The economy gets visible, hands-on action from Mr. Obama, but not the military

[bigtree]

All we have on the military, so far, from Pres. elect Obama has been a weak summary recitation of his campaign positions on Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with his announcements of a national security team which is rife with Bush administration holdovers from the top down.

Yesterday, the Pentagon announced that Mr. Obama has directed his holdover defense chief, Gates, to ask Bush's political appointees at the Pentagon to stay on for a while as he lays out whatever planks of his campaign platform he's willing to carry over to the reality of his office.

The common and repetitive refrain from detractors of his detractors on his Defense moves has been to assert that Pres. Obama will, when sworn-in, personally overrule these Bush holdovers who are busy promoting Bush policy right in front of us.

From Gates' and his generals' pronouncements that they intend a slower withdrawal of forces from Iraq than Mr. Obama has promised; to Gates' saber rattling at Iraq; to the military leaderships' announced intention to occupy more Afghanistan communities in defense of Kabul instead focusing on the pursuit of the 9-11 "perpetrators" outlined in the original authorization to use force; Mr. Obama has been mostly silent during the transition.

Where are the clear policy pronouncements from the President-elect which contradict or challenge the administration on their revisionist, ambitious rhetoric and policy positioning regarding Defense? Who are the individuals appointed who are offering anything close to the military policy that was outlined and promoted on the campaign trail by candidate Obama?

The supporters of Pres. elect Obama's defense transition are correct that we will eventually see what concrete steps the Obama administration will take in the direction of his promise to completely exit Iraq. It's already becoming clear that there will be some sort of 'residual force' left in place which is in line with what was promised in the election.

It's also becoming clear that there will be a massive increase in the military forces in Afghanistan. Whether they will be used to defend the installed government or to intensify the hunt for the 9-11 terror suspects remains to be seen. But, we haven't yet seen the same intense and public focus on these issues of defense and the military that the economy and other domestic concerns have received in the transition. What we've been subject to has been an almost complete surrender to whatever direction and policy the Bush holdover, Gates, and his fellow Pentagon cronies have chosen to promote; without any substantive or contradicting reaction from the President elect or any of his transition members.

But, we're expected to accept, from some defenders, that these Bush administration enablers are to be nothing more than foils for Pres. Obama's decidedly more progressive military policy and intention. On its face, that's just foolish and dangerous, if the intention is for Pres. Obama to steer these dug-in figures at the Pentagon and in the field away from the directions they're being aggressively pushed in, as we speak, by Gates, Mullen, Petraeus, and other holdovers.

However, if the policy intention of Barack Obama is to let these Bush holdovers in the Pentagon take the lead in shaping policy, as well as in implementing it, we are not going to see the 'clear change' from the militarization of the Bush administration that candidate Obama promised.

For now, all we can do is measure the prospect for that change against what the transition has offered; and against the hopes he generated in the campaign, because all we can hear right now, visibly unopposed by Mr. Obama, are the scrambling moves of these Bush administration holdovers to provide 'continuity' for the same destructive policies that were so actively and vocally opposed by our party (and the Obama campaign) just months ago.

It would be nice to hear the same clear assertions from the Pres. elect in his transition on his military and defense intentions that he's afforded other economic concerns. If not, opponents of Bush military policy will either be asked to fold their objections into the creeping direction these previous administration figures orchestrate or be forced in the position of opposing the Obama administration itself.

At this point, I'm really not sure how, if at all, the Obama administration will be able to distance itself from that creeping direction the lame-duck administration is subversively engineering behind their agents Obama has chosen to represent him on the military and defense so far.

[Hardrada]

1. Harrumph! Well, we ARE a national security state after all, Can't

have any pesky civilian oversight or policies ruining our worldview (Weltanschauung), you know. Amerika, erwache!

[depakid]

2. Newsflash

Obama isn't commander in chief yet...

and in any case (if it isn't obvious) it's generally unwise to telegraph one's intentions with respect to certain areas of foreign policy to ones potential adversaries.

[bigtree]

3. I think he's sending a pretty clear signal right now

. . . of continuity between his future military and defense policy and the present one.

[depakid]

4. It's probably best to wait several months- probably into the summer

before drawing any conclusions about what and how much change in direction we're likely to see.

[alfredo]

13. Right now, the squeaking wheel is the economy.

[leftofthedial]

10. thank you John McCain.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Well, we don't want those pesky Afghans storming the shores of Long Island!!

Or, was it the Cubans storming Miami? Or, was that the Grenadians? No, wait, the Vietnamese storming Long Beach?

Whoever it is that's going to storm the beaches, we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here!

So, send more troops!! And, of course, More Money to our heroic Pentagon, so the geniuses there can insure their seats on the boards of directors of the arms industry!!

It's for our own good!!

[bigtree]

6. we'll just train (and fund) the good Afghans to fight the bad Afghans

. . . never tried that before.

[antimatter98]

7. This is almost incoherent. n/t

[bigtree]

8. ooh!

slam!

[L0oniX]

9. To hell with the 700 billion dollar military. F*ck them and the apocalyptic horse they ride on.

Despicable, blood for profit war monger, murderers and liars. Damn American people are sheep and they'd rather spend 700 billion a year for the killing machine rather than taking care of their own people. They don't defend America, they are destroying it. They are the reason we have terrorists. They are the cause. American imperialistic policy causes terrorism. Collateral deaths create terrorists.

[grantcart]

11. I have a different read on Gates

I believe that when the insiders of the Bush finally write their history that it will be shown that Gates neutralized Cheney and completely undermined Bush's beligerent sabre rattling on Iran.


Using Gates to get a consensus on ending our involvement in Iraq does not mean that it will be any slower than if Gates is not there. It does ensure that when the President looks at other significant changes in the military he has developed a resevoir of good will to get those changes accomplished.


What are those changes? None of us know for sure, I have my wish list. If keeping Gates helps expedite the elimination of pet weapon systems that Congress has saddled on the Pentagon (which even Cheney is against) for hundreds of billions dollars (the Osprey is one example) and that savings helps Obama bring Health Care to tens of millions of Americans then I for one will be eternally grateful to Gates.

We just have to wait and see what the Obama administration is going to do with Iraq and the military budget, that is the real crucible, not who is the SOD.

[bigtree]

12. I think you are underestimating Gate's influence

. . . and Mr. Obama's willingness to let him take the lead.

In the short interim since the election, Gates and his Pentagon has promoted new nukes, urban warfare defending Kabul in Afghanistan by escalating the occupation and funding militia like in Iraq, has already issued a new training manual reflecting his new strategy of a focus on 'irregular warfare' like in Iraq . . .

Gates, Petraeus, Mullen, Odinero, and whatever contingent of the 250 political appointees he decides to retain (per Obama's permission) are moving forward with their own agenda. This level of holdover from a republican administration to a Democratic one has NEVER occurred.

Yet, there is this lulling defense of this from folks. Gates is already dead to republicans who have no principle to appeal to, so I think using him to build 'consensus' is absurd. Shifting around the pieces and players within the same $500 to $700 billion budget isn't reform, it's gambling. Whatever they're 'saving' by limiting their Iraq mission, they're wasting away in a new Afghanistan campaign . . . right in front of us, right now.

The notion that there is some sort of benefit in his compromising on the principles laid out in the election to seek 'consensus' is a surrender, not the pragmatic approach claimed by defenders.

The point is, that Pentagon is moving forward on a decidedly less transformational change than was promised in the campaign, without a peep of contradiction from the Obama transition. Gates is even going around claiming he speaks for the new president, as he did just weeks ago during his visit to Iraq when he rattled sabers at Iran.

The complacency and the willingness to wait and see what develops is counter to any strategy which intends to hold the new administration to its promises. That approach is practically insisting on being disappointed.

[alfredo]

14. It could also be that his first choice for SOD is still under the ten year

waiting period, and Gates will be there until his first choice is free from that obligation. That's why Wesley Clark can't take the job if offered.

