One thing I've noticed from the talk of Secretary of Defense is that Obama should use it to demonstrate his bipartisan attitude. However I think Secretary of Defense is one particular role in which this is a horrible decision. Bill Clinton appointed a Republican and it only solidified the Republicans as the party of national security. As much as I like Hagel for the role, is it not politically foolish to appoint him or Gates? It is sort of like Republican presidents appointing Democrats as Secretary of the Treasury for the past 20 years.
Secretary of Defense
- Thread starter Farang
- Start date
TallBill
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2001
- 46,017
- 62
- 91
Do you actually know anything about Gates other then that he was appointed by a Republican president? He agrees with Obama on quite a lot of things that he and Bush did not agree on.
Gates is a smart man, who acts rationally and avoids attention. He's perfect for Obama because he can support him quietly and let Obama show his bipartisan attitude.
Gates is a smart man, who acts rationally and avoids attention. He's perfect for Obama because he can support him quietly and let Obama show his bipartisan attitude.
I have little against Gates, this question is from a purely political perspective. My point is it looks bad when you let the other party run the military every time your party elects somebody commander-in-chief.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
In terms of Gates, we do not know yet, for another 70 days, Gates has to serve GWB, largely transparent to the General Public is what backdoor conversations are going on between Obama, Gates, and Petraeus.
As it is now, the only semi honesty we get out of our military are from folks that are safely retired, The era of Rumsfeld and GWB has cast a chilling pall over our own military and its ability to freedom or honesty of speech within the services. The military is acutely aware of the fact it needs public support, their reputation was in the sewer for a decade after Vietnam, they preformed brilliantly in Gulf war One while rehabilitating themselves in the public eye, and now caught between a rock and hard place, our military is failing badly in Iraq and Afghanistan, not because the military is incompetent, but because GWB is incompetent. And it not Rocket science to predict the military desperately does not want to be made into the scapegoat again.
If nothing else, Gates has been infinitely better than Rumsfeld, and while I too have mixed feelings about Gates, keeping Gates while sending an Obama message of resumption of free speech within the military, may be the morale boosting signal our military is waiting for. That and the Powell support of Obama can send positive winds of change blowing, and the sooner the better. Our military has really be raped under GWB, and they need not only a hug, but they need some relief.
As it is now, the only semi honesty we get out of our military are from folks that are safely retired, The era of Rumsfeld and GWB has cast a chilling pall over our own military and its ability to freedom or honesty of speech within the services. The military is acutely aware of the fact it needs public support, their reputation was in the sewer for a decade after Vietnam, they preformed brilliantly in Gulf war One while rehabilitating themselves in the public eye, and now caught between a rock and hard place, our military is failing badly in Iraq and Afghanistan, not because the military is incompetent, but because GWB is incompetent. And it not Rocket science to predict the military desperately does not want to be made into the scapegoat again.
If nothing else, Gates has been infinitely better than Rumsfeld, and while I too have mixed feelings about Gates, keeping Gates while sending an Obama message of resumption of free speech within the military, may be the morale boosting signal our military is waiting for. That and the Powell support of Obama can send positive winds of change blowing, and the sooner the better. Our military has really be raped under GWB, and they need not only a hug, but they need some relief.
The way I see it, if Gates is doing a good job he should be kept in place regardless of who appointed him. The country is too divided and needs to work together instead of growing further apart.
Obama is going to lead from the center. I think Gates or Hagel are good picks. They are both pragmatists which is EXACTLY what we need right now. They are the kind of people who can get past their ideology and do whats best for our country and our troops. Something Rummy couldn't do at all, nor he wanted. When Rummy's response to stress positions and torture is ' I stand at my desk 12 hours a day ' that just shows how out of touch and how idiotic he was.
SpunkyJones
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2004
- 5,090
- 1
- 81
I don't see the problem with this, because ultimately Gates, or who ever fills that role, reports to Obama.
I'm not prepared to second guess Obama's choices at this point. His best attribute has been to surround himself with highly competent people, to build a highly effective team, and I doubt that direction or intention will change anytime RSN. We'd all do well to reserve judgement until or unless he makes a demonstrable blunder and then fails to correct it.
Yeh, I know, that'll take some getting used to...
His choice of somebody I don't personally favor isn't a demonstrable blunder, either- poor results would be, and we're nowhere near that.
Yeh, I know, that'll take some getting used to...
His choice of somebody I don't personally favor isn't a demonstrable blunder, either- poor results would be, and we're nowhere near that.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
It also comes down to the fact that Powell didn't like what public office was doing to his family, and IMO that's a good thing to factor in.
I am sorry but the appointment of a Sec of Defense didnt solidify the republicans being the party of national security. Democrats own actions solidified the view they werent the party of national security. Hard to say one is for national security while cutting the military and waving a white flag of defeat.
Do you think a large % of the population had any idea who the sec of defense was under Clinton, much less know what party affiliation he had? I doubt it would be more than 10%.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I somewhat agree that Powell is getting to be too old for sec of def, but Powell has tons of credibility in a wide variety of areas. Maybe Obama should give Powell somewhat of a roving commission, able to pinch hit
in a wide variety of projects and roles, a man of integrity who could serve as a go between between Obama, cabinet members, and ranking republicans. And still be able to be home before dinner.
More of a suggestion than anything else, Powell has already signaled a desire to have a continuing role in public service, and at this point, can be trusted to pick his positions. How Obama and Powell interact remains to be seen, but after the way GWB shamelessly using Powell, Powell deserves better. Obama would be a fool to not use Powell wisely.
in a wide variety of projects and roles, a man of integrity who could serve as a go between between Obama, cabinet members, and ranking republicans. And still be able to be home before dinner.
More of a suggestion than anything else, Powell has already signaled a desire to have a continuing role in public service, and at this point, can be trusted to pick his positions. How Obama and Powell interact remains to be seen, but after the way GWB shamelessly using Powell, Powell deserves better. Obama would be a fool to not use Powell wisely.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I'm not sure where he would put Powell. I still believe (but could be wrong) that he doesn't want to go through the wringer again, however as a liaison he may excel. He's certainly had opportunities to interact with various offices and the Pentagon. I'm not sure how it would work in practice since there isn't a "Sec. of Miscellany" Nevertheless, he could be a good "go to" guy.
This.
Don't worry about party affiliation. Worry about getting the right people to do the right job.
Even if you look at this from a PURELY political position. Gates and Hagel would not cost Obama votes or the Dems either. Hagel is considered too liberal by the social conservatives anyway, so if it hurts anyone, it might be him by getting the whole RINO label etc.
you mean like the time we ran from beruit? or ran from vietnam? How about that time we started two wars in asia and just let them go on and on?
Repblicans got their place as the party of national security by bluster and horseshit.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter