I believe Clark is still unavailable, as well. But I think we should remember a lesson from when Clinton appointed --- if I'm recalling correctly --- a Repub Sec of Defense and the man blocked every effort Clark made, while military head of NATO, to keep communications open between Clark and Clinton, whose advice led to Clinton never really getting credit for the well-done job in Bosnia, and to Clark receiving a slap in the face that meant his retirement because of his conniving superior officer, despite the esteem with which he was held by European heads of state.

Let's not repeat that mistake. I have nothing against hiring Republicans, but what we need are Republicans who --- in the area in which they are serving --- have views that are similar to the president. Anything else is just asking for trouble.

Hmmm...

Er, uh, maybe the reason people know ... know ... Democrats are only pretending to care about national defense is epitomized by this post. Not one word of it is dedicated to placing the best qualified person in either post, State or Defense, to promote the national secutiry of the USA and effective long term world peace. It is a post directed toward how the Democrats can provide cover for their abandonment of national security (a repeat of the Carter and Clinton administrations) so the might recreate the thinly veiled payola scheme that entrenched their domestic and world-wide malaise creating political monopoly of the 1964-1980 years (please note, Nixon was a liberal Republican with a fully Democratic House, Senate, and Court).

If you really want to defend the USA, make General Petraeus Secretary of Defense. By the way, he very likely could be president in 2012 OR 2016; it would be best to get on his good side now.

For those keeping track, the Republicans controlled the budget initiating legislature from 1994-2006; great domestic policy years for the USA. The Democrats are responsible for the economy from 2006 onward.

Lastly, I am voting for McCain, but Obama is a shrewd man, an intelligent man, and politically astute man, and will do well if he can resist all the Johnson era and Carter era Democratic policies. He said his two favorite presidents were Lincoln and Roosevelt, both moderates who managed to be pro-business, pro-poverty help, and pro civil rights. I do think his victory would benefit the USA also.

TOH

Obama told Time Magazine his two favorites were Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, two Republican moderates. That is best clarified.

TOH

Obama should send the message that he is not going to go along with any effort to "send the message."

As for the generals, it is their job to salute their commander in chief. End of discussion. End of career for those who don't.

TOH: I'm assuming that Obama's Iraq policy is set in its outlines, though flexible in implementation. I also think that if Gates was on board with implementing it, he would have a much easier time of it -- and this means not just politically, but also in terms of getting cooperation he will need to do it right.

Petraeus cannot be SecDef; no one who has not been out of the military for less than 10 years can be. Not sure whether Clark has been out for 10.

Obviously, that should be "more than 10 years". Sigh ...

Good reasoning, and there's no need for Obama to stand on party principle if Gates is the most effective person for the position right now. The only problem is making sure the rest of Obama's Nat'l Security team gets along with Gates; otherwise they'll pick on him and like Powell under Clinton he'll walk off in a huff, wasting any potential political cover or good will.

Clark resigned from the military in May 2000, so he can't be SecDef until 2010 at the earliest.

The problem as I see it is with the taint of anything Bush. Leaving one of Bush's people in charge means Republicans will claim credit (and thus deny it to Democrats) for everything accomplished in the foreign policy arena during this time period. They'll say, "Obama spent the whole campaign attacking Bush, and then he left one of his key advisers in charge!" You need a clean break.

Obama can slam almost any ex-general into the role and be fine with the Pentagon. That place is an Old Boys club, and likes having a member in charge. Tony McPeak is, I believe, a registered Republican (I specifically remember him campaigning for Bob Dole in 1996). He had the good sense to oppose the Iraq War, and he currently advises Obama. If he won't take the job, there have to be other people out there who will. But we really do need a clean break. It's going to be hard enough to rid the world of the stink of Bush without leaving some of his people in charge.

Cart.Before.Horse.

I'd much more comfortable talking about appointments after Obama secures a victory. Can't let our guard down with another 36 hours left before polls open in most places.

