunity was what was really important about the FISA bill

And why the bushies wanted it so badly.

Another layer of protection to keep the public from finding out what bushie was up to for the last eight years.

[frylock]

37. if rape is inevitable, why not just lie back and enjoy it?

i love the smell of CHANGE in the morning.

[gcomeau]

39. Allow me...

...to reply with a metaphor of my own, which has the benefit of being considerably more accurate than the drivel you just posted. If the meteor is going to hit the ground at some place you don't like, why not stand under it to get in the way?

Obama spoke out against the goddamn immunity. He tried to get it removed. It reached the point where that simply was not happening. So then we had this situation:

GIVEN: Bill passes. Done. Finished. Decided. Get it?
Options:

A. Bill passes in a manner that does not significantly harm Obama's chances of getting elected and doing some good later.
B. Bill passes in a manner that opens Obama to political attack on national security grounds, raising the risk that we will ALSO end up with four more years of a Republican administration.

He chose B. Anyone with functioning neurons who understood the situation would choose B. I supported the guy in large part because he ISN'T an idiot.

[frylock]

43. political expedience always makes such a great excuse..

lather, rinse, repeat.

[gcomeau]

45. Alright then, I get it.

There's no room in your skull for complex thought. You could have just said so in the first place so I didn't waste my time.

[frylock]

66. i don't feel the need to type out a thousand words to get my point across..

i think i've made my views perfectly clear.

ps: fuck off, asshole.

[fascisthunter]

65. you can rationalize a bad choice all you want

the most heinous people in the world claimed to be rational and did so by rationalizing. All in the eye of the beholder, as they say.

[Jennicut]

23. Perhaps Obama decided to keep Gates on because he has

been working on the problems in the DOD for so long? Rummy really screwed that place up and I'm sure anyone, Rethug or Dem would have made the place better. I think Gates will be on until the Iraq War is over and then will most likely leave. His job is too wrap up the Iraq War and find solutions to get us out without making things worse for the people there. Now, as far as Obama allowing a Rethug in his administration, why the shock from some, he said ALL along in his campaign he would do stuff like this. The real radical left is not even happy with some of the Dems, they can't be pleased no matter what you do.

[gogoplata]

38. Obama never said that he would just command the military to "get out of Iraq'

he has always said he would listen to the military commanders. He just so happens to have at the very top of the military chain of command a b*sh holdover.

If it really was true that it doesn't matter what these cabinet people think or what their ideology is, that nothing happens unless Obama decides it's gonna happen, wouldn't it be just as easy to nominate left leaning appointees?

[gcomeau]

41. sigh...

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/01/america/Obama-Iraq.php

That WAS all the way back in yesterday of course... maybe he changed his mind since then and I just haven't heard about it.

[gogoplata]

42. much deeper and more dramatic sigh..

from the article...

As he named Robert Gates to continue on as defense chief, with a new mission to reduce U.S. involvement in Iraq, the president-elect said he'll listen to Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders on the ground in determining how to proceed with a troop withdrawal.

[gcomeau]

44. Try reading it before posting it. All the way through.

You look like you got to the "listen to Gates" part, but not to the "IN DETERMINING HOW TO PROCEED WITH A TROOP WITHDRAWAL" part.

[gogoplata]

46. The rest of the article is Obama prepping us for a longer than 16 mo stay.

...Obama told reporters in Chicago that he still thinks 16 months is the "right time frame" for removing U.S. combat troops from Iraq.

He said the top priority is making sure troops are safe during that transition, and that the Iraqi people are well served as their government takes on more security responsibilities.

He also said the U.S. needs to "remain vigilant" in making sure terrorist elements in Iraq don't become strengthened by a U.S. pullout.

The only thing you have in the whole article supporting your view is the headline.

[gcomeau]

49. Is English your first language?

The entire goddamn article is about pulling out. Everything you just quoted is about pulling out. What the hell are you talking about?

[gogoplata]

50. Everybody including the b*sh administration has called for pulling out.

Have you heard of SOFA?

[gcomeau]

51. Do you have any kind of point?

Obama is talking about pulling out. Obama is saying he still think 16 months is the right timeframe. Obama is talking about listening to people on how to make that happen. BUSH signed some status of forces agreement with the Iraqis that rather clearly showed the Iraqi's want to move things along on the withdrawal as well...

And from this you conclude that Obama is considering NOT pulling out of Iraq.

