As has been reported since yesterday (and speculated about for far longer than that), Bob Gates is set to stay at the DoD.
WaPo reports today that Agreement Near for Gates to Stay On as Defense Secretary
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is close to finalizing an agreement to remain at the Pentagon for at least the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency, providing the new commander in chief with a Republican in his
Cabinet and continuity for a military waging two wars, according to Democrats familiar with the negotiations.Some sources described a “rolling transition,” in which Gates would stay on during a phased changeover of key political appointees at the Pentagon. Others said he could stay in the job indefinitely. Under both scenarios, most of the deputies serving under him would be replaced, the sources said.
Again, it has long been speculated that Obama would seek to keep Gates for at least a year, so as to provide continuity in the ongoing wars in which we are involved. This makes especial sense given the negotiations over the US’s status in Iraq going forward and the pending draw-down of US troops in that country.
The move again underscores, as I noted yesterday in regards to other appointees, that Obama is hardly the unpredictable cra-zee that many tried to paint him as during the campaign. Further, there was the more credible (although significantly over-played in my opinion) that we really don’t know who Obama is. Well, to date (and yes, it is still early, I will grant) it appears he is exactly what he appeared to be during the campaign: a thoughtful, pragmatic politician very likely to govern well within the American mainstream.
The retention of Gates will likely cause a great deal of consternation on Obama’s leftward flank, but the realistic truth is that despite Obama’s criticisms of the Bush administration’s handling of the war (well deserved criticisms, btw), the truth is that the Bush administration has been moving more in the Obama direction policy-wise for some time. Further, despite the desires by many to accelerate the withdrawal, or to have some other radical policy shift, the truth of the matter is whomever was shown in for the presidency this go round was going to have their policy options quite limited.
Keeping Gates actually could actually be argued as being the best way to keep the process of eventual withdrawal/radical draw-down on schedule with a shift at Defense potentially slowing it down.1
The transition to date, and this pick/retention in particular, underscores a truism about politics in the United States: the idea that radical change comes with an election (whether one finds that to be a positive or if one finds that to be a negative) simply is incorrect. This is not to suggest that we aren’t getting some significant amount of change in who is governing and how, but that such changes tend to be far less dramatic than both the proponents and opponents of a given candidate tend to think will be the case.
Update: The LAT reports that Gates has accepted:
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has agreed to serve in President-elect Barack Obama’s Cabinet, advisors said Tuesday, setting up the unusual situation in which a wartime Pentagon chief remains to work under a president who has condemned the previous administration’s policies.
As to at least some of the “why” that Obama wants to retain Gates:
In two years as Defense secretary, Gates has stepped off a considerable distance from the approach and policies of his predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and projected an image of independence from President Bush, including over the nation’s ongoing wars.As early as his Senate confirmation hearing, Gates shunned the administration’s insistence that it was winning the war in Iraq, and he has represented a potent check against White House troop strategies.
But along with his nonpartisan appeal, Gates is valued as a careful steward whose execution of White House policy is marked by caution and an aversion to acting precipitously. For Obama, who wants to remove U.S. combat brigades quickly, support from Gates would provide considerable credibility for the new administration’s policies.
Also, one final thought: I wonder as to what degree the Clinton to State appointment was done, at least in part, to provide some political cover for keeping Gates at Defense.
Sphere: Related Content- BTW. I will not be in the least surprised if there are still some US troops in Iraq after an Obama second term, hence we may never see a 100% withdrawal. One could certainly see a US base of some sort in Iraq for years to come. [↩]
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
The trackback url for this post is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.html?p=14495
NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.
Well, to date (and yes, it is still early, I will grant) it appears he is exactly what he appeared to be during the campaign: a thoughtful, pragmatic politician very likely to govern well within the American mainstream.
I don’t care about an old washed up terrorist, but he still hasn’t come clean about his palling around with members of the Weather Underground.
Maybe he gave Gates the whole story….
Reply to Ratoe
Comment by Ratoe — Wednesday, November 26, 2024 @ 8:24 pm
Well, you don’t believe that enormous complex in Baghdad is a mere “embassy,” do you?
Reply to Len
Comment by Len — Thursday, November 27, 2024 @ 7:30 pm