I find talk of Iraq policy to be ludicrous. Our Iraq policy has already been determined. The Iraqi government, will not sign a status of forces agreement, that gives us any freedom of action -except to withdraw. It matters not whether Obama, or McCain is elected, we will be leaving Iraq shortly. Ironically, an Obama administration might have just enough credibility and goodwill in Iraq, that our conditions for leaving may be somewhat better than under McCain. But in any case, it looks like our legal right to conduct military actions in Iraq will expire with the end of the year (while still nominally under Bush).

This has everything to do with appeasing Republicans!!

I can't stand our typical liberal attitude--here we are already handwringing that the military and Republicans won't like us. "Oh noes!! They'll leak stuff!!"

For god's sake. Obama just campaigned for 2 years on a platform of change. CHANGE!! Why would we leave in Bush's man, in one of the most relevant, substantial posts in the Administration? The takeaway message would be that McCain would've done the same thing; therefore, we are simply seeing a continuation of Bush's polices.

Colin Powell would be a decent choice. I'm sure there are some good Democrats with military credentials out there. Do NOT simply assign Bush's man--it will rightfully only invite "third term" snipes and allegations that the "change" message was simply empty hype.

This has everything to do with appeasing Republicans!!

I can't stand our typical liberal attitude--here we are already handwringing that the military and Republicans won't like us. "Oh noes!! They'll leak stuff!!"

For god's sake. Obama just campaigned for 2 years on a platform of change. CHANGE!! Why would we leave in Bush's man, in one of the most relevant, substantial posts in the Administration? The takeaway message would be that McCain would've done the same thing; therefore, we are simply seeing a continuation of Bush's polices.

Colin Powell would be a decent choice. I'm sure there are some good Democrats with military credentials out there. Do NOT simply assign Bush's man--it will rightfully only invite "third term" snipes and allegations that the "change" message was simply empty hype.

Agree 100%.

And it sucks, because I actually like Hagel , thinkhe would be very good, and I'd like Obama to put together a diverse cabinet—BUT, this is the one spot where a Republican is a mistake as you clearly articulate.

Even though he is Republican, leaving Gates in place negates that GOP-strong/Dem-weak angle since he's already in the postion, and it becomes more about continuity.

One strategy Obama should employ to lay the groundwork for the massive changes and deep cuts needed to DOD is to get waste, fraud and abuse investigations going in Congress ala Harry Truman. This should be done with little fanfare until a sufficient number of successful cases are made. This will then allow him to cut with the added justification of ridding the system of waste, fraud and abuse and who's going to come out and defend waste,fraud and abuse? Also, since those problems are so prevalent DOD personnel will be cautious in going after Obama lest they seem to be defending the waste,fraud and abuse. He will risk a reaction for going after them but it will be less than if he just went after them straight out of the gate. It will also allow him to discredit/remove many of the Bush crony's that in DOD.

Elections have consequences.

NO Republicans.

One strategy Obama should employ to lay the groundwork for the massive changes and deep cuts needed to DOD is to get waste, fraud and abuse investigations going in Congress ala Harry Truman. This should be done with little fanfare until a sufficient number of successful cases are made. This will then allow him to cut with the added justification of ridding the system of waste, fraud and abuse and who's going to come out and defend waste,fraud and abuse? Also, since those problems are so prevalent DOD personnel will be cautious in going after Obama lest they seem to be defending the waste,fraud and abuse. He will risk a reaction for going after them but it will be less than if he just went after them straight out of the gate. It will also allow him to discredit/remove many of the Bush cronies that in DOD.

I don't want to see Republicans heading any of the big four departments: State, Defense, Treasury, or Justice. Hagel can head the VA, and if there were any Republicans who could be trusted at Agriculture or Transportation-- I don't think there are, but who knows?-- then I wouldn't scream about it.

Kerry today on MTP telling us why we should vote for Obama was very good right up until he started kissing Brokaw's ass with this bipartisan reach across the isle crap. We are not electing democratic majorities so they can cater to republicans...we are doing it to rid ourselves of republican influences (includes DINOs) that wrecked America in the first place. I posted this earlier at DU;

"When the American public says they are tired of the partisanship they are specifically talking about republicans and their now infamous senate obstructionism.