[kristopher]

16. As CINC Obama doesn't need to lobby for support

As CINC Obama doesn't need to lobby for support on his decisions regarding disposition of troops. The only thing bringing his plans to the forefront of public attention would do is to allow political opposition to time to formulate and broadcast bullshit targetted at specific proposals.

It would win him nothing and cost him greatly.

It isn't complacency to give a newly elected president a chance to get into office and actually implement some policies before criticizing. You have absolutely no idea of what direction the "Pentagon is moving forward" on; that is simply an impossibility unless you are in planning at the Pentagon.

Your final statement is a prime example of why your entire stance on the topic is simply absurd. It is your grasp of strategy and tactic I question at this point, not Obama's.

I don't mean to be abrasive, but for crying out loud give the guy a chance.

[bigtree]

17. it's as if you are saying we should ignore the moves the Pentagon has made since the election

. . . without any rebuke or any seeming halt or obstacle.

I understood Gates well enough when he was in Iraq claiming he was speaking for Obama when he ramped up his rhetoric against Iran.

As I said above, it's not as if he hasn't been sending signals and telegraphing policy with his appointments. The message so far is one of continuity with the last administration. I got grasp of that strategy and tactic.

[kristopher]

18. Take a week long vacation from the news and the boards.

I understand your anxiety, but you perhaps should consider that your judgment is a bit skewed by surviving the worst administration in American history. Let me give a concrete example:
In the short interim since the election, Gates and his Pentagon has promoted new nukes, urban warfare defending Kabul in Afghanistan by escalating the occupation and funding militia like in Iraq, has already issued a new training manual reflecting his new strategy of a focus on 'irregular warfare' like in Iraq...

All of these actions reflect the Bush and McCain policies, that is correct. Let's focus on the manual as representative of the list. Do you know how long it probably took to write that manual? I promise you it wasn't conceived, written, critiqued, edited, co-ordinated, critiqued, edited, coordinated, evaluated,(all of that about 5X as different agengies provide input and that input is circulated, commented on and revisions made etc) printed and disseminated since Obama selected Gates to continue in the position. It simply isn't credible for you to point at this as evidence of Obama's intent. Gates is still acting under Shrub's orders. Period. He will be until the day Obama takes office and not a minute before. That's the way it works, Obama isn't surreptitiously giving orders that Gates is obeying with a wink and a nod to Bush and the troops.

Frankly it is such an incredible perception it is almost beyond belief that you are making the claim. I know your posts here and I know you have a good head on your shoulders. So the only thing I can think of is that you, like many of the rest of us, have a mild case of shellshock.

Take the holiday off and recover your center.

Cheers.:toast:

[bigtree]

19. I've posted and written about many of the instances where Gates has said he's speaking for Obama

or, more precisely, that Obama agrees with him on the issue of Iran, for instance. It's just condescending to act as if I'm somehow naive about the system I've followed closely and responded to for almost eight years now.

Gates is pressing to continue the agenda he began under Bush. There has NOT been any substantive response from Obama or his transition team which has contradicted those moves and policy positions from the man he says is suited for the job. I won't bother to summarize those moves here because you're obviously intent on summary defenses.

The level of this Defense holdover is unprecedented. I won't characterize your own attitude toward all of this except to say that your just plain wrong in assuming that there can't be accurate forecasts of the future from observing the actions of the holdovers in the Pentagon since the election. I'm anxiously awaiting the rebukes from Mr. Obama. I'm not expecting many of them on what I see as them most pernicious of Gates' intentions and actions.

I know my 'center' very well, thank you. Perhaps you need to look outside of your own.

[kristopher]

20. Once more

Until Obama is sworn in, Bush is CINC. You are demand Obama act now as CINC. That is absurd.

[Time for change]

15. I feel very uncomfortable about this too

I hope you're wrong, but I fear that you're right.

We anti-imperialists need to let Obama know how we feel about this.