Change at the Pentagon

I feel better about the retention of Robert Gates knowing that his staff will be gutted, including the Undersecretary for Policy Eric S. Edelman and the Undersecretary for Acquisition John J. Young Jr. I’m also very pleased to learn that Michael G. Vickers, assistant secretary for special operations, low-intensity conflict, and interdependent capabilities, will probably be kept on in his position. Mike Vickers, while serving at the CIA, single-handedly designed the program for the Afghan mujahideen that defeated the Soviet Army. In fact, his program was so solid that he set it up and then resigned, knowing full-well that the pipeline of arms and training would work without any further need for his managerial oversight. Vickers is both a military genius and the best-versed person in understanding the monster he created. If you’ve read Charlie Wilson’s War, you know what I’m talking about.

As for the other positions, it’s obvious that we need a new undersecretary for acquisition. The Pentagon is a mess of waste and corruption. The whole tide of privatization should be reversed. The Defense Intelligence Agency also needs to be reined in and prevented from doing domestic intelligence (for example, spying on Quaker anti-war groups). It seems that Obama gets this.

The sensitive position of undersecretary for intelligence, created by Donald H. Rumsfeld while he was leading the Pentagon, is also likely to see a leadership change, transition sources said. “There is a real issue about how to fully recuperate” that office from the Rumsfeld era, and it would require a “team player” to promote more effective cooperation with the rest of the intelligence community, one source close to the transition said. The job is currently held by retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper Jr.

I am still concerned that the retention of Gates will mean that the Obama administration will feel somewhat constrained about exposing the rot they find in the Pentagon. They won’t want to embarrass their chief. For that reason alone, I would not have retained Gates, but at least they will be cleaning house underneath him.

5 Comments

BooMan on December 2, 2008 at 11:17 am

I feel good about this change, too.

Dongi 2 on December 2, 2008 at 11:24 am

Yes, they will be cleaning the house underneath him and that is a good thing. Still, I think a much better thing is to not reappoint this stalwart champion of the Reagan administration’s role in the Iran-Contragate fiasco. Retaining Gates is hardly proof of the change that Obama so freely trumpeted in both the primaries and general election.

I think the president-elect runs the risk of talking tough but wimping out when the going gets tough. Hopefully, I am wrong but I don’t intend to follow him blindly. Actions speak louder than words, and his actions already are causing progressives to be concerned. It’s early in the game and he needs time to prove himself. Agreed. But, the way events are moving so rapidly on both the home and foreign fronts, I don’t think Obama is going to get an awful lot of time to settle in.

Appointing people who played a role in creating the conditions for our current economic collapse (Somers) is not the most salubrious way to begin a new administration.

BooMan on December 2, 2008 at 11:46 am

You may remember that I was just about a lone voice in the blogosphere advising against opposing the nomination of Gates to replace Rumsfeld.

I suspect that a lot of people on the left will immediately attack Robert Gates for his history in the CIA and his dishonesty during the Iran-Contra controversy. That’s understandable. But I have a couple things to say about his appointment.

First, you didn’t expect Bush to nominate someone that we agree with politically, did you? We could have done a lot worse than Robert Gates.

Second, Robert Gates is a complicated man with an interesting history, and understanding that history is key to understanding what it means that he has been selected.

Gates does not come from the operations side of the CIA. He was an analyst. He’s also the only DCI to ever rise to the top job from an entry-level position. Within the CIA he was known to be a critic of the operations side. He was not a cowboy like Richard Helms or William Casey.

Gates worked closely with Scowcroft, Powell, and George H.W. Bush during the collapse of the Soviet Union, and taken collectively, their performances deserve very high marks. He has a record of competence.

It’s interesting that Gates agreed to take over the Pentagon because he recently declined to leave Texas A&M to take over the position of Director of National Intelligence. The Pentagon is, if anything, a much more thankless job at the moment. But Robert Gates is a grown-up, not a hatchet man and not an ideologue. His professional training is in analysis. His record of analysis is good.

