Why Obama kept Gates

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Maybe because, as a Republican-leaning independent and Bush appointee, he can speak with trans-partisan credibility on military matters -- or, rather, because, being who he is, he is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as having such credibility.

So when he says, as he did yesterday, that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities wouldn't work, that such a strike would be counter-productive, that it could make it more difficult to monitor Iran's nuclear ambitions without actually stopping them, well, it's a bit different than when a less hawkish type makes the same argument, that is, when a Democrat does.

There were other reasons to keep him on board as SecDef, of course, including continuity and stability at the Pentagon in a time of war, and I tend to agree that there is something to be said for having a Bush appointee in place for key military reforms, withdrawal from Iraq, and possible ramping up in Afghanistan (and Pakistan, with the drone war underway), though I myself never quite bought into them. Obama won. He should have appointed a new face for a new time -- not more of the same, but genuine change.

And, too, it's not like he's the only one who can make the case against military action against Iran. His point was a pretty obvious one, after all. Many, many, many of us have been saying for a long, long, long time that military action wouldn't achieve its purported objectives. And, as for Gates's credibility, well, does he have any anymore with Republicans? Hardly. He's an Obama man now, and the warmongerers of the right, the nattering nabobs of neoconservatism, won't be swayed one way or the other by what he has to say, and especially when he speaks out against their bloodthirsty ambitions.

Still, take it for what it was, which was the right and honest thing to say. At the very least, whether he belongs at the Pentagon or not, this is one Bush appointee who isn't a Cheney clone.