You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
A Closer Look At Robert Gates
2006-11-09
When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stepped down Wednesday, President Bush nominated a close friend of his family who is a decorated former CIA agent and director as a replacement. "Don Rumsfeld is a tough act to follow," President Bush said. "That's why i picked a man of Bob Gates' caliber."

At an earlier press conference announcing Rumsfeld's announcement, Mr. Bush said: "Bob Gates will bring a fresh perspective and great managerial experience." But Gates, 63, is no stranger to insider Washington. Gates joined the CIA in 1966 and is the only agency employee to rise from an entry-level job to the seventh-floor director's office. He served in the intelligence community for more than a quarter-century under six presidents.

Gates was so respected among administration officials that he was asked in 2005 to take the position of Intelligence Czar. But Gates, who had been serving as president of Texas A&M University, declined the offer, saying he "had nothing to look forward to in D.C. and plenty to look forward to at A&M."

That sentiment apparently changed after Gates met with President Bush about the job over the weekend at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Wednesday afternoon, Gates told the media the military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan provided him motivation enough to step away from the Ivory Tower and prepare to move back into the beltway. "I believe the outcome of these conflicts will shape our world for decades to come," and because American women and men are engaged in conflict currently, Gates said he "did not hesitate when the president asked me to return to duty."
Posted by:Fred

#22  Quack Quack
Posted by: George W Bush   2006-11-09 14:08  

#21  and anyways the Virginian is on

I hope it's a marathon.
Posted by: Thoth   2006-11-09 14:50  

#20  Just dropped by to say hi everybody

I would love to stay and discus bob, but alas I feel like watching the box, and anyways the Virginian is on

See ya
Posted by: Hibjobol Abjub   2006-11-09 14:45  

#19  re: NS & #8: re-up rates will tank. about the only ones staying will be those that are real close ( like 1 tour) to retiring and those that can't hack it on the outside. fortunately for the Navy anyway, there are high year limits on paygrades, so those will get flushed, but in the meantime those that CAN hack it are out and in the private sector. And that will mean a leadership issue down the road (like in 2009 and beyond)
Posted by: USN, ret.   2006-11-09 13:53  

#18  Spooks at DoD

Frank Carlucci, Deputy Director CIA

James Schlesinger, DCI for six months

Bobby Ray Inman, DNI, Vice Director, DIA, Director, NSA, DCI was nominated by Clinton to be SecDef. He withdrew his nomination from consideration after revealing that there was a conspiracy led by Bill Safire and Bob Dole to attack his character in the confirmation hearings.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-11-09 12:57  

#17  SW: Let me be a heretic for a moment:

I don't believe it's unthinkable. Iraq isn't Vietnam. North Vietnam had a several hundred thousand strong conventional army waiting across the border. Iraqi Sunnis don't have that kind of invasion force ready. If we left Iraq today, the Shiites would take more casualties and inflict fewer ones on the Sunnis. But they'd eventually win. (After all, they have the machinery of an entire country working for them, and the Sunnis do not). They want us to stay because they want free stuff and - let's face it - it's better, from a Shiite standpoint, that an American dies fighting Sunnis than an Iraqi Shiite do so.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2006-11-09 12:17  

#16  No heresy at all...I've heard much the same batted around the 'Burg and elsewhere. Makes sense actually.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2006-11-09 12:14  

#15  Let me be a heretic for a moment:

We need to disengage from Iraq so that we can deal with Iran and North Korea.

There. I said it.

We went to Iraq to remove Saddam who was a threat to us, WMD or no. He's a genocidal monster and it's good we got rid of him. Hope he swings.

We stayed in Iraq to help the people rebuild their country. We seriously underestimated the difficulty of that but we've stuck it out, and good for us in doing so. Some say we should have left right away and let the Iraqis sort it all out, but that would have to either Saddam-lite or a Shi'a-Sunni bloodbath -- or both.

