Should I be okay with Obama keeping Gates?

I don't see a current thread on this topic. If this has been done to death, I apologize.

I've heard it reported (I don't have a source) that about 80% of Americans favor the decision to keep the Bush administration's Secretary of Defense. And I've heard the argument that it was a good choice because it's a bad idea to switch the incumbent secretary out in the middle of a war.

But I'm bothered by this. I understand it's temporary, and that does make me feel a little better. But I was hoping there would be more of a clean break from the Bush administration. This is "the first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party" (New York Times). Also, I strongly disagree with the argument that we shouldn't switch the secretary out in a time of war. People said in 2004 that we shouldn't vote for Kerry because it's a bad idea to change presidents in a time of war. It was a bullshit argument then, and it's a bullshit argument now, especially considering we've already changed secretaries once during this war, in late 2006, when Rumsfeld resigned.

Do I need talking down?

I can't find them. I only see eight in the link.

POST ELECTION MYTH: Obama in keeping Sec. of Defense Gates is signaling that he is not that interested in keeping his 16 months pullout of Iraq proposal as was made during the campaign. Plus, he is now warmongering in respect to Afghanistan.

POST ELECTION FACTS: Sec. Gates is accelerating the plans to withdrawal of troops from Iraq even now. He appears to be in si-nc with Obama's proposed plan. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28022197
In addition, Sec. Defense Gates' current deputy staff will be replaced by Obama appointees, another sign that the Pentagon will not remain "as is", and that Obama will have a strong hand in controlling what goes on there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

the Myths about the ears??

And it's a little reassuring to know that Secretary Gates apparently will help Obama do what he always said he would do.

I'll think on this. Thanks.

on Gates' staff....meaning, Obama's understudies ready to take over when required.

Obama is once again playing chess while we bitch at him for playing checkers. Give the man a chance to lead all these people.

"change we can believe in". :patriot: :rofl: :crazy:

Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

I want to know what THEY are doing... I don't necessarily want them to know what I am doing nor to have access to my network and resources.

Doug D.

Obama or Obama's team about the nuts and bolts of Afghanistan, Iraq and the military. Within three or so months, the reverse will be true and Gates will become highly dispensable (sp?)

but I am holding out for Wes Clark to replace gates in 2010.

I see him as more of a rational professional than anything like a firebrand ideologue. I don't believe that he'll be pushing a liberal agenda by any stretch but I do view the man as competent and don't believe he would have continued if he believed Obama's agenda is one doomed to failure or that he is unwilling to work to achieve.

I don't find it hard to buy that Gates is a solid citizen at the service and discretion of The President.
I also think its fair to say that Gates isn't exactly at polar opposites with Obama from a worldview standpoint. Obama is no dove, I'm not saying he is a hawk but there is a middleground where a lot of people, probably across the political spectrum, live. I'm not sure a lot of people on either extreme can relate to a mentality that thinks some wars are necessary, some are in our overall interests as a country, or that there can be times where conflict is morally necessary while still believing that other wars are contrary to our long term strategies, dangerous to our national security and/or stature, or plain stupid.

Of course here there are some of us that are pretty damned leftist and certainly liberal by most definitions that are also quite nationalist as well, which means that little is off the table to protect our country or to varying hotly debated degrees, it's interests. Others may have dealt with a few bullies and thugs in our times too and well know that some problems must be solved with force or you accept getting rolled over with regularity.

Yeah, Obama railed against the Iraq war because it was fucking a bad, stupid, and thoughtless idea on about every level. That should not be expected to carry over to every or even most conflicts as this one was a special brand of lunacy that is rarely seen that rebelled against seventy plus years of bipartisan strategy for the region and undid a very tricky balance probably forever.

will be appointing the Deputies and other officers in the Defense Department

Why? Because Obama is going to have Gates get us out of Iraq.

The RW assholes won't be able to call Obama a defeatest or cut and run because it was
their guy - Gates - that will be doing it for Obama.

Obama gets us out of Iraq and is still able to keep his 70% approval rating ;)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Secretary of Defense for a transition period. As Obama has been saying, we have only one President at a time; and, as Dummya has been saying, the President is the Decider. The Secretary of Defense, however, is only one among many who will advise Obama on military/war matters. Barring impeachment, we have a President for four years. Gates will be gone the minute he seriously displeases the Decider (then Obama). It's cool. Obama's large and in charge.