If you are interested in reading about his thinking on the CIA’s performance during the Cold War, go read a this speech he gave on the subject. It is predictably rose-colored in its praise of the CIA, but it is also one of the best defenses of the CIA I have ever read.

Robert Gates is being brought in, kind of like a relief pitcher, and will go right to work with Jim Baker-Lee Hamilton-Brent Scowcroft to try to salvage something from the ashes of neo-conservatism’s excellent adventure in Iraq. Do not expect the Democrats to fight his nomination. They will welcome it, as should we.

I know that people will want more than a reversion to Poppy Bush’s policies. But, if you were expecting anything more, you were being unrealistic. This is a major concession on the part of the President. There are now two new powers for Dick Cheney to contend with.

BooMan on December 2, 2008 at 12:05 pm

This is rich.

AliceDem on December 2, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Bunnitine Greenhouse for undersecretary for acquisition!!!!!!!!!

BooMan on December 2, 2008 at 11:17 am

I feel good about this change, too.
Dongi 2 on December 2, 2008 at 11:24 am

Yes, they will be cleaning the house underneath him and that is a good thing. Still, I think a much better thing is to not reappoint this stalwart champion of the Reagan administration’s role in the Iran-Contragate fiasco. Retaining Gates is hardly proof of the change that Obama so freely trumpeted in both the primaries and general election.

I think the president-elect runs the risk of talking tough but wimping out when the going gets tough. Hopefully, I am wrong but I don’t intend to follow him blindly. Actions speak louder than words, and his actions already are causing progressives to be concerned. It’s early in the game and he needs time to prove himself. Agreed. But, the way events are moving so rapidly on both the home and foreign fronts, I don’t think Obama is going to get an awful lot of time to settle in.

Appointing people who played a role in creating the conditions for our current economic collapse (Somers) is not the most salubrious way to begin a new administration.
- BooMan on December 2, 2008 at 11:46 am
  
  You may remember that I was just about a lone voice in the blogosphere advising against opposing the nomination of Gates to replace Rumsfeld.
  
  I suspect that a lot of people on the left will immediately attack Robert Gates for his history in the CIA and his dishonesty during the Iran-Contra controversy. That’s understandable. But I have a couple things to say about his appointment.
  
  First, you didn’t expect Bush to nominate someone that we agree with politically, did you? We could have done a lot worse than Robert Gates.
  
  Second, Robert Gates is a complicated man with an interesting history, and understanding that history is key to understanding what it means that he has been selected.
  
  Gates does not come from the operations side of the CIA. He was an analyst. He’s also the only DCI to ever rise to the top job from an entry-level position. Within the CIA he was known to be a critic of the operations side. He was not a cowboy like Richard Helms or William Casey.
  
  Gates worked closely with Scowcroft, Powell, and George H.W. Bush during the collapse of the Soviet Union, and taken collectively, their performances deserve very high marks. He has a record of competence.
  
  It’s interesting that Gates agreed to take over the Pentagon because he recently declined to leave Texas A&M to take over the position of Director of National Intelligence. The Pentagon is, if anything, a much more thankless job at the moment. But Robert Gates is a grown-up, not a hatchet man and not an ideologue. His professional training is in analysis. His record of analysis is good.
  
  If you are interested in reading about his thinking on the CIA’s performance during the Cold War, go read a this speech he gave on the subject. It is predictably rose-colored in its praise of the CIA, but it is also one of the best defenses of the CIA I have ever read.
  
  Robert Gates is being brought in, kind of like a relief pitcher, and will go right to work with Jim Baker-Lee Hamilton-Brent Scowcroft to try to salvage something from the ashes of neo-conservatism’s excellent adventure in Iraq. Do not expect the Democrats to fight his nomination. They will welcome it, as should we.
  
  I know that people will want more than a reversion to Poppy Bush’s policies. But, if you were expecting anything more, you were being unrealistic. This is a major concession on the part of the President. There are now two new powers for Dick Cheney to contend with.
BooMan on December 2, 2008 at 12:05 pm

This is rich.
AliceDem on December 2, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Bunnitine Greenhouse for undersecretary for acquisition!!!!!!!!!

About The Author

BooMan

5 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments