Rand Paul keeps 'em laughin'

By Richard K. Barry

Sen. Rand Paul was in Iowa on Friday to deliver a speech at the Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner in Cedar Rapids. Apparently Iowa has something do to with securing a party's nomination for the presidency, or perhaps Paul just likes the weather in the Hawkeye State this time of year.

Chris Cillizza notes that the The Washington Post currently rates him as "the third most likely candidate to wind up as the GOP’s presidential nominee."    

Part of the speech was used to mock former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were killed, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. 

NBC Politics writes:

Speaking at the Iowa GOP’s annual Lincoln Dinner, Paul questioned the initial response to the attacks and asked, "First question to Hillary Clinton: Where in the hell were the Marines?"

"It was inexcusable, it was a dereliction of duty, and it should preclude her from holding higher office," the Kentucky Republican added to loud applause.

They also say this:

Paul's speech doubled at times as a comedy scene, as he seemed at ease before the crowd, stepping away from the podium, microphone in hand, to project a casual demeanor. He rattled off jokes about absurd pork-barrel projects, recalling the campaign style of Arizona Sen. John McCain as he ran for president in 2008.

As a matter of style, I am not sure I would choose McCain's approach, given how that worked out. I am also uncertain that this kind of smart ass attitude is likely to work with American voters. "Funny" works, "smarmy,"  not so much. I'm sure it amuses the already committed, but whether it broadens the base, I don't know. 

Not that reality impresses Republicans, but, as an added bonus, the second clip is an interview with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who sees much of the Benghazi criticism as based on a "cartoonish" view of military capability. 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From the cheap seats

By Mustang Bobby

Former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu is an odious has-been who got bounced out of his job as George H.W. Bush's chief of staff for misusing government planes and generally being a prick. (Irony of ironies, it was George W. Bush who told him to take a hike.) Now he's back as a surrogate for Mitt Romney and proving that the passage of time has not taught him anything about humility or second-guessing other people:

Mitt Romney campaign co-chair and former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu accused President Obama of waiting too long to order the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, in an interview with the New York Times that was published on Saturday.

Sununu said that Obama was "timid," could have gone after the terrorist mastermind sooner, and attributed the successful operation to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

The president is trying to take credit for following the strategy and the tactics put into place by George W. Bush. At some point the president is going to have to explain why he was timid on the first two or three opportunities that we had. Thank goodness Hillary Clinton was there was to convince him to do the right thing. [...] His trying to take credit for having been decisive belies the fact that he wasn't decisive until pressed by others. 

But former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served in both the Bush and Obama administrations, described Obama's decision to order the raid that killed Osama bin Laden "gutsy," saying that “people don't realize" what a tough call it was and not everyone would have made the same call. Vice President Biden and Gates both advised Obama against taking the course he chose on the bin Laden raid, noting that "There wasn't any direct evidence that he was there. It was all circumstantial."

Once an sphincter, always a sphincter.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Photo of the Day: The Obama team and the Osama bin Laden mission

By Michael J.W. Stickings

An iconic photo currently making the rounds:

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. Seated, from left, are: Brigadier General Marshall B. “Brad” Webb, Assistant Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command; Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Standing, from left, are: Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; National Security Advisor Tom Donilon; Chief of Staff Bill Daley; Tony Binken, National Security Advisor to the Vice President; Audrey Tomason Director for Counterterrorism; John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Please note: a classified document seen in this photograph has been obscured. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Robert Gates: The Bravest Person in Washington?

By Peter Henne

Like many inside the Beltway, I gasped this morning as I read the front page of The Washington Post. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has announced plans to cut "thousands" of positions in the DoD, including numerous contractor jobs and the entire Joint Forces Command. One of the few constants in this region is the defense industry; the expanding federal government resulted in numerous firms specializing in government contracts, especially in defense and intelligence. I suspect that many people in this area--including those who loudly denounce US military spending--secretly assure themselves that, if all else failed, there would still be a contractor's job waiting for them.

I am of mixed feelings about this. As someone who has worked with this industry, I know that government contractors perform valuable services for the government, and make up for shortcomings in the federal hiring process. Also, the Joint Forces Command plays an integral role in ensuring the military services work well together. At the same time, the government has become dependent on private contractors to an extent likely unintended by anyone, and a great amount of money can be saved by stream-lining DoD offices.

I do hope, though, that Gates' brave move--doing what he thinks is right for the country--means Congress will no longer be able to play politics with our defense budget. Previous attempts to focus defense spending on critical items have been stymied by Congressional opposition, as seen in the fight over the F-22 fighter. And Republican Senators have placed holds on crucial Presidential appointees in order to ensure defense contracts are steered towards their states, holds which were withdrawn when the public realized what was happening. With the Senate apparently mired in dysfunction, letting the bureaucrats make decisions like this may ironically be more democratic than letting Senators use our national security to enhance their electoral prospects.

That is not to say politicians will--or should--leave Gates alone. Unfortunately, VA Governor Bob McDonnell and Representative J. Randy Forbes--both Republicans--somehow found a way to blame Obama's domestic policies. But people do get worried when their jobs are threatened; communities have a right to question whether the economic impact of these cuts are worth the savings in federal spending. I can only hope that Gates' initiative will lead to a real debate in this country about defense spending, not more cynical political posturing.

Robert Gates is in the House!

By J. Thomas Duffy

This particular monster can read minds, you see. He knows every thought, he can feel every emotion. Oh yes, I did forget something, didn't I? I forgot to introduce you to the monster. This is the monster. His name is Anthony Fremont. He's six years old, with a cute little-boy face and blue, guileless eyes. But when those eyes look at you, you'd better start thinking happy thoughts, because the mind behind them is absolutely in charge.

It's a Good Life (The Twilight Zone)

No doubt, military-industrial contractors, around the country, will spend the night attempting to summoning Anthony, from the Twilight Zone, pleading with him to wish Secretary of Defense Robert Gates into the cornfield.

Look at all the bad things he's saying, they'll tell Anthony.

Doesn't that make Anthony angry, they ask Anthony, in-between whispers to wish Gates into the cornfield.

Then, they'll down their second/third/fourth martini.

Robert Gates was in the house!

Robert Gates ... In the mother-fucking house!



Speaking at the Eisenhower Library in Abilene, Kan., on the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, Gates let those contractors know;

Robert Gates is in the mother-fucking house!

“Eisenhower was wary of seeing his beloved republic turn into a muscle-bound, garrison state—militarily strong, but economically stagnant and strategically insolvent,” Gates said.

Gates acknowledged that saving money in the defense budget “will mean overcoming steep institutional and political challenges, many lying outside the five walls of the Pentagon.”

Apart from making the case against the alternate engine for the F-35 and more C-17s, Gates raised the alarm over Congress’s resistance to increasing the premiums and co-pays on the military’s health insurance. The Pentagon has attempted in the last several years to make modest increases to the co-pays and premiums in order to bring the health care costs under control, Gates said.

“Leaving aside the sacred obligation we have to America’s wounded warriors, healthcare costs are eating the Defense Department alive, rising from $19 billion a decade ago to $50 billion—roughly the entire foreign affairs and assistance budget of the State Department,” Gates said.

In case tightening collars denied oxygen to their brains, and the contractors were gasping for air;

“Another category ripe for scrutiny should be overhead,” he said. “According to an estimate by the Defense Business Board, overhead, broadly defined, makes up roughly 40 percent of the Department’s budget.”

Gates said the Pentagon’s approach to coming up with the requirements for specific programs and contract must change. Requirements for weapons systems should be based on a “wider real world context,” he said.

And, not to be overlooked, Gates threw down against the Congress;

“For example, should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings, when America’s military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds?” Gates asked in a reference to the congressional push to buy more Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets.

“Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners? Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?”

Here that Congress?

Robert Gates is in the mother-fucking house!

Libby Spencer, over on The Impolitic, knows that Robert Gates is in the mother-fucking house.

I've been thinking about this for the last few months. It's good to see DefSec Gates address wasteful military spending. He takes on all the sacred cows inside the Pentagon including medical benefits and so-called overhead, but I think the big money is in unnecessary equipment.

John Nichols, over on The Nation, knows Robert Gates is in the mother-fucking house;

The question, of course, is whether members of House and Senate -- Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals -- are prepared to recognize that real world context and operate within it.

The fact of the matter is that no discussion of cutting spending, balancing budgets and reducing deficits is serious if it does not include a discussion of how to cut Pentagon waste and abuse.

The Secretary of Defense is ready for that discussion.

Hear that military-industrial contractors?

Hear that Congress?

And Anthony, you ain't got a cornfield big enough, cuz....

Robert Gates is in the mother-fucking house!




(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

The end of DADT? Apparently not. Yet.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent reports what, at first glance, seems to be promising news:

In a major victory for opponents of the military's ban on open homosexual service, Defense Secretary Robert Gates significantly revised how the Pentagon will implement the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, effectively making it difficult to remove a soldier, sailor, airman or marine who does not out himself or herself as gay.