These are DINOs and they don't speak for the majority of democrats but mostly for Blue Dog dems. Obama needs to have dem majorities in order not to have his goals impeded by the obstructionist republicans and their democratic supporters who have wrecked America.

This Kerry is trying this "cross the isle crap" to ensure an Obama presidency but conditions have set themselves up just like the conditions preceeding FDR and the last thing we need right now are these"economic royalists" who have avoided paying taxes under Bush blocking the necessary reforms to restore our democracy. We are not electing dem majorities so they can cater to republicans. We are electing dem majorities to make sure they EXCLUDE these republican obstructionists and their failed policies which nearly destroyed our economy and caused us to lose our standing in foreign affairs.

I dislike Kerry at times because he's always so quick to kiss ass rather than stand up against the very people who brought on our current disaster. We get nowhere listening to these republicans who would just as quickly throw all dems out of office if given the chance. It's not the truth being divided equally between 2 parties, it's one party with the truth who is bailing the other party out of the mess they created for all of us. Kerry needs someone to sit him down and explain why we are giving the dems these majorities before he goes giving away this advantage so easily so as not to offend anyone. It is time for dems to stand up and make the necessary sweeping changes to get our nation going in the right direction again and restore our democracy and it's constitution. We don't want a "commander-in-chief" which is only necessary in times of war, going around commanding civilians like soldiers...we want a "president" who is working for the benefit of the people he represents and the constitution we live by. It is time for a democratic partisanship to accomplish a progressive agenda the majority of voters are demanding...Universal health care ins(not for profit and single payer hopefully); Peace in the middle east and a world unified against terrorism; energy independence with predominately energy alternatives to oil; a unified determined effort to deal with global warming; and a re-institution of our 4th amendment rights; the return of Habeas corpus, the end of torture and stopping the privatization of our government; education reform with free higher education for those seeking it, jobs, the return of the fairness doctrine, fair taxation and the end of tax breaks for the wealthy etc...it's a huge list...the return of our DoJ and our EPA.

Republicans will try to block every inch of these sweeping changes and that is why we are electing democratic majorities Kerry...not so you can prove how willing you are to compromise against our best interest. So STFU Kerry...you aren't speaking for a majority of dems here."

Obama, I hope, will not try to pacify these jerks by appointing republicans to cabinet positions. We want him to lead away from republican influences to a more progressive government more in line with what the majority of voters want according to the polls...liberal centrists not conservative centrists. It's why we elect a dem majority so get it straight. We've had enough of republican obstructionism and their supporters who only favor the very wealthy.

btw...when republicans are honest and fair then they lean toward democratic ideals (no matter how biased that sounds, it's true). A good, competent sec of defense need not be some staunch republican thug...just look at Wesley Clark. The fact that he might call himself a republican doesn't necessarily mean he acts like the ones we are throwing out of office and proves himself by doing his job without a party agenda just like USA's are supposed to act. This would not work with a rep. sec of state but could work for a repub sec of defense. That position requires familiarity but not a republican frame. Just saying...

I'm not inclined to appoint Republicans, or keep them, in any of the important Cabinet posts.

I do understand the logic of keeping Gates, though, and would be open to considering it. He seems competent and reasonable.

Wouldn't be my ideal choice (that would be someone like Chalmers Johnston, which just ain't in the cards) by a long shot, but certainly on the short list of Dems with military gravitas credentials galore -- Sam Nunn?

Gates staying on for a year or two isn't the worst option in the world -- provided Obama has a solidly Dem Sec. of State and Dir. of National Security.

Hilzoy: "Meteor Blades at dKos ..."

You lost me right there.

After the scurilous smear campaign Daily Kos conducted against the Clintons, I just won't go there anymore. Markos Moulitas is a former Republican and consummate opportunist, and he had no business impugning the Clintons' Democratic credentials like that.

