I think the newsflash here is that a Bush appointee actually knows what he's talking about. Which is probably why Obama kept him around.

Obama is keeping Gates around for the year to 18 months it will take to get the ball rolling on evacuating Iraq, and then he will be replaced with a democrat. Gates has from the beginning and always been the Iraq appointee.

"Victory" is a nebulous concept better stated as "Conquest" or "Survival", depending on who is shooting at whom and why.

Lord knows that if this were Rumsfeld we were talking about, he'd be on his ass before he could blink.
But Gates, he seems to be doing the job well. So leaving him in is a perfectly reasonable solution.

funmonger: "Victory" is a nebulous concept better stated as "Conquest" or "Survival", depending on who is shooting at whom and why.

we must be winning then

/we are writing the history

Two reasons he's keeping Gates:

1. We're in two wars, neither of which are his fault, one of which he seems to have dramatically improved
2. He's not Donald Rumsfeld, or any of the other neocon cocksuckers

MonkeyVegetables: we must be winning then

/we are writing the history

Sure.

So lets go back to doing what didn't work? Ignore them?

What we did before 9/11?

Are we stupid or what?

This is going to turn out well.......

Gates may just be the Iraq War Secretary but the fundamental thesis is right. Where the neocons went wrong is not that they thought America is an empire; it is an empire. But it is not nor ever can be an Imperial empire, aka Rome or Britain. America is an intellectual/cultural empire. It is the empire of Democracy (Woodrow Wilson) and the empire of Walt Disney.

When the US stays true to that vision of empire, it actually get its way most of the time in the world. When it adopts a macho/gangster style of empire it loses. As Greece, Rome and Britain discovered though their own set of ruinous wars, Imperial empires are not sustainable. Whether a intellectual/cultural empire can survive any better is an open question. Lincoln thought so, Wilson thought so, FDR thought so. But the reality of that in eight sorry years more than 100 years of goodwill around the world was flushed down the toilet.

Well, at least some Boomers got to pop a boner. So it was worth it.

He's keeping Gates for Political reasons, for the last two years the right, the Military, the MSM and Beltway Pundits have pretty much licked Gates' taint. He's the only guy with serious levels of Goodwill from the Bush Administration.

Obama is going to use that goodwill as coverage for the retreat from Iraq.

Komplex
He's keeping Gates for Political reasons, for the last two years the right, the Military, the MSM and Beltway Pundits have pretty much licked Gates' taint. He's the only guy with serious levels of Goodwill from the Bush Administration.

Obama is going to use that goodwill as coverage for the retreat from Iraq.

Iraq, we won, we are leaving now.

Chairman Obama wants to deploy more US targets to Afganistain. Well the soviets did just that, and it turned out so well.

So what we really get is a Bush won war and the new vietnam. Anyone see a strategy here? Chairman Obam seems to have lost one, and we could propose one for him to use?

Robt Gates SecDef: The United States cannot expect to eliminate national security risks through higher defense budgets, to do everything and buy everything.

Wot gave you that idea?



Nice to see that Gates has finally figured that the approach of "And we're gonna keep on bombing you until you stop hating us" is a non-starter.

/He may wanna inform Israel of this revelation at some point.

The article in a nutshell:
What is dubbed the war on terror is, in grim reality, a prolonged, worldwide irregular campaign -- a struggle between the forces of violent extremism and those of moderation. Direct military force will continue to play a role in the long-term effort against terrorists and other extremists. But over the long term, the United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory. Where possible, what the military calls kinetic operations should be subordinated to measures aimed at promoting better governance, economic programs that spur development, and efforts to address the grievances among the discontented, from whom the terrorists recruit. It will take the patient accumulation of quiet successes over a long time to discredit and defeat extremist movements and their ideologies.

winterwhile 2009-01-04 12:48:30 PM

Iraq, we won, we are leaving now.

Chairman Obama wants to deploy more US targets to Afganistain. Well the soviets did just that, and it turned out so well.

So what we really get is a Bush won war and the new vietnam. Anyone see a strategy here? Chairman Obam seems to have lost one, and we could propose one for him to use?


Have you considered harnessing your cognitive dissonance to generate heat? You could keep several homes toasty warm from what you're putting out.

the war on terror is under Bush a change the world idea, change the supporting countries leadership idea, decrease hiding places idea.

So far the Dem's just want to run and hide, or was that redeploy as they cower in front of the UN.

Now that worked so well...... we got 9/11

So that's why our policy in Iraq has taken so long, I wondered.

Obama kept Gates because there are no credible Democrats for the position.

Same reason why Clinton had a Republican SecDef.

Evocatus: Obama kept Gates because there are no credible Democrats for the position.

Same reason why Clinton had a Republican SecDef.

winterwhile: the war on terror is under Bush a change the world idea, change the supporting countries leadership idea, decrease hiding places idea.