Gates said the changes, endorsed by Joint Chiefs of Staff and vetted by the Pentagon's top lawyer, would add "a greater measure of common sense and common decency" for service members negatively impacted by the law.

It's a start, perhaps, but it's not nearly good enough. After all, the new policy does not effectively end DADT. While it places serious restrictions on the process, servicemen and -women can still be discharged for being gay.

As Keori explains at Pam Spaulding's place, "this is a compromise intended to shut down forward movement on repeal of the ban on LGBT servicemembers. We did this dance in 1993, and based on the actions we've seen recently from the White House, I don't believe for one second that there is any real impetus to repeal the ban.

But we'll see.

At HuffPo, Nathaniel Frank is more optimistic:

In announcing today that it would make it harder to fire gay troops under existing policy, the Pentagon took a major step towards ending DADT. While the President and Pentagon could have gone further, for instance by halting all discharges by executive order or allowing only two-star generals to initiate a discharge (instead the level was set at one-star), the policy is also a federal law, and so the Pentagon is ultimately limited in what it can do to relax the ban.

Today's news marks an admirable first step which could have a real impact on the lives of service members, while leaving much work to be done to ensure full repeal. Most important, the revisions under what's being called the "Obama Rule" are a recognition by the military that openly gay service does not disrupt the force. The military would not have agreed to soften the gay ban (just as it did not agree in 1993) if its leadership truly believed it would harm readiness -- and Secretary Gates said today that the new regulations were created with the "unanimous" support of all the Service Chiefs, even though some have been grumbling about repeal.

It's time, long past time, for Obama and the Democrats to do what needs to be done to put a formal end to this bigotry.

Repeal DADT. For good.

A sign of sanity

By Carl

If you're in the middle of an economic crisis and your own people are hurting and there's no one on the horizon who has anything close to the military hardware you have, then you can afford to let upgrades die:

The Senate voted Tuesday to kill the nation's premier fighter jet program, embracing by a 58-40 margin the argument of President Obama and his top military advisers that the F-22 is no longer needed for the nation's defense and a costly drag on the Pentagon's budget in an era of small wars and growing counterinsurgency efforts.

[...] (Defense Secretary Robert) Gates had depicted the F-22, which was conceived in the 1980s, as a "silver bullet solution" to a high-technology aerial warfare threat that has not materialized. He said other warplanes will adequately defend the country for decades to come, and won support from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Air Force's two senior leaders. But his view was strongly opposed by others in the Air Force and by military contractors and unions that have benefited from the $65 billion program.

A hearty "Amen" to this!

Defense spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product is roughly 20% of the United States budgets in a typical year. I say "typical," because of the outlying domestic stimulus spending this year, which will dwarf defense spending (and watch the right-wing whackjobs now claim "it's such a small number!").

We nearly spend more each year on defense than every other nation on the planet. Combined. Re-read that and think about the implications.

Military power is closely aligned with spending, so that means that if we had to defend our soil against every other country on the planet, right down to Lichtenstein, San Marino and Palau, it would be a fair fight!

The war of the future as it stands right now will be fought using mobile and surgical tactics, smaller forces deployed in smaller areas targeting smaller objectives. That may change, but right now, there is no one on the horizon who can create such a widespread war as to justify the waste of money on a fighter of this caliber.

Except maybe, um, us. And we nearly did cause a war of that magnitude. The lessons of history will probably be written that America came closer to the brink of starting World War III in this generation than any nation ever did. if the start of World War I is any indication, it would not take much of a spark to light the powder keg that Bush in concert with Al Qaeda compiled.

And if history's course is any determinant, aggressors get theirs in the end, usually in swift and painful fashion. It would not have been pretty.

We should applaud Secretary Gates as well as the Senate for having the courage to not take us one step closer to annihilation, militarily as well as economically.


(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

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.

DoD numbers on personnel spending

By Jim Arkedis

SecDef Gates has begun the difficult process of trying to get the military to spend a bit more sensibly. Thus far, the focus has been on weapons systems. But here's the other side of the equation - personnel.

Here are some 2009 numbers to mull, taken straight from DoD's comptroller:

$128.56 billion - total military pay to active duty personnel

$ 70.8 billion - military benefits, including retirement pay

$ 24.76 billion - expenditure on DoD health services

$ 3.35 billion - expenditure on military family housing

That's 36% of a $637 billion total DoD budget.

There are approximately 1.44 million soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on active duty right now. With a little round math, that means we're spending at least $167,800 each... and that doesn't even count training costs (which I haven't found yet).

