Why We Need a Pro-Poverty Secretary of the Treasury
I can’t possibly wrap my mind around this enough for a long diatribe, but I would like to submit my nomination for one of the most idiotic things I’ve read in an already silly season.
Anti-war camp wants Gates out
Arms control advocates and anti-war activists are ratcheting up pressure on President-elect Barack Obama to dump Defense Secretary Robert Gates and replace him with a more strident anti-war voice.
I’ll need the help of some readers here, please. Don’t believe your own lying eyes from my quoted text… click through the link provided and come back here to tell me if I read that correctly. Did someone capable of operating a keyboard actually rise up on their hind legs and peck out the phrase, “a more strident anti-war voice” to be the Secretary of Defense?
You can be an anti-war president. That’s fine. But if you’re going to go to the trouble of paying somebody to be the Secretary of Defense (who, incidentally, was actually called the Secretary of War in olden days) wouldn’t you want someone who was actually versed in the ways of war and ready to carry out that duty just in case you changed your mind later?
Ok. That’s enough. I’m going to go bang my head on the wall now. Wake me when it’s over.
7 Responses to “Why We Need a Pro-Poverty Secretary of the Treasury”
Yeah, there are wingnuts on both wings. Gates is a good guy, and he's been a breath of fresh air after Rummy. Honestly, it seems occasionally as if we might end up singing “Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss.” Could this be an early test of Obama's ability to stand up to the extremes, as Bush failed to do?
I don't think that anti-war necessarily means anti-military, just anti-militaristic. I've long thought that anti-war people should become career military (obviously not pacifists but there are few of those) to have a better balance…it would not only help us from getting into needless wars, but help us fight better.
Human rights advocates have helped craft the most recent counterinsurgency manual and even though they got a lot of flack, it seems that there have been less innocent casualties and in the long run has been a part of our tactical successes in Iraq. It's very hard to get the military to maintain their orders on engagement because it does add obvious risk to patrols and I can't imagine what it must be like to have to refrain from engaging someone you “know” is a combatant just because they aren't in the process of trying to kill you just yet…while reductions in violence from not killing innocents is abstract and hard to measure.
So yeah, if strong anti-war patriots joined the military to get a first hand view and get a better balance then that would be great…and a lot of the biggest anti-war voices are veterans. Andrew Bacevich is someone I'd definitely say is “anti-war” and he was a highly respected officer. Even Colin Powell is operationally anti-war if you read his doctrine.
But back to the post, the military has been an “anti-war” voice the past 6 years. A lot of them didn't want to go into Iraq, even more didn't want to stay and try to occupy, and Gates almost singlehandedly stopped all talk of an attack on Iran. So I don't really get what they are talking about because if Gates hadn't been in that position things might have been really bad.
Sure, why not? If Bush can let the oil and mining industries run the Environmental Protection Agency then why can't there be a anti-war Sec. of Defense?
Actually I agree with mikkel. I would want someone skilled in the military who is against war as much as possible. There are lots of people like that, though most are not qualified- but it's not an odd combination. In fact I think it SHOULD be someone who served in the military and wants to defend our country, but has seen the horror of war first hand and knows its effects. So they are anti-war, but not against all wars and not against defending our country.
I remember watching an old movie (from the 60's, I think) and there were two countries at odds with one another in it. Well when one of them threatened war everyone became very serious and concerned and said that we should never go to war unless it was absolutely necessary. Nowadays we talk about going to war like we toss out four letter words. I'd like our leaders to show more respect for war and only declare war when necessary. By the way, I don't think Bush has ever formally declared war on Iraq…. yet we invaded their country and overthrew their dictator.
But I don't want someone so anti-war that they would not defend our country. Our country was born of war and revolution and only when necessary our country should protect itself by war. We should not be in the business of going to war with another country just because we don't like the way they look or they have resources we want. I am totally against overthrowing governments just so we can establish democracies. But I am all for encouraging countries to develop democratic institutions and giving the citizens of other countries support towards democracy once those citizens have determined that they want to overthrow some oppressive regime (much like the Founding Fathers needed other countries' help in fighting the British during our own revolution.
Guys – the Secretary of Defense does not decide to take us to war or not. That is the President, VP, Secretary of State and Congress. The SecDef's job is to make sure if we are called to conflict, that we can as a country perform the required duties. You need someone who understands military organizations and politics, and how to work with Congress.
You really need to look no further than Gates vs. Rumsfeld to see the difference between a good and bad SecDef. Gates is probably one of the top 2 or 3 in the history of the country, regardless of your party affiliation. If ever there was an example of a man who puts country ahead of party and personal goals, it is Gates.
The last declaration of war was WWII.
Austin, I understand the Sec. of Defense does not make the decision to go to war. But he does influence the president's decision.
The Secretary of Defense is by definition, responsible for the overall supervision of each defense agency and DOD field activity. He is a manager whose primary function is to manage our national defense through program and budget review, ensure combat readiness, review security agencies, review combat support capabilities, and review actions and limitations. he is ultimately responsible for the national defense through intelligence gathering, war planning, and the execution thereof, and reports this all to the President. It is probably the most demanding and arguably the most important position in our society. Experience is the key. His primary function is not one of chief diplomat, his job is to provide leverage for diplomacy, defend our boarders as well as national and international interests, and to provide a combat ready force if required by the President or at the urging of the Congress. Bottom line, he is the manager of the defense of our freedom. Through technology, we now execute war differently from even as recently as 17 years ago. We need a Secretary of Defense (Gates is excellent) who has a profound understanding of this as well as the challenges we as a nation, face. Gone are the days where a large conventional military rules and troops were a commodity. We now use special forces troops as force multipliers. Special Forces have long been the bastard children of the military who were jealously seen as budget draining prima donnas. If Gates is replaced, it should be by an experienced commander who previously led a Special Forces detachment and has a true understanding of the dynamics, pettiness, and jealousies within the military community. A retired Rear Admiral is just not going to cut it here.