Richard Armitage and Michèle A. Flournoy have recently brought up that after the election there will be a time when many of the high level national security positions will be unfilled while the new administration's recommendations get confirmed by Congress. This leaves the United States unacceptably vulnerable, given that "2009 may well be the most precarious period in recent American history." Armitage and Flournoy bring up a number of sensible solutions to this problem, but there is an obvious one they missed: hold on to some people, specifically Robert Gates.Now, I am all for the "throw the bastards out" philosophy; the ability to remove demonstratively failing leadership is the best
argument for democracy. But many of the catastrophes that Gates currently presiding over were not of his creation. Given the state of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when Rumsfield stepped down, I believe that Gates has performed admirably.
There have been a number of columns recently praising Robert Gates for his decision to sack General Mike Moseley and replace him with General Norton Schwartz. Schwartz is notable for not being a fighter pilot. The Air Force has been dominated by fighter pilots for quite some time, and this is reflected in their procurement priorities (cough cough F22 cough). Schwartz's elevation will hopefully bring some reason to the Air Force's priorities.
He has advocated negotiations with Iran, to the chagrin of the Bush administration. Together with General Petraeus, Gates has made an effort to get the military to actually focus on the two wars it is currently waging, rather than continually preparing to go twelve rounds with the Russia or China.
I believe that Obama would see the most benefit from holding on to Robert Gates. If he wins in November, it will be largely attributed to his message of "a new kind of politics." What better way to visibly deviate from the fierce partisanship that has characterized the past 16 years than to keep a high ranking Republican cabinet member? Also, it would send a signal to America's enemies that, though Obama may be less bellicose that Bush, he ain't no pushover. McCain might not want to retain any Bushies for the purely political reason of not wanting to appear to be W's third term. But Obama should strongly consider Gates' s retention as a good first act of his presidency.
argument for democracy. But many of the catastrophes that Gates currently presiding over were not of his creation. Given the state of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when Rumsfield stepped down, I believe that Gates has performed admirably.There have been a number of columns recently praising Robert Gates for his decision to sack General Mike Moseley and replace him with General Norton Schwartz. Schwartz is notable for not being a fighter pilot. The Air Force has been dominated by fighter pilots for quite some time, and this is reflected in their procurement priorities (cough cough F22 cough). Schwartz's elevation will hopefully bring some reason to the Air Force's priorities.
He has advocated negotiations with Iran, to the chagrin of the Bush administration. Together with General Petraeus, Gates has made an effort to get the military to actually focus on the two wars it is currently waging, rather than continually preparing to go twelve rounds with the Russia or China.
I believe that Obama would see the most benefit from holding on to Robert Gates. If he wins in November, it will be largely attributed to his message of "a new kind of politics." What better way to visibly deviate from the fierce partisanship that has characterized the past 16 years than to keep a high ranking Republican cabinet member? Also, it would send a signal to America's enemies that, though Obama may be less bellicose that Bush, he ain't no pushover. McCain might not want to retain any Bushies for the purely political reason of not wanting to appear to be W's third term. But Obama should strongly consider Gates' s retention as a good first act of his presidency.
No comments:
Post a Comment