So far the Dem's just want to run and hide, or was that redeploy as they cower in front of the UN.

Now that worked so well...... we got 9/11


Wow, even in the face of resolution and compromise, the neo-nutballs still find reason to hate.

Maybe Obama should first dispatch an army of shrinks to help the %23 of this country accept the fact that their mothers didn't breast-feed them enough.

/God...what a bunch of stupid a-holes. Really. Please leave or die now.

winterwhile: the war on terror is under Bush a change the world idea, change the supporting countries leadership idea, decrease hiding places idea.

So far the Dem's just want to run and hide, or was that redeploy as they cower in front of the UN.

Now that worked so well...... we got 9/11

Dems are to blame for everything! Including GWB ignoring intelligence because it came from a dem!

bookelly:
Wow, even in the face of resolution and compromise, the neo-nutballs still find reason to hate.

Maybe Obama should first dispatch an army of shrinks to help the %23 of this country accept the fact that their mothers didn't breast-feed them enough.

/God...what a bunch of stupid a-holes. Really. Please leave or die now.

A brilliant rejoinder.

When presented with an observation based on facts that you don't like, it's name calling.

Talk about hate.

Democrats are soft on defense. Something the last Democrat administration knew and the future administration recognizes as well.

Evocatus: bookelly:
Wow, even in the face of resolution and compromise, the neo-nutballs still find reason to hate.

Maybe Obama should first dispatch an army of shrinks to help the %23 of this country accept the fact that their mothers didn't breast-feed them enough.

/God...what a bunch of stupid a-holes. Really. Please leave or die now.

A brilliant rejoinder.

When presented with an observation based on facts that you don't like, it's name calling.

Talk about hate.

Democrats are soft on defense. Something the last Democrat administration knew and the future administration recognizes as well.


winterwhile? facts? that's unpossible.

i remember ten years ago when republicans were calling the (admittedly abortive and unsuccessful) attacks on osama bin laden and al qaeda targets "distractions" from the real, pressing issue facing the american people: monica lewinsky.

i also remember everyone relevant from both the clinton and bush admins saying that yr boy dubya spent the first several months of his term ignoring terrorism and specific urgent threats from al qaeda.

it's not "hate" to call out you delusional warmongers about your foreign policy failings.

He's keeping Gates on because Gates is competent enough to manage the withdrawal from Iraq. Period.

As long as Gates (and his counterpart at State -- i.e., Clinton) can keep the rest of the world from blowing up, Obama will be satisfied and be able to focus on his strength which is the domestic agenda.

If Obama is smart, he will go back on his promise to re-deploy to Afghanistan and instead pull our troops from there as well while he has a Republican appointee at DoD to take some of the heat if things go wrong.

Hmmm. I seem to have struck a nerve.

Point out that defense is the area that nobody, including Democrats, trusts the Democrats with and the crying begins.

You should also brace yourselves for the fact that U.S. forces are going to be in Iraq for longer than you suppose. Even the president-elect is setting the stage early for that eventuality.

Gates was the logical choice for many reasons. One major reason being that there is no Democrat that can replace him. Period. This shouldn't be shocking to anybody.

Except here on Fark, apparently.

Evocatus: Hmmm. I seem to have struck a nerve.

Point out that defense is the area that nobody, including Democrats, trusts the Democrats with and the crying begins.

You should also brace yourselves for the fact that U.S. forces are going to be in Iraq for longer than you suppose. Even the president-elect is setting the stage early for that eventuality.

Gates was the logical choice for many reasons. One major reason being that there is no Democrat that can replace him. Period. This shouldn't be shocking to anybody.

Except here on Fark, apparently.

I agree with you about 95%. Gates is working Iraq just fine; I'm not sure he's got Afghanistan & Iran covered yet, but that might be waiting till after January 20th. No one wants to admit Iraq has been going swimmingly since Petraeus was allowed to treat Iraq like a soldier's war instead of a politician's; and since Gates backed him on the surge.

We'll have to wait & see on Afghanistan & Iran, but it looks good so far. Also we'll see what goes on in Gaza.

FTFA:

"The United States needs a military whose ability to kick down the door is matched by its ability to clean up the mess and even rebuild the house afterward.

Given these realities, the military has made some impressive strides in recent years...The air force has created a new air advisory program and a new career track for unmanned aerial operations."

Glad to see we're still safely getting from Point A to Point B.

How about becuse Gates is about the only person in the Bush administration who is qualfied and highly knowledgeable (new window)about the job he was given. Too bad he was given the job 6 yars too late and after the previous guy had already FUBARed the situation.

I know, I know, late post.

But (and yes I understand that starting a sentence with "but" is grammatically incorrect) am I the only one here that was impressed with that paper?

I had no idea Gates was so intelligent (not trying to be snarky; I just didn't know).