People are beginning to discuss cabinet positions in an Obama administration, and I have no problem looking a little ahead (with fingers crossed). One thing I keep hearing is that Obama may keep Robert Gates on (at least, for a while) as his Secretary of Defense. Now, I was one of the lonely few liberal commentators that counseled against getting worked up about Gates’ nomination. Yes, he was tangentially involved in Iran-Contra, and he did give misleading (perhaps, perjurious) testimony to Congress. But he represented a return to ‘realism’ in the Bush administration and was one of the best realistically available replacements for Rumsfeld at the time. Gates has been an advocate for closing Guantanamo Bay and against a preemptive attack on Iran. That he has gathered enough confidence in the bipartisan Establishment to be seriously considered for a continuing role in an Obama administration is a testimony to his better than average (for a Bush appointment) performance.
But, having said that, he cannot be permitted to remain in charge of the Pentagon. At least, not for very long. It isn’t that he’s done a terrible job. The problem lies elsewhere. The Pentagon is rotted through with corruption, especially in procurement and subcontracting. The whole edifice needs to be ripped up and strong oversight needs to be put in place, both internally and externally. Gates didn’t create this problem, but he didn’t solve it, either. On top of that, there are serious issues at the NSA and the Defense Intelligence Agency related to domestic surveillance. All of that has to be assessed and addressed. Gates would have too many conflicts of interest to ably preside over such a mission.
Gates has to go.
Barney Frank wants a 25% cut in Pentagon budget:
Add: Paulson and sidekick
CashKarryKaskhari must also go. Now we’re bailing out the insurance companies. At some point we’ll need to say No. Let the system cleanseI don’t think cutting the Pentagon budget will be easy with Obama, who has made it clear that he intends to significantly increase both the size if the military and military spending. That is one of the reasons I do not support him.
Obama is going to end the Iraq war along with the mindset that got us into that war. That will make a huge difference in the amount on money spent on the military.
Was there ever any candidate that had any chance of being elected that you would support?
Obama is not going to “end the Iraq war”. Based on his own statements, he intends only to reconfigure the occupation, and continue it indefinitely with a lower profile. He described his plan in some detail early in the primary campaign.
He is not going to end the mindset either:
Therefore, I am not confident at all that Obama will end either the war in Iraq nor the mindset, and his intention to enlarge the military and increase the budget are very worrying.
As for whom I would and would not support, I dislike political parties, do not belong to one, and do not vote on the basis of parties, but of issues that are important to me.
“…do not vote on the basis of parties, but of issues that are important to me.”
Issues are not on the ballot. The choice is Nadar, Barr, McCain or Obama. The only way to for Republicans not to steal the election is to win with a wide Obama margin. This is an important vote, even if you live in a ‘red’ state.
If you want to change things, first you have to get elected. If Obama supported your issues he would not be winning. Look at what happened when Barney Frank proposed a 25% reduction in military spending:
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mccain-gop-target-frank-on-taxes-and-spending-2008-10-25.html
“…House Republicans’ campaign arm sent out an e- mail trying to link Democratic candidates in competitive races to Frank. The e-mail from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) highlighted Frank’s proposal for a 25 percent cut in military spending….He said that reducing military funding would mean that the United States would have to get out of Iraq sooner.”
NRCC spokesman Ken Spain: “At a time when Americans are faced with serious crises at home and abroad, Barney Frank is providing voters with a glimpse into the future if Democrats are given a blank check from the White House on down to both houses of Congress,”
Obama has said we will remove all combat troops within 16 months. The Iraq war is OVER with no combat troops. I think the war is over as soon as we start to withdraw. I agree with Obama that we need to add 90k troops because of the burden we have placed on the troops we have especially our National Guard. This will happen with a decrease in military spending.
Obama has been attacked for calling for negotiations with Iran. It is correct to say that Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon. I think Iran wants to make a deal. This is possible with Obama.
I know you don’t like Colin Powell but his advice will be for a clear objective with a exit strategy for both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think this is a problem because how would you ever define victory? This war will end as well.
The first mindset that Obama wanted to change was the personal attack campaign strategy. Obama has led the way. I think that mindset has changed because look what happened with Michele Bachmann. The next mindset change is about empire. The economic crisis will help with that mindset.
Have some hope, vote for Obama.
I assure you that you have nothing to worry about. My vote for a third party candidate of my choosing will not affect the outcome of the election one iota.
And by the way, you are wrong that issues are not on the ballot, by which I assume you meant they are not on the President part of the ballot, because of course they are on the ballot very directly in terms of propositions. And they are very much on the ballot indirectly when it involves the choices of candidates for various offices. And in any case, one of the issues that concerns me a great deal is the lock that the two main parties have on virtually everything, and there is no way on earth of breaking that lock if everyone votes in knee-jerk fashion only for one party or the other.
As for the “war”, come on! That is a word game, something politicians and lawyers, including Obama are masters at. Obama has made absolutely clear that he will not end the occupation. He has also made clear that he will maintain the imperial citadel in full operation. Further, there is no way he can withdraw all combat forces if he intends to keep any forces there since combat forces will be required to protect the other forces that remain, not to mention the combat forces that will be required to protect the imperial citadel he will maintain in Baghdad. And on top of that, he has described in specific terms the “missions” of the remaining troops, and, surprise, surprise, some of those missions include combat.
