Obama Puts Faith in Bush's Defence Secretary
He may have promised change but Barack Obama has chosen to retain Robert Gates
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?
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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?