I think it's right to engage in a serious conversation about weapons spending - we need it. But this stuff has to be brought into the conversation as well. Manpower is the military's most important asset and we'll continue to pay for it. But are there ways to reward our personnel - particularly in a time of war - and do so in a fiscally responsible manner? I don't know just yet. It's a political time-bomb, too - how does any Commander-in-Chief (particularly a Democrat) say he wants to restructure military pay without making himself vulnerable?

(Cross-posted to AllOurMight.)

Don't ask, don't tell, the Pentagon is just too busy to deal with its own bigotry

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to SecDef Gates, the Pentagon is just too busy to do anything about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that discriminates against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. He and Obama, after all, have "a lot on [their] plates" at the moment.

Bullshit. It's not that Gates is too busy, it's that he doesn't want to deal with it. As Yglesias puts it, "a full plate is no excuse for discrimination."

There will always be a lot on his plate -- "Gates could just decide that with as much on his plate as he has at the moment, he'll make sure we stop persecuting them.

And if he won't, shouldn't his boss step in and overturn such blatant discrimination? Or will he, like Gates, continue to enable bigotry?

Just wait until next year...

By Jim Arkedis

Jim Arkedis runs the All Our Might blog at the Progressive Policy Institute.

There's a ton of hemming and hawing out there about DoD's budget. Spencer Ackerman jabs that a $3-billion cut in procurement this year isn't "change" we can believe in. Elder statesman Anthony Cordesman is really ticked off.

And they are right to demand action. I am as concerned as anyone that the very same entrenched interests will win out in the end. I really got my back up last week when Congress gifted the Navy a multi-billion-dollar ship that the Navy specifically said it didn't need. And when contractors are casting weapons systems as federal jobs programs, the political will to actually do something about it diminishes a little more.

Suffice it to say that the Pentagon's budget is like an aircraft carrier. No, you can't do the hibitty-dibitty on the budget's smoking deck at 4 am like you would aboard the Nimitz. Rather, it takes a looooong time to turn this beast around. This year's DoD budget was essentially a warning shot from the services across the White House's bow -- the Chiefs are willing to fight for every bell and whistle imaginable; so now it's up to the Obama folks to stare 'em down.

So consider Secretary Gates officially on the clock. He's been talking a good game, but, like Cordesman says, "there are no good intentions, only successful actions." He's got to put the money where his mouth is... Or is that "take the money away from where his mouth is"? I digress.

That's why if there's real reform in how we spend money in the DoD, we'll know Gates's mettle by next year's budget (FY11). By then he'll have had the Quadrennial Defense Review -- due this year -- to use as political cover. Its chief author and overlord, Michele Flournoy, has the expertise and inclination to give it some teeth by, oh, say, actually linking strategy to execution to procurement.

But if there isn't much of a change by then, the lack of action would be indicative of too much traditional thinking. At which point we should welcome Bob Gates's retirement to Montana.

(Cross-posted from All Our Might.)

Assessing the human cost of the war in Afghanistan

By Sarah Holewinski

Sarah Holewinski is the Executive Director of CIVIC (Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict), a non-political organization working with warring parties to help civilians they have harmed in combat. This is her first contribution to The Reaction.

If the U.S. wants to turn around the situation in Afghanistan, it has to start winning the people. My organization – CIVIC – spent a year on the ground learning that the international coalition is losing them. The United Nations reports that 2,118 civilians died in the Afghan war last year, a 40 percent increase over 2007 and the highest number since the Taliban's ouster in 2001.

What the numbers don't tell us is how bad life really is for the Afghans left behind – the widows with no income, the children without parents, the families whose homes are rubble. Many of these war survivors never receive an apology or the help they want and deserve; those who do told us it was too little, too late. The overlooked are angry.

One man told us, "People believe ISAF [NATO's International Security Assistance Force] just pours salt in the wound, because of how they acted. People are angry because no representative from ISAF came to see what happened, or to apologize that it was a mistake." He watched 47 of his extended relatives and community members killed in a U.S. airstrike in July 2008. While Americans went to the polls in November to elect President Obama, more Afghans were burying loved ones killed in another US airstrike that hit a wedding party.

Harm like this is not intended by the U.S. or its allies. No soldier I've met wants to harm innocent civilians anymore than they want the anger and resentment that follows. But when good intentions fail and civilians are killed, what's too often left is a vacuum of lost dignity and little help for survivors in rebuilding their lives.

