Robert Gates to remain Secretary of Defense under Obama

[Ironslave]

I love being right about "change."



Gates expected to stay on as Obama's defense secretary

* Story Highlights
* NEW: Some say Gates represents continuity; others say he's an obstacle to reform
* Source says Robert Gates staying on is "all but a done deal"
* Joe Biden announces three additions to his office
* Barack Obama says government must shed unnecessary spending

(CNN) -- Several officials close to President-elect Barack Obama's transition tell CNN that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to stay on the job for at least the first year of the new administration.

One source called it "all but a done deal" that the announcement could come as early as next week.

"It's now pointing in that direction," one of the sources close to the transition said of Gates being part of Obama's national security team, which may include Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

"It's likely to happen," a second source close to the transition said of Gates staying on.

This source noted that Gates could stay for longer than a year if he and Obama end up working well together.

Sources close to the transition have said Obama is interested in some continuity at the Pentagon because he is entering office while dealing with two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the international financial crisis.

To some, the choice demonstrates bipartisanship and conveys that Obama has the self-confidence in his leadership abilities to keep one of the more widely respected members of the Bush administration.

"We got confidence, continuity, and I still think the mission to get out of there as soon as possible will be accomplished. So I think it's a great choice," Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel told CNN's "Larry King Live."

Others say keeping Gates could delay the change that Obama promised during his campaign by prompting potential policy conflicts over missile defense funding and a speedy Iraq pullout.

"If we don't have good civilian personnel alongside our good military personnel, we're not going to reform. It can't happen. You need the right people to make it work," former Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim said.

The president-elect has made no secret of his interest in having divergent views within his Cabinet, and Gates has served in various national security roles under Republican presidents, including CIA director during former President George H.W. Bush's administration.

Gates would be joining a high-profile national security team that is also expected to include a retired four-star general.

Several sources say retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones is on track to become national security adviser within the White House.

Also Tuesday, the head of Obama's intelligence transition team said he is withdrawing his name from consideration for director of the CIA.

In a letter to Obama obtained by CNN, John Brennan cited strong criticism from people who associated his work at the CIA with controversial Bush administration policies on interrogation techniques and the war in Iraq.

Brennan defended himself against such accusations, saying, "the fact that I was not involved in the decision-making process for any of these controversial policies and actions has been ignored" by his critics.

The former senior intelligence officer said he was taking his name out of the running because he did not want to become a distraction for the new president.

"The challenges ahead of our nation are too daunting, and the role of the CIA too critical, for there to be any distraction from the vital work that lays ahead," Brennan wrote.

Brennan was a 25-year veteran of the CIA who held senior positions in both the analytical and operations sides of the agency. He ended his intelligence career by serving as the interim director of the newly created National Counter-Terrorism Center in 2004.

A number of names have been floating around Washington for CIA director. They include Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, who chaired the House Intelligence Committee; retiring Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee; and Timothy Roemer, the former Democratic congressman from Indiana who served on both the congressional and the presidential September 11 commissions.

On the economic front, Obama pledged Tuesday to go through the federal budget "page by page, line by line" to eliminate excessive spending and get the economy back on track.

"If we are going to make the investments we need, we also have to be willing to shed the spending that we don't need," Obama said at a news conference in Chicago, Illinois.

Obama said he has selected Peter Orszag as his nominee for director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Orszag, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, is an expert on health care, pensions and Social Security policy. He worked at the Clinton White House as special assistant to the president at the National Economic Council and served on the Council of Economic Advisers.

The move comes a day after the president-elect announced his choices for key members of his economic team, including New York Federal Reserve President Tim Geithner as Treasury secretary and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers as chief of the National Economic Council.

Obama said Tuesday that there will be more announcements as he fleshes out the rest of his economic team.

He will make another economic announcement at a news conference Wednesday.

Those named to Obama's economic teamhave started working on crafting an economic recovery plan. The group also must figure out how best to allocate the rest of the $700 billion bailout that Congress passed in October.