How short is the collective memory.
Gates is the epitome of a rethuglican political hack.
Remember when he was the head of the CIA he kept churning out alarmist Soviet scenarios to justify addled ronny's and Poppa's defense pork barrel even as we saw the Berlin wall crumbling on Television.
How a man who more then any one else in modern history trashed the american intelligence apparatus for short term domestic partisan activity can ever be taken serious shows the weakness of the collective memory and the strength of the reactionary reconstruction machine.
By this standard in 10 years Douglas J. Feith will be considered to be a reasonable appointee to Sec. of Defense. Why not if the man who destroyed the CIA can be reconstructed why not the man who helped father the Iraq invasion.

So, let me get this right. After 8 diastrous years of an administration putting politics over policy, you are suggesting that Obama not appoint any Republican for political reasons? I guess it is a good thing I am a Blue Dog Democrat, so I can disavow you too.

Hilzoy,

I agree with your assessment but for one critical question: what Republican would really want the job under an Obama Administration. Forget for a second that any Obama Administration is guaranteed to be head and shoulders above the current one in terms of competence. Sen. Obama has made it clear that he wants out of Iraq. His timetable is a primary Republican bogeyman. Why would a Republican, who wants any future with the Party, agree to Obama's plan? Wouldn't it mean burning some valuable (financially and professionally) bridges without necessarily building them across the aisle?

Bob

Obama should change the Cabinet position to Secretary of Peace, fire everyone in the Pentagon and every last civilian contractor and slash the misnamed "defense" budget by 75%, if not 90%. We would not be one smidgen less safe as a result.

Fuck the conservatives - there is no bigger waste of taxpayer dollars than the Pentagon!

SecDef? Best option: Hillary Clinton.

Who else could browbeat the Generals into line on "don't ask, don't tell" etc to bring you guys into line with the rest of the Western world? Does anyone think she doesn't have a couple of balls available (probably Bill's, somewhat used but definitely functional).

And a potent way of covering all bases on getting the West out of Iraq: someone who voted originally to go in. Seems good to me...

The Reeking Reagan Republicans can’t stand their own political stench. Watching MSNBC on the tail end of some story in the New York Times about Krugman writing hate editorials. It’s a laugh to get an analysis, especially described by Joe Scar bough Mr. Bias, Mr. Snicker, the snake charmer, Mr. friendly Joe who likes to spread hype and dazzle from all the latest pole news.

Well, everyone on Joe in the morning should have watched C-Span with an author called David Moore. Mr. Moore talked about how Mainstream Media should be ashamed of themselves manipulating data delivered to the electorate.

Ladies and Gentlemen of America it was way interesting. Here again my mind flew open to a few single realities that news networks like MSNBC, CNN, and Fox have made the election a sensation and literally lie at every step of polling news. Any polling data is totally dysfunctional when two primary data are left out. One is the size of the polling sample”WITH” actually how many people sampled rejected the call. Two, a real truthiness is the size of undecided voters are way off and the delivered is a total lie. Or, America that Brady effect actually is buried in the polling numbers. This news networks own these polling business.

What was really funny was a news clip of Joe the plumber surrounded by political activist yelling at Joe to get a license. You likely will not see it again. You know so he could get insurance and be bonded. Work as community professional instead of a local bandit. It strikes me very disappointed that McCain gets a pass with this kind of support for anyone who could readily deliver poor workmanship or worse violate local building codes. As I said before advocating citizenry like this is not that of a maverick it is that of a criminal. Especially Joe in the morning totally avoids this controversy, still now, yet runs clips of Hillary mis-speaking about sniper fire in Bosnia. Why do they do that when Hillary is out of the election.

For me, MSNBC, CNN, and FOX all have their hands in Bush’s secret archives then gets the nod to televise what they want you to know and see. This is the real terror these first line Journalist fear. And the closer Obama gets to the finish line the closer the real transparency our modern media is going to confess. Who was that said its getting Ugly out there, actually its always been ugly in there, those news rooms, and situation is going to get real hot no matter who wins.

All of that militates for appointing someone to the Pentagon whom the building trusts.

So you are saying that in all of America, there is not a aingle Democrat - apart from Jim Webb apparently - whom the Pentagon trusts? That would be depressing, if I thought it were remotely true.

