Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
So, President-elect Obama has re-appointed Robert Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense. Which is a good move on Obama’s part.
The war in Iraq is nearly over and we’ve won. But there is still some work to do there. And the war in Afghanistan still needs to be won as well.
Obama’s move to keep gates does illustrate a couple of bigger points, though.
- Obama was wrong about the ability of the United States military to win the war in Iraq. He was wrong from the beginning. And he was wrong even after he acknowledged that he was wrong, but that he still wouldn’t have changed his mind about the surge. Keeping Gates on means that things are moving in a direction with the military and our current war efforts that should not be disrupted simply because there is a changing of the guard in the Oval Office.
- The Democrats are ill equipped to run the military. And they know it.
Gates is the second consecutive non-Democratic Secretary of Defense nominated by a Democratic President (Bill Clinton appointed William Cohen — Prior to being appointed Sec. of Defense by Clinton, Cohen was a Republican US Senator from Maine for 18 years).
Even the tards over at the far-left Open Left get it:
The most important appointment decision Obama will make during the transition, bar none, is who becomes, or remains, Secretary of Defense. As I have noted in the past, the Department of Defense oversees the expenditure of 52% of all discretionary spending, rendering it literally impossible for any other cabinet Secretary to oversee as much federal money. Further, keeping Gates on would only worsen Democratic image problems on national security, as he would be the second consecutive non-Democratic Secretary of Defense nominated by a Democratic President. The message would be clear: even Democrats agree that Democrats can’t run the military.
The problem for the Left, though, is that it’s true. There is a reason that the overwhelming majority of military men and women are conservatives who vote Republican.
The Libtards at Talking Points Memo agree with Open Left:
…keeping Defense Secretary Robert Gates is inherently a bad idea, because it keeps the same leadership in charge of half the Federal budget and, worse, sends the message that Republicans are needed to manage national security.
Again, the truth is that Republicans are needed to manage national security. We can’t leave it up to the “war never solved anything” peace-nuts on the Left.
Susan at Wake Up America is laughing at the Left (much as I am, too):
The stomach continues to churn as the “progressives” howl, piss and moan and basically continue to whine about everything Obama is already doing before he even takes office.
Those people are incapable of being happy for more than a day or two before finding something to stay angry about huh?
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
Gates will have a new Commander to answer to, so his politics and previous mission under Junior are irrelevant. He will be charged with reducing troop levels in Iraq, then he’ll be gone. This also puts another degree of separation between Obama and Bush’s long list of failures. Better to let a Bush appointee close the book on the biggest foreign policy over-reach since the Bay of Pigs than to enable wingnut revisionists to tack all the blame for the lousy state of Middle East affairs on Obama. Let the scorn of history be reserved for those who peed in the pool in the first place.
so you took a look at the almost five year slop-fest in iraq, that entire period before the surge and the sunni awakening and determined that the republicans do a great job of running wars? guess you would also think until lincoln found grant and sobered him up he was doing a spanking job too?
frankly scarlet not only is war hell, and most often a mess, but over history’s passing, success with war as well as failure have no ownership with either party.
just like patriotism. (you probably disagree)
personally i find anyone who is proud of any war effort to be a little sad. you see my grandfather earned a bronze star in iwo but he was not proud of that war.
that is because he was smart enough to know that war is a sign that you have failed in your attempts with reasoning and persuasion.
but then some people you know, are only comfortable in an “us versus them” environment.
my tribe versus your tribe. libtards verus us all american boys.
grunt. snort. grunt.
Sure, Republicans love the military. It’s the actual soldiers that annoy them:
Pat, if you think Gates is going to be a standard D.C. ass kisser, you don’t know Gates.
When the University of Texas announced that it was going to reinstate its race based admissions policies, Gates was asked if A & M was going to do the same. Nope was the answer.
When UT ruled that students could no longer hang American flags from their doom windows because it might insult some foreign students, Gates took a stand saying that any foreign student who was insulted at the sight of the American flag might consider another university and not A & M.