Obama has said he hopes the new Congress will begin work on an aggressive economic recovery plan when it convenes in January so his administration can immediately get to work. The president-elect said Tuesday that it is important that his administration not "stumble" into office but "hit the ground running."

An economic stimulus package is central to Obama's plan. He declined Monday to speculate on how big the stimulus would need to be, saying, "We are going to do what's required to jolt this economy back into shape."

Obama also is expected to give key Cabinet positions to two of his former presidential rivals.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is expected to be named secretary of commerce.

Vice President-elect Joe Biden announced three staff additions Tuesday.

Mike Donilon, an adviser and consultant to Biden since 1981, will serve as counselor to the vice president. Terrell McSweeny, a former attorney at O'Melveny & Myers LLP, will serve as domestic policy adviser, according to a statement from Biden's office.

Evan Ryan will serve as assistant for intergovernmental affairs and public liaison, according to a statement from Biden's office. Ryan served on the White House staff from 1994-2000 as special assistant to first lady Hillary Clinton's chief of staff and then as deputy director of scheduling.

 

[Tech]

change.
hope.

 

[Braaq]

Great! He should, no one is better for the position IMO. He has done a fantastic job fixing the huge ass mess that Rumsfeld and Bush's leadership left him. Considering all that I think he is doing great, he tells it how it is and gets the job done. This definitely makes my approval of Obama go up because he is picking the best people for the job regardless of their alliances, unlike Bush who just picked his buddies who had no qualifications at all. Besides he is close to and will work well with Obama's pick for National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones.

 

[Bulkboy]

Great! He should, no one is better for the position IMO. He has done a fantastic job fixing the huge ass mess that Rumsfeld and Bush's leadership left him. Considering all that I think he is doing great, he tells it how it is and gets the job done. This definitely makes my approval of Obama go up because he is picking the best people for the job regardless of their alliances, unlike Bush who just picked his buddies who had no qualifications at all. Besides he is close to and will work well with Obama's pick for National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones.

couldnt agree more, its a great pick, first of all because it shows obamas willingness to work across the isle to get the job done, and second of all because gates is a skilled politician. he's largely responsible for the violence in iraq dropping 70% or so. he defended the surge strategy from the beginning and its succeeding as we speak.

i remember how IS and tech used to post sarcastic threads with new bombing attacks in iraq to prove their point of the surge being a failure. havent seen to many of those lately

 

[Ironslave]

Great! He should, no one is better for the position IMO. He has done a fantastic job fixing the huge ass mess that Rumsfeld and Bush's leadership left him. Considering all that I think he is doing great, he tells it how it is and gets the job done. This definitely makes my approval of Obama go up because he is picking the best people for the job regardless of their alliances, unlike Bush who just picked his buddies who had no qualifications at all. Besides he is close to and will work well with Obama's pick for National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones.

I agree, a prominent figure in leading the Iran Contra affair and a secretary that keeps spending billions of dollars a day in Iraq is exactly what America needs.

 

[Ironslave]

couldnt agree more, its a great pick, first of all because it shows obamas willingness to work across the isle to get the job done, and second of all because gates is a skilled politician. he's largely responsible for the violence in iraq dropping 70% or so. he defended the surge strategy from the beginning and its succeeding as we speak.

i remember how IS and tech used to post sarcastic threads with new bombing attacks in iraq to prove their point of the surge being a failure. havent seen to many of those lately

1) You never addressed the fact that America was LITERALLY paying/arming the rebels to not attack. What happens when this stops?

2) Where is the money coming from?

3) Iraq: Violence is down – but not because of America's 'surge'

If fewer US troops and Iraqis are being killed, it is only because the Shia community and Iran now dominate

By Patrick Cockburn
Sunday, 14 September 2008

As he leaves Iraq this week, the outgoing US commander, General David Petraeus, is sounding far less optimistic than the Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, about the American situation in Iraq. General Petraeus says that it remains "fragile", recent security gains are "not irreversible" and "this is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not a war with a simple slogan."