Millions of Obama supporters worked for two years to bring about change in the direction of the nation, and in one area above all: national defense policy. This is one particular area in which Obama certainly does not want to be sending any signals that he has suddenly decided to seek continuity with the Bush administration. He ran on change, and his first moves should let everyone know that change has arrived.

At some point you need to take responsibility for the policies you are proposing, step up, and work to implement them. This new wave of Gates-boosting strikes me as a sudden case of cold feet among a few people who are not sure they want the responsibility they have been asking for. Keeping Gates on would suggest to the world that there is still something frightening or worrisome about Democrats in charge, and so the country needs to be "eased into" a genuinely Democratic administration. I really don't think Obama will follow this advice from Ackerman, Katulis and Soderberg. It's too "chickenshit", as one of our famous opponents would put it.

But the republicans don't really believe in governing!

The biggest problem with a republican SecDef is that most republicans are less than enthusiastic about the very existence of the office. They demonstrably prefer letting the military services do as they wish rather than exercising the full authority of the SecDef under Goldwater-Nichols and other charters. This permits excessive duplication of effort and precludes serious long range "joint" program planning, while preserving an inefficient but politically palatable "fair share" approach to service budgets.

Gates might be OK on Iraq, but the internal tentacles of the Rumsfeld years would likely remain in place for much too long. And, as noted earlier, Iraq will wind down in any case. Time for serious new civilian leadership of the whole Department, if its not too soon!

Very good points. Remember that one of the things that ruined Bill Clinton's "first hundred days" was a conflict over gays in the military. I believe Clinton got crossways with Colin Powell, among others, on that. It's very important that Obama avoid the transition hassles (remember the problems Bill had finding a woman Attorney General!) and first-hundred-day mishaps that damaged Clinton.

Moreover, if Krugman is right in his column today and the Republican Party turns inward and rightward, there may be some moderate Republicans ready to turn their backs on both the Bush-Cheney past and the Palin future. The Democratic Party needs to be in an expansive posture, open to all those who feel their party has left them. For a couple of examples, read Cohen's column in the NYT as well.

By the way, Webb was my VP choice -- and I've been a Zinni fan for years. Hope he has a prominent role in an Obama Presidency.

bjobotts---

Please. Wes Clark ran for president as a Democrat 4 years ago and has devoted his time since then to getting down-ticket Democrats into office. He is NOT a Republican.

brettc---

I think it would be a lot healthier for the country if we actually embraced change, instead of a Clinton empire. Hillary's a smart woman who is no doubt doing some real good in the Senate, but for God's sake there are 532 other congresspeople who are also out there with equal or superior resumes to hers. I'm tired of the way we pick our presidents, etc., because of their celebrity connections to families like Bush and Clinton.

Wes Clark or Jim Webb. Both guys have been in the thick of it- they know the cost. Not like that corporate monkey Rumsfeld or yes- man Gates.

Initially Gates is the SecDef -- there's going to be some overlap if only because the Senate can't approve the next office-holder until it is in session.

When Clinton came into office, he appointed Les Aspin, widely respected for his knowledge of Defense as an institution (in much the same way that Rumsfeld was). I was in the Army at that time, just as I remained in it through the tenure of Rumsfeld.

Aspin was not a good SecDef for the early foreign policy crises of the Clinton administration. Like Rumsfeld, he would have been a fine peacetime SeCDef, but the demands of operational contingencies placed a premium on decisiveness that Aspin lacked.

So let's run this the other way. Who should Obama appoint? This nonsense in several posts on this thread about generals saluting blah-blah-blah betrays a categorical lack of understanding of the institution. Why not say, "Hey, appoint Joe the Plumber to SCOTUS -- I mean, it's not like you actually need to KNOW stuff, right?"

First, generals don't salute the SecDef. Second, a good SecDef has to build alliances inside the Pentagon just as ANY good Secretary in ANY cabinet secretariat needs to build alliances inside.

That's the way we designed the system.

Career civil servants have a myriad of ways they can stymie the directives of an unpopular Secretary -- something we've known at least since the publication in 1974 of Morton Halperin's _Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy_ (Brookings).

