 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! November 26, 2008 Gates Stays on at Pentagon?By GreyhawkFirst, your U.S. history trivia for the day: Henry Lewis Stimson, Secretary of War throughout World War Two under Democrat Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, was a Republican. And now back to the news. If the rumors are true, then Politico gets the headline right: Gates agrees to stay on under Obama. That's not the same as saying "Obama to keep Gates on at SecDef". Both might be true, but there was no "b" without "a", and as a certain local blogger opined shortly after a recent election: SecDef? Current odds-on: Robert Gates.Because if you're willing to be Secretary of Defense in the midst of war and a financial crisis, you aren't in it for the money and fame. And the same reasons that make Gates a great choice to keep at the Pentagon make him highly desirable in the private sector, too. Some of those good reasons (overlooked by many) are detailed in this post at Acre of Independence, to which I offered this comment: Don’t forget that Gates has a “vote” on this issue, too. More than anything else, the man deserves credit for staying on in what’s certainly an underpaid job with no safety net. If all goes well, good on Obama. If not, Gates screwed up - and BOTH are well aware of this. I’m not knocking Obama here (I agree that he made a great choice, assuming the choice has been made), I’m crediting Gates, whose motives might be described by that oft-ridiculed term “patriotism”.Or perhaps simply "duty". We're about to take a look at some blog reactions to Gates as Obama's SecDef. Before proceeding, a quick look back at a story from early in the Primary campaign season... The senator shook a few print reporters' hands -– told a few bloggers he doesn’t read blogs –- and then headed to the back of the plane -– a part he dubbed "the fun part of the plane" -– where the photographers sit.Got it? Good. Onward then... 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.Actually, if your first response to "defense" is "budget", then you shouldn't even bother to involve yourself in discussions of the military. (At least not the Executive branch aspect thereof - Congress determines that budget.) Unlike a lot of folks, I respect Bush 41ers like Gates. My one problem with this is that it sends the message that Dems can't do Defense. I would prefer General Wes Clark at Defense, but Congress would have to do a fix for that to happen (as a retired military officer, Clark is ineligible for the Defense post for 10 years after retirement. He retired in 2000.) I have no obvious eligible candidates for the job.Retired generals don't always make good civilian heads of the military. (If for no other reason in this case - which there are - the USAF, Navy and Marines might feel slighted.) Isn't there a Democrat anywhere that can think of a well qualified civilian Democrat to be Secretary of Defense? If not, that sort of validates those feelings of inadequacy in that Department. Actually, I like Talk Left. Because you can find thoughtful comment threads there like this one: There was bad blood between the left and Gates.That last bit is just about right - to be exactly right it should say "continue drawing down" rather than "start" In roughly 10 days' time, the first of four 101st Airborne Division brigades will be completely redeployed from combat — about a month ahead of schedule.So... "Planning for a withdrawal from Iraq" has been ongoing, of course - so it's too late for it "to begin as soon as possible". But that sort of phrasing might placate Obama voters who bought in to a pledge to "end the war."And Obama has already seen and approved (and now you can, too) the SOFA. At least, that's one explanation for a sudden but quiet switch last week from a campaign-era demand that the U.S. Congress "must approve" it to a simple acknowledgment that Congress "should review" the agreement. That's his third major shift in Iraq policy, by the way. The first was 'clarifying' that "immediately begin withdrawal/16 months" bit last July, the second was quietly dropping the call to eliminate "security contractors" (probably in light of reality) - and I give him much credit for those choices, too. Many question marks and assumptions remain concerning Gates (will he?) and the SOFA (will they?) and other issues (Provincial elections?). As those are answered, clarified or eliminated, we'll keep looking ahead to what's next for Iraq... Wait - a bonus history trivia bit: Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War during the Civil War under Republican President Lincoln, was a Democrat. Posted by Greyhawk / November 26, 2008 11:34 AM | Permalink 1 TrackBackReally. Sticking with Robert Gates as Sec Def?It’s “a show of bipartisan continuity in a time of war that will be the first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party.” First time? Um, no. ... Read More 10 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Greyhawk,
Thanks for the comment and the mention in your blog! I am surprised that many Democrats, when suggesting alternatives to Gates, continue to mention Clark.
