Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Obama's War Cabinet

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Obama's War Cabinet

    [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122783108411762961.html[/url]
    [QUOTE]
    [B][SIZE="3"]Obama's War Cabinet[/SIZE][/B]
    Gates and Jones are welcome signs of continuity.

    The names floated for Barack Obama's national security team "are drawn exclusively from conservative, centrist and pro-military circles without even a single -- yes, not one! -- chosen to represent the antiwar wing of the Democratic party." In his plaintive post this week on the Nation magazine's Web site, Robert Dreyfuss indulges in the political left's wonderful talent for overstatement. But who are we to interfere with his despair?

    If reports are correct, on Monday the President-elect will ask Robert Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense and name retired Marine General James Jones as National Security Adviser. These are the Administration posts most critical to the successful conduct of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to possible entanglements with Iran, North Korea and who knows who else. With these personnel picks, Mr. Obama reveals a bias for competence, experience and continuity. Hence the caterwauls from his left flank.

    The Gates selection is an implicit endorsement of President Bush's "surge" in Iraq and its military architect, General David Petraeus. More broadly, it recognizes that America will continue to deal with a daunting post-9/11 security environment. As a member of the Iraq Study Group, Mr. Gates was against the surge before Mr. Bush made support for it a condition of his taking the Pentagon job. But at Defense since late 2006, Mr. Gates has supervised the successful new counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. He also championed a new generation of military leaders, chiefly General Petraeus, who now commands U.S. forces in the Mideast, and he has poured additional resources into Afghanistan.

    On all of the above, continuity would be welcome. Recall that Candidate Obama opposed the surge, called for a speedy withdrawal from Iraq and brushed back General Petraeus's pleas to rethink both during his summer visit to Baghdad. Presumably President-elect Obama gave Mr. Gates some reassurances about future policy and his ability to shape it without repudiating the Secretary's record to date. Mr. Gates will also give Mr. Obama some political insulation if events go wrong; Republicans may be less willing to criticize a Defense Secretary who served GOP Presidents than they would some standard-issue liberal like Michigan Senator Carl Levin.

    General Jones is also a reassuring get. In the campaign, the former Marine Commandant and NATO Commander never endorsed anyone, though possible Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and John McCain both avidly courted him. The General comes from a fine tradition that puts national security above partisanship.

    Here's how he explained his then-controversial support for the surge to a Journal reporter in April: "Understand the fact that regardless how you got there, there is a strategic price of enormous consequence for failure in Iraq." In his postmilitary life, he worked on energy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. On paper, General Jones sure beats Bill Clinton's NSC advisers (Anthony Lake and Sandy Berger) and perhaps President Bush's.

    Both these men can help Mr. Obama check the worst reflexes of his anti-antiterror base. Starting in Iraq. Having pacified al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency, America now has a chance to midwife Iraq into a stable and free ally in the middle of a bad neighborhood. Local and national elections due next year will require U.S. support and counsel, and any rash drawdown in troops would be dangerous.

    Mr. Obama will have political running room. Americans are now preoccupied with the economy. His own pledge to remove most combat troops by 2010 leaves open exactly what he means by "combat" and "most." The new status-of-forces agreement with Iraqi also commits the U.S. to leave by 2011. These decisions can now be made with a view to the realities in Iraq rather than to the American campaign trail.

    There's talk that Mr. Gates will serve a year, then hand over the reins to an Obama loyalist, but the U.S. needs more than a caretaker in that job. Mr. Gates is a savvy enough bureaucratic operator to fight his corner. Aside from Iraq, Mr. Gates has staked out positions -- on missile defense in Eastern Europe, enlarging the military, and modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal -- that are at odds with the Democratic establishment. He and his future boss agree that additional forces are needed for Afghanistan. Let's hope that's not a one-time policy accord.

    Mr. Obama deserves credit for making flexibility a principle in assembling his Administration. As he said last year, "people should feel confident that we'll be able to hit the ground running." So far on security, not bad.
    [/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,877
    Post Thanks / Like
    [U]Future Headlines:[/U]

    "Barack Obama To Retain V.P. Dick Cheney"

    "Karl Rove To Join Obama White House Staff"

    Jeeezzzz................

    :jets18

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    9,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    I hope keeping some of the old personnel around from the previous administration works. This policy bit JFK in the rear end when he kept some of Eisenhower's advisors from the previous administration - a move that eventually led to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy eventually had to get rid of Eisenhower's old advisors or marginalize them and thank God he did in time for the Cuban Missile Crisis.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,877
    Post Thanks / Like
    JFK would have had a nervous breakdown were it not for the Presidential counsel of Ike during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Still, Bush's foreign policy & defense personnel have NO place in an Obama administration IMHO. Isn't that what Obama was elected for? Change?

    :jets18

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=AlbanyJet;2885954]JFK would have had a nervous breakdown were it not for the Presidential counsel of Ike during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Still, Bush's foreign policy & defense personnel have NO place in an Obama administration IMHO. Isn't that what Obama was elected for? Change?

    :jets18[/QUOTE]

    But "change" is a magic word for politicians b/c most folks are never satisfied and always want more than they deserve!

    So BO used it to get elected but knew he could deliver very little change b/c the system is like a kid riding his wagon down a long steep hill...there come a point where his speed overcomes any ability to stop or turn to safety!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us