“I agree with Obama that we need to add 90k troops because of the burden we have placed on the troops we have especially our National Guard. This will happen with a decrease in military spending.“
You are not thinking clearly. First, if you intend to withdraw from Iraq, and have an exit strategy for Afghanistan (and Pakistan?! When did the U.S. occupy Pakistan?!), then you need fewer troops, not 90,000 more – unless, of course, Obama intends to invade and occupy, say Iran, or maybe Syria, or some other countries. Second, Obama has announced that he plans to INCREASE military spending, not decrease it, which, along with his plan to increase personnel, implies that he intends at the very least to maintain the current level of activity. Third, you are defying reality if you think a personnel increase of 90,000 can EVER correlate with a decrease in spending. There are a lot more points than that, but it is too late at night to try to untangle your very strange thinking on this matter.
And why must Iran not obtain a nuclear weapon, aside from the fact that they should not exist at all. What is so unique about Iran that it, as opposed to the United States, which has actually USED nuclear weapons, or Israel, which is one of the most unashamedly aggressive countries on earth, should not have them? And what part of Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and has every legal, moral, economic, and logical right to develop nuclear power capability is not clear?
As for Colin Powell, you have no idea what is advice will be, but based on his history, I have no confidence in him at all. I also have no confidence in Madeline “half a million dead brown babies on the other side of the earth is a price WE are willing to pay” Albright, another one of Obama’s advisors.
Finally, call me politically unsophisticated, but I base my expectations of people’s future behaviour not on my own wishful fantasies, but on real things, such as their past behaviour, their advisors’ past behaviours, and their own statements regarding their beliefs and intentions. I don’t have a problem with people voting for Obama, and I hope to heaven that he wins because the alternative is too terrible to think about. However, my choice to vote against McCain rather than for Obama is a principled choice with a rational, realistic basis. Furthermore, it is my absolute right to make this choice just as it is your absolute right to vote for Obama, or – as sick as it makes me – someone else’s absolute right to vote for McCain.
Thank you for your reply. I really do enjoy reading all your posts.
I has happy you said “…and I hope to heaven that he wins because the alternative is too terrible to think about.” That should be enough not to waste your vote on some third party candidate. We need Obama and as many democrats in congress we can get to start the process of real change. This is only a start. The hard work is ahead.
The change I talk about (and hope) is about empire. We spend more on military than the rest of the world combined. The simple fact is we cannot continue on this path and survive. We need to rethink our place in the world.
We can argue later about this as events unfold. I do hope you are wrong and my optimism is justified.
PS Obama also insists upon perpetuating the notion of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, and never mentions the fact that all available evidence indicates that they don’t have a nuclear weapons program and are not likely to have one any time soon.
Hurria,
what I do hope is that Obama does not ramp up Afghanistan – it’s a sink hole. Make a deal with the Taleban as both the Pakistan Parliament and Brits’ Generals are suggesting.
what I do know is this, with a 2009 $2 trillion deficit and counting, Obama will have no choice but to cut Pentagon spending. We can’t afford it and the rest of the world can’t afford to lend us any more money.
Here’s our creditors’ new thinking
Obama has stated very clearly his plans for The Surge 2.0 (TM) in Afghanistan.
Obama has stated very clearly his intention to increase military spending.
Obama has stated very clearly his intention to increase the size of the military by 90,000 troops.
Presidents can always find ways to increase military spending if they want to, and they always find ways to convince the population that the increase is necessary no matter how much or what kind of sacrifice is necessary to do so.
Totally agree.
Example:
Missile defense? Gone.
Rods from God? Yes please.
Must read “House of War”, by James Carroll. Fixing the Pentagon is no easy task. The military has been brilliant at “spreading the wealth” around to make it politically impossible for many congressmen or senators to oppose their budgets. For example, Lockheed has operations in 45 states – what congressman will support cutting any of those operations.
Maybe something like a Realignment and Closure Commission could work…I’m not hopeless, just not hopeful.
Read somewhere recently that Jack Reed might go to defense.
It’s impossible for me to believe that Gates stays. He’s a made man in Poppy Bush’s circle…Obama can’t have that.
Where does Obama turn for professional, competent help? I expect him to tap some of the governors – Kaine, Sebelius, Granholm, Richardson, and Napolitano to name a few. The executive experience that governors have make them ideal Cabinet level officers.
On one hand, I’d love to see Obama shift the Senate around, on the other hand, I’m not too excited about some of these Senators providing executive leadership.
I wonder where Richard Clarke is going to end up.
I agree, Gates, and all the other Bush people need to go.
If you are a liberal, progressive, radical, whatever, you will be greatly disappointed because of the inability of the permanent government to reform itself.
You can find a very interesting essay, written by Daniel Brandt in 1993, about Bill Clinton and the “power elite”, here:
http://www.namebase.org/news01.html
Here’s the passage I found interesting and relevant to what happens in the permanent government, this regarding Jimmy Carter’s administration:
The Jimmy Carter story is depressing. Hamilton Jordan reportedly said, “If, after the inauguration you find Cy Vance as secretary of state and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of national security, then I would say that we failed.” That’s exactly what happened, and seventeen other key members of the administration were also Trilateralists. For his entire administration, every move on foreign policy was cleared with the hard-liner Brzezinski.
So don’t expect miracles immediately.
I emailed Obama camp this am we cannot have a republican sec of defense I don’t care about sec of state but defense just suggests dems are weak in that department
In my way of thinking, Wes Clark is the obvious choice. Gates has been a good caretaker SecDef. He saved us from war with Iran, and that is worth more than a little. But he is a Bush-I-Baker plant. We win the election, we get to put our own people in. Clark is the obvious choice.
My ex-roommate is the current Dep SecDef. I saw him on the teevee the other day. Looks like he put on ten years in two months. These guys are dying.