They shouldn't replace the undersecretary for Intelligence, they should get rid of the job. It exists purely to insulate the Defense Support Agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO) from the control of the Director of National Intelligence. If you buy the idea of having an DNI with any real power, then you don't want this position at DoD to exist.

Anyone who carries even a remote scent of Cheney or Rumsfeld needs to go. It looks like this is happening, so good. It makes sense anyway, with Gates clearly a transition figure, that the deputies and undersecretaries would change, with one of them able to move into the top job.

Probably of minor significance, but:

"Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, Gates's right-hand man in running the Pentagon day to day, is widely expected to leave his post, said the officials, one of whom noted that England's speechwriter is reportedly taking another job."

One of Gate's subordinates has his own speechwriter? And this is a full time job? Why? Can't they at least have a pool of speechwriters and share them? How many speeches does this guy England have to give in the process of doing his job? And the Republicans complain about a bloated government ... this is bloat from what I can see. How wide spread is this practice? The job market for speechwrites in DC must be fantastic.

Sorry ... there are so many more important issues to care about and I go get stuck on this bit of trivia. It just bothers me.

Chris Bowers apparently said:

If Gates were kept on as Secretary of Defense, it apparently would also mean that all of his top advisors would also stay on.

And again I ask: what on earth is the basis for this claim by Bowers? It seems to be pretty plainly untrue, by all indications. Yet another reason to ignore Chris Bowers.

Bowers is a very very good poll reader and numbers guy. He is good on the meta of progressive policies and the blogosphere. And apparently he is a decent committeeman in Philly cuz no one has tried to topple him yet.

But beyond that he is just as good as anyone else.

Keeping Gates might help difuse some of the flak thats bound to pop up whan all hell breaks loose in Iraq and Afganistan.

Keeping on Gates should be viewed from the perspective of known enemies and potential challengers of US foreign policy. If Obama appears to be too much a neophyte or a dove, it would likely provoke more tests by such enemies, esp Al Qaida and governments like North Korea.

Behind such a seasoned team as he's assembled, such symbolism isn't required. Competence is. So the underlings of Gates have to be assumed competent unless their past or future record proves otherwise.

So I consider further speculation beyond these parameters to be meaningless. Continuity in foreign policy appearance is important. But in domestic policy, change should be apparent everywhere, where perceived weakness won't provoke attacks.