You made some good comments in your blog about not choosing Clark as SECDEF (although I can think of one particular General, George Marshall, who did a pretty bang up job as SECDEF and SECSTATE), but I would offer more:
Clark is largely reviled in the military by virtually every one old enough to remember who he is. Most people in the military view him as a shameless opportunist who would stop at nothing to advance himself. I have never heard a single person in uniform offer a good word towards Clark.
To a lesser extent, Clark also has a bit of foot-in-mouth disease from the Media (despite his years as a commentator). Obama had to distance himself from some of Clark's remarks about McCain during the campaign, and he was made fun of for some of the comments he made about subjects as varies as abortion and space travel during his ill-fated 2004 campaign as well.
My guess is that a guy like Richard Danzig (who apparently is related to rocker Glenn Danzig!!), or some other former Service Secretary or undersecretary of defense will follow Gates, NOT Clark.
Cheers!
As a condition for Gates agreeing to stay on, Obama should publically announce that the goal of his administration in Iraq is victory. Not a "draw down", not "bringing the troops home safely", not "end the war swiftly and safely", but victory. Anything else is as clear a signal that something dirty is going on. Did Roosevelt or Lincoln waffle the way Obama has on winning the wars they were charged with fighting?
If Obama refuses to do this, Gates should not touch the SecDef job with a ten-foot pole. Don't mistake Obama endorsing (or seeming to endorse) Bush's policies in Iraq for having the desire - much less the competence - to carry them out. If Obama won't publically pursue victory in Iraq then all he is interested in is using Gates as a lightning rod while burnishing his "bipartisan" credentials. Failure could then be explained away as purely Gates's fault, while success (or even lack of spectacular disaster) is the result of the Chosen One’s wise actions.
"Victory" - or whatever end state Iraq achieves, is mostly out of our hands. We can do our part, to be sure, and it doessn't look like abandonment is in the cards, but we have reached that point where the remainder of the solution is mostly in the hands of the Iraqis (civil and military).
If that sounds familiar, it's because Democrats were saying it two years ago. Now it's actually true.
Failure could then be explained away as purely Gates's fault, while success (or even lack of spectacular disaster) is the result of the Chosen One’s wise actions.
Umm, I rather think that the reverse is likely to be far more accurate. Gates by staying, is now in a position to INSIST on certain things. He probably already has. Namely VICTORY in Iraq. Can you see the mess created should The SecDef suddenly announce his resignation due to Obama's poor decisions on the BIG ISSUE still outstanding ? And I'm sure Gates would do precisely that. What really would he have to lose ?
But I am tired of the Obama, judgment games. The more I see him in operation the more I think that he most of all wants to be SUCCESSFUL and be seen as successful. Period. End of Story. Ideology be damned.
As far as Iraq and the WOT go --- that is a very good thing indeed. His choice of Gates,IMAO, is a sincere reflection of that desire. Obama is NOT a foolish man. I may not agree with everything he says or does, but I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised by his administration.
Bob
Thanks for linking me in your post! Odd how many of the leftward bloggers/commenters say they've heard some vague rumors that Gates had done some good things over the past couple years. None seem too sure exactly what those things are...
Doug,
I second most of that - I'm not sure I see Gates as one for a dramatic and public sword dive though...
Obama has shown much more realism on his policy than I expected. I don't know exactly how I feel about it. On the one hand, if all these switches reflect an inexperienced but intelligent person changing his mind as new data come in, then I can be somewhat optimistic and indeed welcome him on board. I'd like to have that interpretation. The alternate interpretation, that Obama is primarily an empty politician willing to say anything to acquire fame, aclaim, and power is worrisome. I'd normally gravitate to the former out of a desire to be charitable, except that I know that the latter describes people like Hillary Clinton all too well.
In any event, so far the best I can hope for out of this is four more years of Bush. I don't see alot of sign that Obama is the sort of person with the imagination and intelligence to avoid repeating the same mistakes. The most marked aspect of this transition is how smooth it is going to be, with neither Bush or Obama seeming to disapprove with the others policy all that much. It is increasingly appearing that - rhetorical flourishes aside - the Obama administration will continue virtually all of the Bush administration policies with only the slightest refurbishing.