Compare this with Sarah Palin's belief that "victory in Iraq is wholly in sight" and her criticism of Barack Obama for not using the word "victory". The Republican contenders have made these claims of success for the "surge" – the American reinforcements sent last year – although they are demonstrably contradicted by the fact that the US has to keep more troops, some 138,000, in Iraq today than beforehand. Another barometer of the true state of security in Iraq is the inability of the 4.7 million refugees, one in six of the population, who fled for their lives inside and outside Iraq, to return to their homes.

Ongoing violence is down, but Iraq is still the most dangerous country in the world. On Friday a car bomb exploded in the Shia market town of Dujail, north of Baghdad, killing 32 people and wounding 43 others. "The smoke filled my house and the shrapnel broke some of the windows," said Hussein al-Dujaili. "I went outside the house and saw two dead bodies at the gate which had been thrown there by the explosion. Some people were in panic and others were crying."

Playing down such killings, the Iraqi government and the US have launched a largely successful propaganda campaign to convince the world that "things are better" in Iraq and that life is returning to normal. One Iraqi journalist recorded his fury at watching newspapers around the world pick up a story that the world's largest Ferris wheel was to be built in Baghdad, a city where there is usually only two hours of electricity a day.

Life in Baghdad certainly is better than it was 18 months ago, when some 60 to 100 bodies were being found beside the roads every morning, the victims of Sunni-Shia sectarian slaughter. The main reason this ended was that the battle for Baghdad in 2006-07 was won by the Shia, who now control three-quarters of the capital. These demographic changes appear permanent; Sunni who try to get their houses back face assassination.

In Mosul, Iraq's northern capital and third largest city, with a population of 1.8 million, the government was trumpeting its success only a few months ago. It said it had succeeded in driving al-Qa'ida from the city, while the US said the number of attacks had fallen from 130 a week to 30 a week in July. But today they are back up to between 60 and 70 a week. Two weeks ago, insurgents came close to killing Major-General Riyadh Jalal Tawfiq in Nineveh province, of which Mosul is the capital, with a roadside bomb.

The perception in the US that the tide has turned in Iraq is in part because of a change in the attitude of the foreign, largely American, media. The war in Iraq has now been going on for five years, longer than the First World War, and the world is bored with it. US television networks maintain expensive bureaux in Baghdad, but little of what they produce gets on the air. When it does, viewers turn off. US newspaper bureaux are being cut in size. The result of all this is that the American voter hears less of violence in Iraq and can suppose that America's military adventure there is finally coming good.

An important reason for this optimism is the fall in the number of American soldiers killed. (The 30,000 US soldiers wounded in Iraq are seldom mentioned.) This has happened because the war that was being waged against the American occupation by the Sunni community, the 20 per cent of Iraqis who were in control under Saddam Hussein, has largely ended. It did so because the Sunni were being defeated, not so much by the US army as by the Shia government and the Shia militias.

Sunni insurgent leaders who were nationalists or Baathists realised that they had too many enemies. Not only was al-Qa'ida trying to take over from traditional tribal leaders, it was also killing Sunni who took minor jobs with the government. The Awakening, or al-Sahwa, movement of Sunni fighters was first formed in Anbar province at the end of 2006, but it was allied to the US, not the Iraqi government. This is why, despite pressure from General Petraeus, the government is so determined not to give the 99,000 al-Sahwa members significant jobs in the security forces when it takes control of – and supposedly begins to pay – these Sunni militiamen from 1 October. The Shia government may be prepared to accommodate the Sunni, but not at the cost of diluting Shia dominance.

If McCain wins the presidential election in November, his lack of understanding of what is happening in Iraq could ignite a fresh conflict. In so far as the surge has achieved military success, it is because it implicitly recognises America's political defeat in Iraq. Whatever the reason for President George Bush's decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003, it was not to place the Shia Islamic parties in power and increase the influence of Iran in the country; yet that is exactly what has happened.

