Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why Would Obama Stick With Gates as Defense Secretary?

Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left at 4:03 PM on November 20, 2008.


There hasn't been a Democratic Defense Secretary since 1996. Why wouldn't Obama choose one now?
061114wsgatesex

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Remember who the last Secretary of Defense was under a Democratic President? It was a Republican:

On December 5, 1996, President Clinton announced his selection of Cohen as secretary of defense. Cohen, a Republican about to retire from the United States Senate, was the "right person," Clinton said, to build on the achievements of William Perry, "to secure the bipartisan support America's armed forces must have and clearly deserve." In responding to his nomination, Cohen said that during his congressional career he had supported a nonpartisan national security policy and commended the president for appointing a Republican to his cabinet.

Who will be the next Secretary of Defense under a Democratic administration? Seems like a Republican appointee:

Barack Obama and Robert Gates are negotiating policy issues with a view toward Gates remaining Defense secretary, the Financial Times reports, a move that would make the Bush appointee a key member of a bipartisan cabinet that resembles Abraham Lincoln's "team of rivals."

Kind of remarkable that every time Democrats seek elite media and political credibility for having a "bi-partisan" cabinet, they turn to Republicans to manage the Pentagon. Kind of makes you think that Democrats believe Republicans are better at managing both national security, and what is by far the largest department of the federal government. There have been no Democratic Defense Secretaries since 1996, and only eight years of Democratic Defense Secretaries since 1968.

Managing the Pentagon involves a budget that will dwarf whatever the new Treasury Secretary receives from Congress. In fact, the Defense Department involves 52% of all net discretionary spending, making it about half of what the President oversees. (While the actual military budget is an even larger percentage of spending, I am just looking at the DoD in this case, since other departments oversee the rest of military expenditures.) Further, that doesn't even include supplemental bills for Iraq and Afghanistan, which Congress will be approving for the next two years and which do mainly fall under the purview of the Department of Defense. It also involves the semi-important debate over the use of contractors, and the largest energy expenditures within the federal government. You can't build a greener America without building a greener military.

And yet, just like in 1996, we are once again handing those responsibilities over to Republicans and Republican appointments even after we win huge, landslide victories. This is half of the federal government, and it is as though change is utterly impossible within it. But hey, at least Obama looks good for receiving bi-partisan credibility from The Village. Hopefully, Obama will accrue as much political capital from Republicans and media elites as Bill Clinton did during his second term for appointing a Republican Secretary of Defense. Also, I hope it works out as well as all of those Democrats Bush appointed to run the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, or Housing and Urban Development.


Blago: It Just Keeps Getting Stranger
Have you noticed that Blagojevich appears to be stark raving mad?
Post by Steve Benen. January 9, 2009.
Obama: 'If Paul Krugman Has a Good Idea … Then We're Going to Do It'
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has been a frequent critic of President-elect Obama.
Post by Amanda Terkel. January 9, 2009.
Kucinich Speaks Out Against Congress' Blind Support of Israel
"We must take a new direction in the Middle East.
Post by Staff. January 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I love this!
Posted by: TheAntagonist on Nov 20, 2008 4:30 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am laughing my ass off because all the far-left-wing dumbass's are already disappointed with their Messiah!

I voted for Obama, only because of the race thing - hopefully just him being President will improve race relations in this country.

I knew this guy was going to be a centrist, Mr. Status Quo, Uncle Tom, you name it...

He's just a well spoken GWB!

All you people who thought Obama was going to be a FDR, JFK or Lincoln are going to want to hang themselves in 4 years...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I love this! Posted by: weathered
» RE: I love this! Posted by: luzmejor
Democrats do all they can to enhance the perception that Republicans are better on 'security' issues
Posted by: fanny666 on Nov 20, 2008 5:04 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are plenty of very qualified registered Democrats... Why not:

