SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Robert Gates, US defence secretary, speaks during a promotion ceremony at the Pentagon on Friday. (Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP)
Obama Puts Faith in Bush's Defence Secretary
He may have promised change but Barack Obama has chosen to retain Robert Gates
Nov 26, 2008
It may have been the economic crisis that delivered the election to Barack Obama
but his consistent opposition to the war in Iraq was also a key plank
in his campaign - first to be the Democratic nominee, and then for
president.
So it might therefore be surprising that he has retained the services of a Bush appointee, Robert Gates, as defence secretary.
What's more, Gates has publicly disagreed with Obama's commitment to a
16-month timetable for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.
The Washington Post says
the appointment "would probably disappoint some on the left of the
Democratic party, who would prefer a clear and sharp break with
Bush-era policies".
Politico.com agrees "it could lead to criticism from his party's left wing that the lineup is more hawkish and less revolutionary than his supporters expected".
But it adds:
"The
appointment has substantial advantages for Obama, who now can keep his
pledge of drawing down troops in Iraq with the aid of an architect of
the Bush administration's successful troop 'surge' strategy."
It
is further evidence of Obama's commitment to bipartisanship. While
Gates may be a Bush appointee, he does not have a Republican background
and is one of the more respected members of the outgoing
administration. He is credited with helping to revive the defence
department after the highly controversial stewardship of Donald
Rumsfeld, and with bringing about the improved situation in Iraq.
US News and World Report recently dubbed him one of America's best leaders, lauding his emphasis "of moving beyond simple brute force" - unusual for a military man.
CNN says
the pros of appointing Gates include ensuring continuity and
demonstrating Obama's self-confidence. It believes it could lead to
policy conflicts: over the speed of the Iraq withdrawal and the space
defence project, for example, and importantly could delay much-promised
"change".
Is Obama simply being pragmatic in employing someone
from the Bush administration with a shared affinity for "soft power"?
Or is he rowing back - in the critical area of defence - from his
message of change?
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
It may have been the economic crisis that delivered the election to Barack Obama
but his consistent opposition to the war in Iraq was also a key plank
in his campaign - first to be the Democratic nominee, and then for
president.
So it might therefore be surprising that he has retained the services of a Bush appointee, Robert Gates, as defence secretary.
What's more, Gates has publicly disagreed with Obama's commitment to a
16-month timetable for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.
The Washington Post says
the appointment "would probably disappoint some on the left of the
Democratic party, who would prefer a clear and sharp break with
Bush-era policies".
Politico.com agrees "it could lead to criticism from his party's left wing that the lineup is more hawkish and less revolutionary than his supporters expected".
But it adds:
"The
appointment has substantial advantages for Obama, who now can keep his
pledge of drawing down troops in Iraq with the aid of an architect of
the Bush administration's successful troop 'surge' strategy."
It
is further evidence of Obama's commitment to bipartisanship. While
Gates may be a Bush appointee, he does not have a Republican background
and is one of the more respected members of the outgoing
administration. He is credited with helping to revive the defence
department after the highly controversial stewardship of Donald
Rumsfeld, and with bringing about the improved situation in Iraq.
US News and World Report recently dubbed him one of America's best leaders, lauding his emphasis "of moving beyond simple brute force" - unusual for a military man.
CNN says
the pros of appointing Gates include ensuring continuity and
demonstrating Obama's self-confidence. It believes it could lead to
policy conflicts: over the speed of the Iraq withdrawal and the space
defence project, for example, and importantly could delay much-promised
"change".
Is Obama simply being pragmatic in employing someone
from the Bush administration with a shared affinity for "soft power"?
Or is he rowing back - in the critical area of defence - from his
message of change?
It may have been the economic crisis that delivered the election to Barack Obama
but his consistent opposition to the war in Iraq was also a key plank
in his campaign - first to be the Democratic nominee, and then for
president.
So it might therefore be surprising that he has retained the services of a Bush appointee, Robert Gates, as defence secretary.
What's more, Gates has publicly disagreed with Obama's commitment to a
16-month timetable for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.
The Washington Post says
the appointment "would probably disappoint some on the left of the
Democratic party, who would prefer a clear and sharp break with
Bush-era policies".
Politico.com agrees "it could lead to criticism from his party's left wing that the lineup is more hawkish and less revolutionary than his supporters expected".
But it adds:
"The
appointment has substantial advantages for Obama, who now can keep his
pledge of drawing down troops in Iraq with the aid of an architect of
the Bush administration's successful troop 'surge' strategy."
It
is further evidence of Obama's commitment to bipartisanship. While
Gates may be a Bush appointee, he does not have a Republican background
and is one of the more respected members of the outgoing
administration. He is credited with helping to revive the defence
department after the highly controversial stewardship of Donald
Rumsfeld, and with bringing about the improved situation in Iraq.
US News and World Report recently dubbed him one of America's best leaders, lauding his emphasis "of moving beyond simple brute force" - unusual for a military man.
CNN says
the pros of appointing Gates include ensuring continuity and
demonstrating Obama's self-confidence. It believes it could lead to
policy conflicts: over the speed of the Iraq withdrawal and the space
defence project, for example, and importantly could delay much-promised
"change".
Is Obama simply being pragmatic in employing someone
from the Bush administration with a shared affinity for "soft power"?
Or is he rowing back - in the critical area of defence - from his
message of change?
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.