So whomever Obama would appoint if he prevailed in the election on Tuesday, it would perforce need to be someone "popular" inside Defense -- and that includes inside the services -- and who would have more at her/his disposal than the formal endowment of power of a Secretary for getting the institution to move (and we recall from Poli Sci 101 that the formal power of a cabinet secretary and even president is often the weakest form of power).

So if not Gates, if not Hagel (who probably doesn't have enough experience in Defense matters in any case), if not then WHO? There is a lot of foreign policy talent on the Democratic bench for State, but I'm hard-pressed to think of much national security talent.

Although that is explained logically and sounds reasonable you first have to forget the facts that lead up to the present.
When you include all the people involved and all the poor judgement, deceit and bogus salesmanship of war, war products and war support products and services and still want honest decisions, none of these individuals has shown the ability to seperate themselves from the war machine itself.
In fact their decisons are not based on the catch phrase terminology or timelines/timeframes continually floating by on the horizon. Their decisons are based on the most devious methods to continue the use and misuse of as many wepons and destructive devices that can be included in as far streched a reality they can convince the masses exists in an endless cycle of sustained military buildup for an imagined media generated, pentagon enhanced, constantly moving uber-ugly-super-bad-guy/group/gang/semi-dark-country.
The point is: anyone connected to this current mess in any way is disqualified. They have already shown they are salesmen/women for the bomb merchants and the residue they leave.
How could anyone expect these semi-people who make a living convincing you that we need more bombs to sacrifice their income to begin the task of ending war?
This is a mental issue.First this must be cured.

catherineD:

I'm from Oz, so from my point of view nominating Hillary as SecDef may be a bit different from how you see it (and so, perhaps, of less import).

It's a bit of an "eff u" perspective, particularly in light of Bill's travails with Powell and co, but also putting someone who has demonstrated skills into a high profile and crucial position. For starters, a woman as SecDef would be a message of change to absoltely everyone, but, perhaps a bit like Thatcher, Hillary would be seen to not be a soft choice. Unlike Dukakis, seeing Hillary riding an M1A1 Abrams would not present any incongruity.

Personally, I'd love to see an American president get through a term without sending troops in anywhere in the world: just for a change, y'know. But I know that for the present, the US needs to display that big stick, and will probably wield it, too.

Hillary, I think, could wield it, and would be someone in whom the rest of the (western) world could have confidence when doing so. At the same time, it's about time there was a de-deification of the military ethos you guys have run with for the last few decades. Which means you need someone who can carry the shit and still show Democratic values: I think Hillary would be someone capable of doing that.

And frankly I'd like to see Obama give her (and other women) really high profile roles. So a role like SecDef seems to me to be a great starting point. Of course, not that I have any great insight, and I'm on the other side of the Pacific anyway, but I do think that a substantial role such as that would really show a willingness to change, to work on merit, and to enter the 21st century.

YMMV

Very convincing, the ideological calls for blood, punish the enemy and all that.

Your man Obama is winning because he attracted moderates, including a good chunk of moderate Republicans to his side. It hardly seems a game winning plan to then spit on moderate Republicans, as represented by Gates. The man has seemed to be quite competent, and in the position one would hope that a technocrat of serious and pragmatic competence would be in place.

Of course it is not surprising the hard Left readership here wants to indulge in its Bolshevik tendencies, which are the most likely to return an unreformed Republican party to power as a backlash to their Bolshevism (not literal Boslhevism of course, only the lunatics in the US could call American Left that, but emotional or behavioural Boslhevism - rather like the behavioural Bolshevism of the American Right in these last years).

I can't say that I agree with any of what's been suggested here, though, since Obama seems to cherish "post-partisan" compromise, it will likely happen in some form. But first in terms of lacking in logic there's this quote -

..................................................
"I find this reasoning completely convincing, especially if Obama and Gates reach an understanding (public or private) that it will be temporary (i.e., for roughly the length of time needed to get out of Iraq.)"
..................................................

I can't see anything that would represent a greater incentive to slow the withdrawal than making someone's job last as long as it continues. Fundamentally not a good idea. It's like giving someone a job to train their replacement.

