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