Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
New York Daily News
November 12, 2008
By Michael Goodwin
Although the promise of “change” is the coin of Barack Obama’s realm and key to his historic victory, continuity in some areas is also important in a new administration. That’s especially the case at the Defense Department, where Obama would be wise to hold on to Secretary Robert Gates.
A report in The Wall Street Journal that the President-elect is leaning toward keeping Gates for perhaps a year counts as welcome news. With Obama facing a logistics nightmare in setting up a new administration and his need to focus first on the still-growing economic crisis, Gates’ stated openness to the idea makes the decision about as close to a nobrainer as a new President can have.
With our soldiers fighting in two wars, it is change enough that they are about to get a new commander in chief. Men and women risking their lives to carry out their nation’s combat missions should not be distracted by thoughts that, because of an election, their roles suddenly are less important. That could be a fatal mistake against enemies eager to exploit lapses in vigilance.
Asked about the issue yesterday, John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama’s transition team, told reporters that Obama “has great respect” for Gates, but said no decisions had been made. That’s understandable a mere week after the election.
With some anti-war activists pressuring for Obama to dump Gates, there is no denying that political considerations will be part of the decision. Obama’s primary campaign against Hillary Clinton was fueled in its early stages by activists who liked his opposition to the Iraq war before he was elected to the Senate in 2004. Obama further promised to pull out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan, where a resurgent Taliban is threatening a pro-Western government and helping destabilize Pakistan.
Obama has added nuance to his Iraq position, going so far as to admit recently that the surge he opposed “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” And with Gates supporting additional troops for Afghanistan, there is little substantive difference between him and Obama now. Those facts strengthen the case for Gates being invited to help steady the ship through the early days of the new administration.
Alone in George Bush’s cabinet, Gates has earned the chance to keep his job. He replaced Donald Rumsfeld after the 2006 midterm elections and quickly established credibility with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, many of whom distrusted Rumsfeld as much as they disliked him. Rumsfeld’s repeated claims, as well as those from Bush and Vice President Cheney, that we were winning in Iraq flew in the face of obvious facts.
As our casualties mounted and as Democrats took Congress in 2006 largely because of public unhappiness over the out-of-control war, Bush tapped a new secretary, a new commander in Gen. David Petraeus and a new strategy that relied on a surge of troops. Asked in his confirmation hearings if we were winning, Gates was refreshingly honest, saying, “No.”
The answer to that question now would be, “Yes.” Under Gates, our casualties have fallen sharply as Iraqi troops do more of the fighting. Although political reconciliation among Iraq’s warring tribes and sects is far from complete, it has made huge strides. The threat of a civil war has receded.
Gates came to the job with a reputation for honest and nonpartisan public service. A career operative in the CIA, he rose through the ranks to become, under the first President Bush, agency director. During his subsequent role as president of Texas A&M University, he served on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which advocated many positions Obama and other Democrats embraced, such as talking with Iran and Syria.
His track record of success in Iraq adds to that impeccable résumé and makes him the right man for our new President.
November 12, 2008
By Michael Goodwin
Although the promise of “change” is the coin of Barack Obama’s realm and key to his historic victory, continuity in some areas is also important in a new administration. That’s especially the case at the Defense Department, where Obama would be wise to hold on to Secretary Robert Gates.
A report in The Wall Street Journal that the President-elect is leaning toward keeping Gates for perhaps a year counts as welcome news. With Obama facing a logistics nightmare in setting up a new administration and his need to focus first on the still-growing economic crisis, Gates’ stated openness to the idea makes the decision about as close to a nobrainer as a new President can have.
With our soldiers fighting in two wars, it is change enough that they are about to get a new commander in chief. Men and women risking their lives to carry out their nation’s combat missions should not be distracted by thoughts that, because of an election, their roles suddenly are less important. That could be a fatal mistake against enemies eager to exploit lapses in vigilance.
Asked about the issue yesterday, John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama’s transition team, told reporters that Obama “has great respect” for Gates, but said no decisions had been made. That’s understandable a mere week after the election.
With some anti-war activists pressuring for Obama to dump Gates, there is no denying that political considerations will be part of the decision. Obama’s primary campaign against Hillary Clinton was fueled in its early stages by activists who liked his opposition to the Iraq war before he was elected to the Senate in 2004. Obama further promised to pull out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan, where a resurgent Taliban is threatening a pro-Western government and helping destabilize Pakistan.
Obama has added nuance to his Iraq position, going so far as to admit recently that the surge he opposed “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” And with Gates supporting additional troops for Afghanistan, there is little substantive difference between him and Obama now. Those facts strengthen the case for Gates being invited to help steady the ship through the early days of the new administration.
Alone in George Bush’s cabinet, Gates has earned the chance to keep his job. He replaced Donald Rumsfeld after the 2006 midterm elections and quickly established credibility with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, many of whom distrusted Rumsfeld as much as they disliked him. Rumsfeld’s repeated claims, as well as those from Bush and Vice President Cheney, that we were winning in Iraq flew in the face of obvious facts.
As our casualties mounted and as Democrats took Congress in 2006 largely because of public unhappiness over the out-of-control war, Bush tapped a new secretary, a new commander in Gen. David Petraeus and a new strategy that relied on a surge of troops. Asked in his confirmation hearings if we were winning, Gates was refreshingly honest, saying, “No.”
The answer to that question now would be, “Yes.” Under Gates, our casualties have fallen sharply as Iraqi troops do more of the fighting. Although political reconciliation among Iraq’s warring tribes and sects is far from complete, it has made huge strides. The threat of a civil war has receded.
Gates came to the job with a reputation for honest and nonpartisan public service. A career operative in the CIA, he rose through the ranks to become, under the first President Bush, agency director. During his subsequent role as president of Texas A&M University, he served on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which advocated many positions Obama and other Democrats embraced, such as talking with Iran and Syria.
His track record of success in Iraq adds to that impeccable résumé and makes him the right man for our new President.