Are you... well?

[gogoplata]

52. I want us out ASAP, Obama wants to listen to his commanders, who are

like Gates willing to stay much longer based on very weak premises. Gates is not a supporter of get out asap, why appoint someone who is ideologically on the other side? Why reinforce the idea that the repugs are the only ones capable of running the military?

Is there any other way you have of debating other than juvenile personal attacks?

[gcomeau]

59. For the love of...

Would you please READ? Obama wants to listen to his commanders on HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE WITHDRAWAL HE STILL WANTS TO DO IN 16 FUCKING MONTHS.

And as to why Obama wants Gates to do it, it's not like multiple reasons for that haven't been explained a thousand times already on these freaking boards. Because he can start immediately with no transition period. Because keeping a Republican or two in the Cabinet is an effective long term strategy to kneecap those interested in fostering partisan gridlock that will hamper all of Obama's policy goals if he doesn't keep a handle on it and Gates, whatever his philosophical views, is capable of doing the job Obama requires of him effectively. Because If he has Gates, a Bush appointee, overseeing pulling the troops out it becomes extremely hard for the Right to obstruct the process without burying themselves politically by being seen by the general public as obstructing for the sake of obstructing. Etc...

[gogoplata]

60. Gates was 100% behind the staus of forces agreement. We will see where we stand 16 mo after Jan.

[formercia]

26. Talking about womens' and girls' rights is great

but the Saudis and Taliban could give a shit. It's the same in a lot of other countries.

Don't expect a whole lot of change.

[deaniac21]

34. You mean prick.

[ihavenobias]

48. I have mixed feelings on Gates.

On one hand I completely understand Katrina's point, but on the other hand Thom Hartmann also made a great point when he said that if we're attacked in the coming months Gates provides great cover for Obama.

After all, imagine the media frenzy that would result from an attack *after* Obama just replaced Gates with a progressive?

Ok, so that's a political consideration, but what about policy?

Cenk of The Young Turks made a great point yesterday when he said that Gates has pushed HARD for cutting wasteful military spending. We waste untold billions and Obama HAS to cut spending somewhere. Again, imagine the media frenzy that would result from Obama (minus Gates) cutting defense spending. Here again Gates provides excellent cover.

Obama can just shrug and say "hey, we're cutting defense spending but it's with the advice of my competent, respected and clearly not liberal Secretary Of Defense".

[caraher]

53. I also think Gates is great insurance against mischief on the way out

Look at it this way:

If Obama named someone else, that's ~2 months in which Gates is serving a lame-duck president and his failed policies. Apart from sheer sense of duty and patriotism, what motive would Gates have for making a smooth handoff in January?

Keeping Gates has one great virtue: Gates has every reason NOT to sabotage his successor. He knows, today, that his job will be to pave the way for a transfer of power to the Iraqis, and this can't help but affect positively what he does in the coming weeks.

And as the Bushies reminded us ad nauseum, cabinet officials serve largely "at the pleasure of the President." I foresee Obama retaining Gates until the end of the tunnel is in sight and then making a change. Unless things take a sharp turn for the worse, which will only shorten Gates' tenure.

[Generator]

54. I've seen zero vision from Obama

All he is capable of is status quo. Even Bush had a black man and a woman on his cabinet. Compared to Bush/Cheney he's an angel, but compared to all the promise and weeping he has shown himself to be lacking courage and vision. I understand a little status quo for the economy considering it's shape-but considering he knows and you know and everyone knows that war in Iraq is bankrupting us-well hey how about something you know radical, ending the war he said he was against.

[Buzz Clik]

72. Oh, for Christ's sake. The man has not even taken office.

[bdamomma]

55. Gates can always leave the post too.

a year long appointment, I don't think he will make it.

[goforit]

58. People fell for W's "Compassionate Conservatism" and now we fell for "the Change"

[Buzz Clik]

70. LOL! What's your concept of change? Katrina vanden Heuvel as SoS?

Kucinich as Secretary of Alien Life on Earth?

It's called sanity, and that's change.

Do keep in mind that 9/11 happened in part because Bush had nothing in the way of residual intel left in his administration. Learning from past mistakes... that's good for a change.

[Buzz Clik]

69. Here, Katrina -- some evidence that you're way out there in left field.

Gee. Only 79% of all Democrats think Gates is a good appointment. I wish we had your insight.