But there's an even more fundamental flaw in the logic suggested - deference to the military by a Democrat, the exact theme supposedly of concern in terms of Democrats being perceived as weak on defense (defending America) while Republicans are strong. ("I think that the fact that people trust Republicans more on national security is deeply damaging to our country.")

Ackerman was quoted:
..................................................
"Getting out of Iraq requires buy-in from an officer corps that could be fairly described as schizophrenic: it wants out of Iraq at some point, but is acutely sensitive to any perceived slight, particularly from an incoming Democratic administration. False moves from an Obama White House will result in politically damaging leaks."
..................................................

This is a projection of the meme that Democrats should be ass wipes for military types based on the long manufactured theme that Democrats are weak on defense. So Obama and Democrats are supposed to continue with that theme and ass kiss the "officer corps." Ask yourself this question. What's the current "officer corps" like? It's hard core Republican and even Evangelical. Bush and the Republicans have seen to that over the last almost eight years. Any of the "officer corps" that didn't heal click quickly enough to whatever moronic scheme the Bush group cooked up was given the heave ho, with a deep boot dent on their asses. Shinseki? Geez, even Stormin' Norman, who opposed the Iraq war, was told that he better shut the fuck up. And this is the "officer corps" that you want Obama (and America) to defer to because of their early teenager like sensitivities.

One of the biggest mistakes in my view that Clinton made early in his tenure as president was in deferring to Colin Powell's undercutting on gay rights in the military. Powell made a speech against gay rights that was a close mirror to the speeches made decades before by the military brass of the day against equal status for African-Americans in the military. Clinton should have shown Powell the door. But because of the central theme that Democrats must ass kiss the military, Powell wasn't challenged and thereby made even more powerful, to the point of giving us the Iraq war through his disgusting UN speech. He was a political shill then and he still is today and Clinton bended to that Republican will and the suggestion here is that Obama should too.

Where's the "I'm the Commander-in-Chief - the 'supreme' commander of the military ? Never mind the phony Bush theme that he follows the advice of the "commanders on the ground." That was always bullshit. If the ground commander didn't do exactly what Bush and his group wanted, they were gone, instantly. No deference to the military.

You can't break the theme that Democrats are weak on the military by ass kissing a military that has been massively politicized.

Of course challenging the military would require a president going to the people and pointing out how politicized the military has become. I don't think that's in Obama's nature and probably not a fight he wants to try, especially early in his prospective administration. So America will suffer. The military will continue to be heavily extreme conservative Republican with an officer corps that's dedicated to the military-industrial complex and, even more ominously, dedicated to policing activities within the United States. This is a dangerous trend that the Republicans have nurtured. Whose interests do you think this internal spying and policing officer corps will look out for? Republican? Democratic? Little "d" democratic? And this is the group you suggest Obama should be obsequious to.

All this ignores the horrible sense that the military budget is untouchable, even to the point that it must always expand beyond the inflation rate. We've seen with the second term of Bush that the Republicans are creating phantom and real threats throughout the world in an effort to make an expanded military a necessity, especially as compared to "entitlement programs" like Social Security, Medicare and any suggestions of national health care. Why did the U.S. put missiles in Eastern Europe? Of course the stated reason, protection from missiles in Iran, was nonsense. It was to provoke exactly the response Putin's Russia provided, an up tick in the old Cold War sensibilities. So the mega costly Pentagon programs that fought the old wars would not be threatened.

Why is the U.S. now agitating in Pakistan and Syria? Same deal. Generate threats to America where there wasn't one (at least one of any great significance). What if Pakistan should become a failed state? What would be the attitude then about cutting the military budget? It would be untouchable. Saving grandma from starvation isn't a suicide pact, much like observing the constitution - according to Republicans.

Basically your post and the ones you reference say that Obama and the Democrats should not foster the meme that Democrats are weak on defense by appointing a Republican to lead defense. Instead they should leave a Republican there in the leadership position, because Democrats shouldn't challenge the military officer corps - being that they, the Democrats, are perceived to be weak on defense and the politicized officer corps will take a hissy-fit public. Brilliant!