This is a man who not only speaks his mind, but stands by his convictions, no matter who is pretending to be head of the Office of President Elect. And if Obama fires Gates, if you think Gates will have any problem going public with Obama’s stupid ideas, you are in for a very, VERY big surprise.
When I read yesterday that Obama was keeping Gates on as Sec. of Defense, I laughed out loud, imagining all the libtards having their collective shorts in a big wad over this.
Like Obama saying ” Thanks for your votes….. now, F*** Off. ”
Heh heh…….
Pat and the other turd are beyond pathetic. Not one valid point to discuss, just false liberal, bleeding heart, can’t we just talk and get along nonsensical talking points. I’m surprised they can read the print on those memos. Surely the paper has yellowed, and the print has faded, from age and overuse.
As far as B-HO admitting anything, I doubt it. Even if he did, he would parse it the same day, and make any admission as wishy-washy as his notions of changiness and hopiness.
Obama cannot afford for Iraq to fall apart because if it does, it will be under his watch which would wipe out his chances for reelection. Furthermore, the history books would record that his administration lost the war in Iraq. It’s pretty simple.
On the positive side, at least he has the smarts to realize that and apparently will not let it happen.
that is because he was smart enough to know that war is a sign that you have failed in your attempts with reasoning and persuasion.
Left by baby jesus on November 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Now that shit made me laugh out loud, in fact, still laughing. BJ’s gramps is sad because we couldn’t reason with Hitler. Or Stalin. Or Hirohito. Or Pol Pot. Or fucking King James. All the while FDR was in office there BJ. Quite the little socialist himself. Quite the little camp of communists around him. And it still did not save gramps from having to defend his country. Tough shit.
Imagine Pearl Harbor if Bush was in office. No day in infamy blah blah speech. Congressional investigation into the administration, calls for impeachment, yada yada. And the Japanese telegraphed intentions quite clearly for years. Not like usama, and no, I don’t blame bill for the lack of intel. Congress jacked up our intel quite nicely without help from the Clintons.
oh yeah BJ, if you post on others, you should allow comments on yours. don’t be chickenshit.
Pat, your still an idiot.
Over two-thirds of families receive no aid from the Iraqi government, even though their needs are clear, and 50% get no aid from NGOs.
Left by Pat on November 26th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Yep, they don’t have a bunch of people feeding from the socialist trough. Your point? Your cut and paste point? Your cut and paste point from a leftist source?
Pat hit it right on all points, except the Bay of Pigs (we didn’t lose that much in that brilliant republican planned fiasco).
Smart move by Obama. Looks bipartisan, takes care of the republican cabinet member. And who better to execute an “operational level retrograde” than Gates, who sent the extra forces and was Bush 41′s choice to clean up the mess his son made. Let him finish the job. Any problems that will occur (and they will occur) will be “republican” problems, not Obama’s. Smaaart.
Gates will be gone in a year or so, most of his deputies by 01/20/09, the date of the change of command.
A dingus validating a dingus.
Brilliant!
Actually, Gates is too much of a dedicated American and professional (like Scowcroft) to leave a job unfinished, whether it’sIraq or some of the DOD battles coming up. But that’s over your heads.
I’d just like to thank you folks for manning your REACT posts today.
Your nation is eternally grateful.
10-4 good buddies
*snort*
The only thing over our heads is your presumption to know what the hell is going on, anywhere.
B-HO and his gaggle of goonie advisers have no military experience, and no competent liberal ideologues to fill the post. I think Gates would like to stay on to finish the job he began, and act as a buffer for the top Generals and Admirals who might be inclined to retire with such poor leadership in the White House.
The re-up trends since the GWOT began will soon be trending down.
I guess they could ask Kucinich to fill the post, but he wants to be the first secretary of Peace.
/double*snort*
Actually, Gates is too much of a dedicated American and professional (like Scowcroft) to leave a job unfinished, whether it’sIraq or some of the DOD battles coming up. But that’s over your heads.
Another leftist masquerading as intelligent. He (Gates)doesn’t get a choice, if bomma did not nominate him, he would go away. He serves at the pleasure of the President, not whether or not the job is unfinished or he is dedicated. Or whatever. But that is over your head.