I don't think that either the Left or the Right is going to be particularly happy about that.
I wasn't sure what to expect under Obama, because it seems like every position he's ever had has changed dramatically depending on circumstances. I'm very relieved that he'll keep Gates and is essentially signalling a 'steady as she goes' approach to Iraq. He's done that without ever saying that Iraq has greatly improved, or that the surge was a success. I can't imagine that his most ardent supporters can wrap their heads around that. I'm glad that the leftosphere is taking another look at their disapproval of people based purely upon whether they were democrat or republican, and they seem to be re-thinking whether Iraq needs to be evacuated asap or only after victory is complete.
Gates by staying, is now in a position to INSIST on certain things. He probably already has.
Probably? That is a pretty thin reed. And given the vile campaign Democrats have waged against Iraq war supporters, having Obama publically commit to victory in Iraq would be real change even I could believe in.
Can you see the mess created should The SecDef suddenly announce his resignation due to Obama's poor decisions on the BIG ISSUE still outstanding ? And I'm sure Gates would do precisely that. What really would he have to lose ?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what makes you think that the MSM will do anything but spin it Obama's way? Remember how for years the MSM managed to portray Iraq as a complete disaster, and when that became impossible successfully diverted the public's attention onto other issues?
The more I see him in operation the more I think that he most of all wants to be SUCCESSFUL and be seen as successful. Period. End of Story. Ideology be damned.
It's not ideology I am talking about here - it is basic intelligence and competence. The Chosen One may wish to be successful, but having watched him in action all that I see is a man who has lived in a protected leftist bubble most of his adult life and who is clearly in over his head. Wishful think will not bring success in Iraq, any more than it will lower the ocean levels. Nor is there a game plan in Iraq and Afghanistan that Gates could hand Obama and be assured of success. As a sage once said, making something foolproof is impossible because fools can be so ingenious.
Obama is someone who (as far as I know) never held a private sector job. He spent most of his adult life in either academia or public office, not exactly the places one would look for a worldview relatively free from ideological blindness. His judgment – the selling point of his campaign – has been abysmal. He was flat wrong about the surge in Iraq. He courted the likes of hate-filled maniacs Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright. He proposed bombing Pakistan if he found “actionable intelligence” that Osama bin Laden was there, but seemed to stumble when asked what he would do if such a bombing had negative long-term consequences (would Obama be prepared to occupy Pakistan to prevent an Islamist government from rising to power if bombings caused the present government to fall?). He talked about change during the campaign and yet his administration looks like Clinton III. He lambasted Hillary during the Democrat primary for her alleged bad judgment on Iraq, but has made her Secretary of State. Obama and his supporters seem to have literally not thought beyond the next headline.
Watch the second and third-level appointments in Defense. If Obama puts anti-Iraq War ideologues and/or political sycophants in those slots then that is proof that Obama remains fundamentally unserious about fighting Islamic terrorism and is simply using Gates. Heckfire – he put Janet Napolitano in charge of Homeland Security, a governor with zero experience fighting terrorism, and whose only qualification is that she comes from a border state. Napolitano vetoed immigration reform in her state in order to ensure that a toothless version of the same bill would pass, so securing the US-Mexican border cannot be the reason that she was selected.
So what. Government forces have the competency-integration skills of kindergartners.
The military is essentially a socialist organization made up of primarily incompetent, and often unnecessary components in the nuclear age.
It's just an excuse for a few guys that SORT, of understand efficiency to go through and make some budget cuts by making the Reserve force do more crap that the regular forces charge more money for. The reserve is the Army's Mexican labor.
Why do you think it's so hard to bring them home right now? The Army doesn't want to do these perpetual wars anymore, and they need someone to bitch-labor the job.
Personally, I think the military needs to scrolled back to just the National Guard and be done with the rest of the armed services. The only thing a big military is good for is Mercantilism; and the only invading force we have at home is politicians.
No one is going to fight us; we are as armed with nukes as anyone can be. When's the last time you saw a Chinese jet fighter? It's all a WASTE of money. Nukes are the ultimate cost-cutter; and if we had fewer and more accurate nuclear technology, we would not only be safer; we'd have more of our own money: http://mediacondom.com/?p=385