This reasoning is far from "completely convincing", as it is based on the unfounded assumption that Gates himself would not undercut Obama -- doesn't anybody here remember what "bipartisan and responsible" Colin Powell did to Bill Clinton over the issue of gays in the military?

A return to the days of "bipartisan foreign policy" is nothing but a pipe-dream. The essential requirement for a bipartisan foreign policy is not cooperation in the Executive Branch, where senior officials and officers who can't follow orders can be relieved of duty, but rather in Congress. If someone can point me to some sign that the Republicans in Congress want to put country first, OK; from what I've seen since 2006, the Republicans are determined to pin the Democrats with responsibility for the Bush-Cheney Iraq fiasco.

"Reaching across the aisle" only makes sense if the person on the other side is extending his or her hand as well. It's idiotic to offer your hand to someone who is accusing you of "surrender".

Beyond the politics, the officer corps requires a shake-up in any event. The honor of our armed forces and of our country have been stained by Abu Ghraib and any number of other lesser-known stories of the violation of principles under which we have conducted military operations since the time of George Washington. I seriously doubt that Bob Gates can lead the Department of Defense through the comprehensive exercise in accountability that is required.

There is also talk that Obama should keep Paulson. Someone should disabuse him of that nonsense right quick. We cannot have someone unwilling to liquidate Goldman Sachs in this position.

Underneath all of this, unexamined, is something very disturbing about trends in this country. I happen to have lots of relatives in countries where the military is a political player that has to be kept happy. The fact that we are beginning to think the same way here in the USA is extremely disturbing to me. This is a trend that must be nipped in the bud.

Jack Reed is a good candidate. I bet he's on the short list.

Let's not repeat that mistake. I have nothing against hiring Republicans, but what we need are Republicans who --- in the area in which they are serving --- have views that are similar to the president.

That's one reason why I am not convinced, at all, that Gates is a good choice here: yes, he is better than his predecessor, but he's still deeply entrenched in the policy of the present administration when it comes to the military. Change is essential.

Someone should be appointed that is a competent and strong leader that will listen what is coming up from below, filter the wheat from the chaff, provide good input and advice to President Obama, and the turn around an effectively execute the decisions made. There may be Republicans (especially Republicans that have one foot out the door of the present Republican Party) that fit this bill, and Chuck Hagel may be one of them. On the other hand, there are probably plenty of Democrats that fit the bill, and there is no reason to prefer a Republican.

Okay, so I see the CW being peddled here. Recently it was "don't elect a Democratic President *and* Congress", and now it is "just because you won in a big way, doesn't mean that you get to install an actual Cabinet of your choosing".

Here's a novel idea:

Why don't we tell the Republicans and concern trolls to STFU and let Obama and his team choose who *they* think will work best. It's his administration, so he's responsible.

And Lounsbury - since when is appointing your own Cabinet considered "pissing on" the existing Cabinet ? Last time I checked, most new Presidents clean house and put in their own team. There's nothing personal about that at all, and your suggestion that it is just goes to show what a partisan hack you are.

With huge deficits and a need for effective economic stimulus, we need to cut the Pentagon budget *a lot*, starting right away. Under Clinton in 97-99, a budget of roughly $300B was enough to give us global military dominance. And now it's around $600B. We should start cutting right away, cut back down to $300B/year, and then probably keep on cutting.

If Gates will sign on to that kind of plan, then fine. If not, then pick someone who will.

As for keeping the uniformed military happy, that's just not going to happen in this environment. It's too damn expensive. We should give good benefits to the grunts - a better GI Bill, a good VA; but we should cut the budgets drastically and scrap the vastly expensive high-tech weapons procurement programs. And that's going to make the generals and admirals unhappy. Tough. If it saves us $300B/year then making a few brasshats unhappy is a damn good bargain.

If Obama really wants to appoint a Republican to emphasize his "reach across the aisle" message, he could appoint Hegel, a Vietnam vet, to run Veterans Affairs. But I agree that Republicans should not get a major foreign policy or security position, as this only reinforces the meme that Democrats can't be trusted in those areas.