The surge only achieved the degree of success it did because Iran, which played a central role in getting Nouri al-Maliki appointed Prime Minister in 2006, decided to back his government fully. It negotiated a ceasefire between the Iraqi government and the powerful movement of Muqtada al-Sadr in Basra, persuading the cleric to call his militiamen off the streets there, in March and again two months later in the Sadrist stronghold of Sadr City. It is very noticeable that in recent weeks the US has largely ceased its criticism of Iran. This is partly because of American preoccupation with Russia since the fighting began in Georgia in August, but it is also an implicit recognition that US security in Iraq is highly dependant on Iranian actions.

General Petraeus has had a measure of success in Iraq less because of his military skills than because he was one of the few American leaders to have some understanding of Iraqi politics. In January 2004, when he was commander of the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul, I asked him what was the most important piece of advice he could give to his successor. He said it was "not to align too closely with one ethnic group, political party, tribe, religious group or social element". But today the US has no alternative but to support Mr Maliki and his Shia government, and to wink at the role of Iran in Iraq. If McCain supposes the US has won a military victory, and as president acts as if this were true, then he is laying the groundwork for a new war.

 

[Ironslave]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq13-2008nov13,0,6714674.story

In Baghdad alone, 58 people have been killed by bombs this week, police say.

By Raheem Salman, Usama Redha and Tina Susman
November 13, 2008

I think it's more so the fact that Tech and I have been focusing more on the economy, as it's the most talked about issue now. But also, it's kind of "gloating", since we called it and turned out to be right.

 

[Tech]

couldnt agree more, its a great pick, first of all because it shows obamas willingness to work across the isle to get the job done, and second of all because gates is a skilled politician. he's largely responsible for the violence in iraq dropping 70% or so. he defended the surge strategy from the beginning and its succeeding as we speak.

i remember how IS and tech used to post sarcastic threads with new bombing attacks in iraq to prove their point of the surge being a failure. havent seen to many of those lately

whats the weather like in Fantasyland? must be nice.

 

[Bulkboy]

interesting article u posted there about iraq IS but its not entirely true that all the progress comes from bribing militia not to attack. the sadr militia was getting a bad reputation among the shia population because of their actions, and so understood that they were heading for the worst thing that could happend, and thats rejection among their own population. al sadr himself declared ceasefire.

the sunnies obviously have been a problem, after the baath party and the military was disolved, obviously there was alot of bitterness. ive also stated before that i thought it was a mistake to disolve the military and the bath party. but the sunnies are realizing that they want to be part of the solution not the problem now. they couldnt reject al quaida without security, and thats where the surge have been so successful. areas that were controlled by al quaida before have been cleared and are now also being held by sunnies and american troops.

obviously there are still attacks, and a political solution is the most important thing, but noone can denie that progress have been and is being made. the sceptics will keep saying that the surge is all bribe, but its not, real progress have been made in iraq. the iraqi population is starting to reject extremists. and as long as the extremists does not have a base among the population then they have no ability to succeed. guerilla warfare is based on that general consensus in the population. this is why iraq is nothing like vietnam, because in vietnam the whole population was on vietcongs side, thats not the case in iraq, and therefore its impossible for the extremists to win.

the reason why the milita was so successful pre surge was that american and iraqi forces were unable to both clear and hold areas, so the civillian population had to bow down to al quaida, but now areas are being cleared and held, and the rebels are loosing ground. violence is down, and all economic indicators is pointing in the right direction. the most important thing now is for the shias and the sunnies to be able to sit down together, and form a general consensus of how to govern iraq.

 

[Braaq]

I agree, a prominent figure in leading the Iran Contra affair and a secretary that keeps spending billions of dollars a day in Iraq is exactly what America needs.

