Keeping Secretary of Defense Gates in the next administration

**Cavguy** · 06-13-2008

Every time I'm ready to write off Ralph Peters, he brilliantly captures and articulates something that keeps me reading.

In today's New York Post, he argues that the next administration should keep SecDef Gates on, because he's just that damn good. He positively gushes over him.

Couldn't agree more with him this time.

MIRACLES do happen: A Bush Cabinet officer has proven not only competent, but wise, honest, independent and courageous.

That man is Defense Secretary Robert Gates - who just may be the best SecDef this country has ever had.

If only he could stay on into the next administration, he might rival our greatest Secretary of War, Elihu Root, the crucial military reformer of the early 20th century.

That said, Gates respects his generals just as he values the privates. He just won't tolerate substandard performers. His motto could well be "Never imperious, always curious."

In other words, he's the anti-Rumsfeld. As SecDef, Donald Rumsfeld surrounded himself with yes-men. Gates seeks out the best men.

Rumsfeld assumed he knew everything. Gates understands that learning never stops.

The Rumsfeld Pentagon ran a propaganda organization that amounted to a self-licking ice-cream cone. Gates disdains self-promotion.

When the going got tough, Rummy sent his underlings out to take the hits. When Gates makes tough decisions, he stands in the line of fire himself - as he did last week in front of those Air Force audiences.

While the Rumsfeld Pentagon was subservient to the defense industry, from Boeing to Blackwater (to say nothing of Halliburton and the like), Gates insists on giving our troops - and taxpayers - the best value for our defense dollars. (The contractors hope to wait him out.)

Rumsfeld was a bully. Gates is a warrior.

Few Americans will miss the Bush administration. But the men and women in uniform will miss Bob Gates. He's the model of what a public servant should be.

**Steve Blair** · 06-13-2008

I've been on this bandwagon for some time as well. Sadly I don't think it's likely, but the incoming administration would show its foolish colors if it were to give Gates his walking papers.

**Backwards Observer** · 06-16-2008

From The International Institute for Strategic Studies Website:

"The 7th IISS Shangri-La Dialogue was successfully concluded on 1 June 2008.

The Shangri-La Dialogue is recognised as a key event for defence and security diplomacy for the region. Since its inaugural meeting in 2002, the Dialogue has become an integral part of the architecture of Asian defence diplomacy and is seen as the region's premier and most inclusive security institution. The Shangri-La Dialogue continues to serve as the best available vehicle in the Asia-Pacific region for developing and channelling astute and effective public policy on defence and security.

The 27 invited countries are represented by delegations comprising defence ministers, chiefs of staff and other senior security policy-makers."

A very articulate speech by Robert Gates in Singapore. Also speeches by the Defence Minister from Japan, the PLA Deputy Chief of Staff from China, and ministers from Korea, Australia, India, France, UK and other countries in the region. Some good Q & A as well. Gates comes across as an accomplished diplomat and appears to wear power well. Thought some might find it interesting, if not already familiar with the speech. Thanks.

Direct Link To Gates Speech: http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the-...-robert-gates/

**Sargent** · 06-17-2008

I'm not sure that it would be fair to judge any incoming administration because of its desire to put together its own cabinet. There are plenty of qualified candidates for defense secretary, and while Gates has done a fine job (especially in relation to Rumsfeld), it seems that this thread is just setting up for a problem that simply does not need to exist. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any cases in recent history where a SecDef has been retained from the previous administration, and that has never been a basis for criticism.

Furthermore, I would suggest that if Obama wins the election, it would in large part be based on the desire for change, in which case it would not make any sense for a member of the Bush administration's cabinet to be retained, skills notwithstanding. Perhaps a bit irrational, but the electorate ought to be respected. And even if McCain's the winner, he too may desire to have his own people. It's just the way these things work.

Bottom line, I don't see what is served by creating a problem out of this issue by setting up a desire that is very likely not to be fulfilled.

Regards,
Jill

**Sargent** · 06-17-2008

Oh and another thing: if Obama wins the election, who's to say that Gates would even want to stay on? I mean, he's a Republican for a reason. I'm sure we'd all like to believe that he is a selfless civil servant, but for the most part folks are not frequently keen to cross the aisle and serve the other side -- it just complicates their future, as it tends to strand them in a political no man's land, being not particularly trusted by either side.

Cheers,
Jill

**Ron Humphrey** · 06-17-2008

Originally Posted by Sargent

I'm not sure that it would be fair to judge any incoming administration because of its desire to put together its own cabinet. There are plenty of qualified candidates for defense secretary, and while Gates has done a fine job (especially in relation to Rumsfeld), it seems that this thread is just setting up for a problem that simply does not need to exist. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any cases in recent history where a SecDef has been retained from the previous administration, and that has never been a basis for criticism.

Furthermore, I would suggest that if Obama wins the election, it would in large part be based on the desire for change, in which case it would not make any sense for a member of the Bush administration's cabinet to be retained, skills notwithstanding. Perhaps a bit irrational, but the electorate ought to be respected. And even if McCain's the winner, he too may desire to have his own people. It's just the way these things work.

Bottom line, I don't see what is served by creating a problem out of this issue by setting up a desire that is very likely not to be fulfilled.

Regards,
Jill

But you can't blame us if occasionally we actually hope to see our leaders actually as concerned as we are about having the job done right rather than in their own image

Theres probably a reason that we don't get a vote on filling some jobs. But it might be nice to actually have some say in what right looks like.

**Sargent** · 06-17-2008

Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey

But you can't blame us if occasionally we actually hope to see our leaders actually as concerned as we are about having the job done right rather than in their own image

.

But don't you see that such a narrow requirement is just setting yourself up for disappointment needlessly? And again, who's to say Gates would want to work for Obama, if he wins.

How about this: wait to see who gets tapped for the job, and if the choice sucks mightily, I'll join the chorus of critics. I think I've pretty much established my street cred as a loudmouth. And believe me, I've been tame here.

Theres probably a reason that we don't get a vote on filling some jobs. But it might be nice to actually have some say in what right looks like.

The point is, you vote for the President/VP, and in that choice, you are relying upon that person's judgment to select the cabinet. That is the say you have. But at the end of the day, the idea is that the President needs to be able to select the people upon whom he'll have to rely and work with, and craft the personality of the cabinet that will suit his executive style. After all, you want the President to be successful.

It would be interesting if candidates for President were required to put together the slate for their cabinet prior to the election -- say, by a month before the election.

Cheers,
Jill