Anthony Zinni
Jim Webb
Wesley Clark
Merrill McPeak

Plenty of qualified people were opposed to this war from the start, and they should be in charge of ending it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wesley clark yes
Posted by: whealeydj on Nov 20, 2008 7:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
robert gates maybe but how about Pat Schroeder? I would really be shocked if Obama went with Dennis Kucinich in effort to reach out to former rivals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Haahahaha! Posted by: blackie4aces
Obama's Deal With "Powers that Be"
Posted by: 911FalseFlag on Nov 21, 2008 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is obvious from Obama's appointments to date and who he is considering to appoint to positions regarding foreign relations that part of the deal with the "powers that be" is that he continue to promote the "fake war against terror", the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to secure the oil and natural gas resources and the continued stealing of the remaining resources of this country by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Obama was groomed by these people in a short period of six years, starting with getting him elected to the U.S. Senate and then his rise to the presidency. There was no need to steal this election by computer fraud and voter suppression since the "powers that be" already had placed "their man" on each party's ticket.

The "powers that be" won this election as soon as they marginalized or more accurately politically assassinated Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

go to www.911insidejob.net for many articles and videos.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not as Agregious to the 'Left' as Hillary as Sec of State
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 21, 2008 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First let's correct the mis information- Gates may stay on for an extended TRANSITION! considering the numerous Cluster fuck around the world Bush,Cheney,Rummy and Wolfie have caused..We need someone who knows where ALL the bodies are buried.
Gates does Not concern me as a full appointment like Hillary....The Sociopathic 'Obliterate Iran' Neo Con.
Let's Review Hillary's 'Foreign' Policy experience...Voted to illegally invade Iraq, because she was too lazy or corrupt to really study the Intellegence reports. Failed EVERY part of Oversight of the Armed Services (too few troops, equipement, Exit plan and After care). Blatantly Lied about 'sniper fire', the Irish peace negotiations and her role as first lady- Had Tea with Heads of States Wives, did nothing in regards to Policy.
Hillary is such an Idiot (Actually a Co conspirator) she couldn't even tell the Patriot Act was UNCONSTITUIONAL (reason I voted for Kucinich in the primary).
The MSM keeps say their was only a slight difference between Obama & Clinton, I disagree there was far more similarities between Clinton & McCain (bomb bomb bomb Iran). Not a surprise sinc ethey were good buddies on the Armed services Com (con) to begin with.
FYI there has never been nor is there Now any such thing as a 'Reagan Democrat' This is a 'Rovian' term to explain why a REPUG is running under th eDem party platform. TellTale evidence Hillary did Not have 18 million (legitmate) votes..She couldn't even squeeze a $1.25 out of them each to cover her Campaign debts. Hell she can't even get $0.50 out of each of them now!
Hillary thinks she can put Obama's balls in a vice with her claim of 18 million people will be pissed if she doesn't get Sec of State....She never had 18 million supporters to begin with- She at least Stole the MI votes right off the bat (Rigged the MI primary).
Funny too how once she 'released' her staff & Donors, huge Corp funds began to infect Sen Obama's campaign. Funny How since her 'offer' for Sec of State the Transition team has been Leaking. did no one make the Connection between Andrea Mitchell and the Clinton Camp when she 'Broke the Story' claiming it was 2 obama Advisors who told her...Was that her Husband Greenspan, or others who infiltrated the campaign to work as covert operatives for the Clintons.
Is it not also intersting that all those Repugs who hated her in the '90's have been the first ones to Come out to support such an appointment. How much more evidence is needed to finally identify Hillary for what she is - A Neo Con disguised in Blue.
Unfortunately for Her the Public which hated her in the '90's still do and those of US who were supporters & defenders have Joined them since she wesseled her way into the Senate. I HATE the Clintons Now- esp Hillary! Shit she REQUESTED Sen Obama Be assasinated THREE times! I'm starting to believe there was a Hit on Foster Now!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A different concept...
Posted by: Babygoat on Nov 21, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I might be giving to much credit to Obama, but, it could be, that If YOU NEED TO FIX SOMETHING, IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE ALL OF THE PIECES AT HAND, the FAR RIGHT (criminals, at best) and exceptionally good at SLEAZE!...they ARE BOUND TO DO SOMETHING REALLY HORRID ...my point is to keep them where you can see them, get all of the details you can, wait for them to F-up and bam-you got em'! Fire them on the spot or have them arrested, charged and go for what some still refer to as justice!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]