But we have to keep our eyes on the main prize, and if I fault Rumsfeld for anything big (and I'm not smart enough to pick out and cite the small stuff), it's that he allowed himself to be boxed in by Iraq. We've not been able to plan for Iran and North Korea because of this and it shows.

Yeah, yeah, we have a big military, but planning new major operations involves more than moving pieces around the board. It's perception, strategic planning and diplomacy, and Bush, Rummy and Rice have allowed Iraq to paralyze their strategic thinking.

The Iraqis are closer to standing on their own. It's by no means perfect, and I still fear the consequences of an early withdrawal.

But Gates would well change the mind-set in our own strategic thinking by sending the signal, to our own military, our diplomats, and to the Iraqis, that we're wrapping up business in Iraq 'cause we have things to do elsewhere.

There, I'm done with my heresy. For today.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-11-09 12:04  

#14  This signals that we're moving into endgame mode. Baker will be doing the backroom diplospeak thing to get the Iraqis to realise that it's time to shat or get of the pot, cause we are winding down but I don't expect us to be in any hurry. Interesting timing on the Al Douri message to the Baathist thugs to cease and desist but
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2006-11-09 12:00  

#13  "John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State and spook."

JohnQC, What about US Secretary of Defense? Sorry, I'm alittle lazy today and thought somone at RB might know off the top of their head.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2006-11-09 11:45  

#12  2008 doesn't look good. Not much talent warming up in the bullpen. The best and brightest don't enter politics.
Posted by: ed   2006-11-09 11:38  

#11  Another close friend of the Bush family...oh, fucking NO !
Never another Bush, never again !
I now believe Bush should resign and let Cheney get a handle on things while training up a new staff of tomorrows presidential material.
At this point, 2009 couldn't come fast enough.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-11-09 11:35  

#10  Maybe Allen Dulles was the spook come to think of it.
Posted by: JohnQC   2006-11-09 11:24  

#9  John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State and spook.
Posted by: JohnQC   2006-11-09 11:23  

#8  It will be interesting to see what happens to re-enlistment rates.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-11-09 10:24  

#7  Is Gates the first spook to be named US Secretary of Defense? If so, given the history of financial turf battles and the often acrimonious relationship between the intelligence community and the DoD, this might be a signal of things to come.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2006-11-09 10:18  

#6  Don't get me wrong, I think a cut and run approach is a lousy choice. It will come back to bite us untold times.
Posted by: JohnQC   2006-11-09 10:07  

#5  Their optimum choice is to use Pelosi as a cover to withdraw and pin any resulting massacres on the Dems.

Good that it would work that way but the Dhimmis are good at the blame game too. They will turn up the propaganda machine. The MSM will be a willing accomplice.
Posted by: JohnQC   2006-11-09 10:05  

#4  Bush has given up the fight. Gates isn't leading the DoD to fight, but to disengage. He is a member of Baker's Iraq Study Group where victory is a dirty word. Their optimum choice is to use Pelosi as a cover to withdraw and pin any resulting massacres on the Dems. Beltway politics as usual.
Posted by: ed   2006-11-09 08:59  

#3  It is readable, and he's right. The other big question is whether Gates is there to fight the war or wind it up at any cost. If the latter, the Republicans won't see the inside of the White House for 8 years except as visitors.
Posted by: Jonathan   2006-11-09 07:04  

#2  Huh...the coffee's working JM.
That's almost readable.
Posted by: Skidmark   2006-11-09 06:27  

#1  Personally, I'm not convinced Dubya is finis' wid Rummy just yet. The DemoLeft wants the USA under OWG and to increase Gummermint at home whilst weakening Amer overseas for same > means 2007 is gonna be crucial, decisive year for both America's foreign policies + Radical Islam's!? IMO, the Dems response to intensified Spetzlamist violence in the ME + beyond, poten even within America itself, will determine 2008.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-11-09 01:29  

00:00