Again, your blaming the man who is doing as his boss tells him. Your also acting as if Gates is the one spending billions in Iraq or supported the Iran-Contra incident in the 80's. THE PRESIDENT DOES!! Lets not sound like the rest of the uneducated people online that I see. Gates is doing an outstanding job considering the mess he was handed, and I for one cannot see ANYONE better for the position. Besides, when you are in the middle of 2 wars and one of them has the end in sight you keep the experienced person responsible for any "successes" (the little that there could be) in his position. He at least put Patreaus in who "politically" worked out the decline in violence that led to 0 US deaths in Iraq in Oct. I have said this from the beginning that Gates should stay in his position.
You can argue that it is a bad decision all you want IS and Tech, but you two are so pessimistic about any decision being made if it is not by RP that you fail to see any good out of anything. If you cannot come up with a better alternative then I there is no point discussing this further.

 

[Ironslave]

Again, your blaming the man who is doing as his boss tells him. Your also acting as if Gates is the one spending billions in Iraq or supported the Iran-Contra incident in the 80's. THE PRESIDENT DOES!! Lets not sound like the rest of the uneducated people online that I see. Gates is doing an outstanding job considering the mess he was handed, and I for one cannot see ANYONE better for the position. Besides, when you are in the middle of 2 wars and one of them has the end in sight you keep the experienced person responsible for any "successes" (the little that there could be) in his position. He at least put Patreaus in who "politically" worked out the decline in violence that led to 0 US deaths in Iraq in Oct. I have said this from the beginning that Gates should stay in his position.
You can argue that it is a bad decision all you want IS and Tech, but you two are so pessimistic about any decision being made if it is not by RP that you fail to see any good out of anything. If you cannot come up with a better alternative then I there is no point discussing this further.

I'm not following RP blindly on anything, it's just common sense. America fucked Iraq up, Iraq would be better with America gone.

Where is the money going to come from? It costs America billions of dollars every single day in Iraq, which during a time of economic crisis is just stupid. America needs to save money, not borrow and print more, nevermind billions of dollars a day America is collapsing and this is still a major reason why.

I'm not blaming everything on Gates by any means, but really, what has he done? He's kept the same status quo, just like Obama is going to. The secretary of defense is a powerful man, and Gates has demonstrated that he is pro war. Didn't Obama claim he . Say what you will, but Gates was a major player in bombing Nicaragua. Read this, from the horse's mouth, this doesn't sound like "change".

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/3-Gates Memo 12-14-84.pdf

 

[Braaq]

I'm not following RP blindly on anything, it's just common sense. America fucked Iraq up, Iraq would be better with America gone.

Where is the money going to come from? It costs America billions of dollars every single day in Iraq, which during a time of economic crisis is just stupid. America needs to save money, not borrow and print more, nevermind billions of dollars a day America is collapsing and this is still a major reason why.

I'm not blaming everything on Gates by any means, but really, what has he done? He's kept the same status quo, just like Obama is going to. The secretary of defense is a powerful man, and Gates has demonstrated that he is pro war. Didn't Obama claim he . Say what you will, but Gates was a major player in bombing Nicaragua. Read this, from the horse's mouth, this doesn't sound like "change".

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/3-Gates Memo 12-14-84.pdf

We both agree that America fucked up Iraq and that we should never have gone in there in the first place.
I am aware of his involvement in Nicaragua with the Iran-Contra scandal, but how can he pull out of Iraq? That is up to the president or congress if they want to stop funding. In reality it should be up the Iraqi people, and I am 100% sure that they would vote on us to leave. We should listen, but Gates is doing a good job IMO. Doesn't matter if he is pro-war or anti-war, he has to follow orders and work with that he has... saying that I think he is the best for the job atm.

 

[Ironslave]

We both agree that America fucked up Iraq and that we should never have gone in there in the first place.
I am aware of his involvement in Nicaragua with the Iran-Contra scandal, but how can he pull out of Iraq? That is up to the president or congress if they want to stop funding. In reality it should be up the Iraqi people, and I am 100% sure that they would vote on us to leave. We should listen, but Gates is doing a good job IMO. Doesn't matter if he is pro-war or anti-war, he has to follow orders and work with that he has... saying that I think he is the best for the job atm.

I agree with these points.... but really, what has he done which has been so good if he's just following orders?