Despite consensus at the highest levels that civilians are key to counter-insurgencies, there is no office or senior person at the Pentagon responsible for carrying out the strategic (and moral) imperatives Secretary Gates laid down in his testimony. He should appoint one. And he should do so at a level high enough to match his statements about properly addressing the human costs of war. Such a post would assess that potential civilian cost before any shots are fired, study lessons learned once the fighting starts, maintain proper data on civilian casualties, and, finally, as we heard so many civilians wanted, ensure compensation for unintentional harm.

War's civilian victims deserve no less than this level of attention and American troops, now and in the future, deserve a strategy that avoids angering the civilian population they need to win.

**********

For more on this extremely important cause, and I cannot stress enough the incredible work that is being done here to address the all-too-neglected human costs of war, see CIVIC's website and its report on Afghanistan, "Losing the People: The Costs and Consequences of Civilian Suffering in Afghanistan." -- MJWS

Understatement of the Year

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's only March 2, but it'll be tough to beat this.

Yesterday on Meet the Press, SecDef Robert Gates said that "Obama is somewhat more analytical" than Bush.

Somewhat?

Think Progress has the video -- as well as the video of Ed Gillespie's response on CNN. Gillespie responded to Gates's point that Bush "didn't go out of his way to make sure everybody spoke if they hadn't spoken up before" by claiming that Bush "did listen to everyone" and noting that "everybody has their own style." Gates's estimation of the two presidents' relative analytical tendencies (abilities?) didn't come up.

Cabinet stupidity

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Anonymous Liberal makes a good point: "The Notion of a 'Bipartisan Cabinet' Has Always Been a Stupid One."

Very stupid.

If you elect a Democrat, you get a Democratic Cabinet. It's as simple as that. Or should be.

There are plenty of ways in which a president can demonstrate that he's open minded and willing to work constructively with the opposition. But putting members of the opposition in charge of implementing his policy is just dumb. The fact that the Beltway centrist chorus believes that this is what good presidents should do is just a reflection of their own bizarre obsession with symbolism and belief that bipartisanship is some sort end in and of itself.

I think it's important for Obama to continue to appear respectful and bipartisan in his general governing approach, if for no other reason than to provide a contrast with the never-ending immaturity and childishness of the GOP. But the best way to do that is by sitting down and talking to Republicans, not putting them in charge of various executive branch departments.

"Bob Gates is an exception to this general rule," AL states, and I think he's right -- whether or not you like Gates is beside the point. But there was no need for Obama to nominate Judd Gregg.

The symbolism -- along with the approval of the likes of David Broder and his centrist ilk -- just isn't worth it.

"We do not torture."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So said President Bush in 2005 (when asked about reports of secret CIA prisons).

And yet, in truth, the U.S. does torture.

So says Susan Crawford, the convening authority of the Guantanamo military commissions, a Gates appointee and Bush administration official:

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

*****

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent... You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.

Qahtani's "interrogation took place over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003." Which means that Bush, who was ultimately responsible, whether he knew it or not, lied.

The various enablers and supporters of torture, both inside and outside the administration, have defended and continue to defend the use of techniques such as waterboarding, claiming that they do not amount to torture, but it has been clear for a long time, as we know that waterboarding was used on detainees, that the Bush Administration, from Bush and Cheney on down, sanctioned what is widely considered to be torture.

And now we have formal confirmation from no less an authority than the high-ranking administration official who is responsible for overseeing the military commissions and reviewing the treatment of detainees at Gitmo.

(Find more reaction at Memeorandum.)

Gates's people

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So, according to the right-wing Washington Times, Obama apparently wants "many of the Bush administration's 250 Pentagon political appointees to remain on the job until the incoming... administration finds replacements -- a move designed to prevent a leadership vacuum with U.S. troops engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Big deal.

As Steve Benen rightly notes, this was one of the concerns expressed by many of us who opposed (or at least were skeptical of) the move to keep Gates at the Pentagon. We may or may not have been fine with Gates, but we certainly weren't fine with all those Bush appointees.

"The key to remember here is timing," Steve explains. "If we'd learned that Obama and Gates expected to keep Bush's Pentagon political appointees on the job indefinitely, that would be cause for concern. But while the Washington Times glosses over the timeline, we're talking about a short-term process -- Obama and his team will replace these appointees gradually over the course of the year."

And not a moment too soon.

The realities of the world, including two ongoing wars, require a smooth, seamless transition at the Pentagon, one that will necessarily take time. I suppose we just have to accept that.

'At the undersecretary level, you are pretty much hitting the reset button'

By Creature

When the news broke that Robert Gates was staying on as Secretary of Defense I wasn't thrilled but was willing to withhold judgment until we knew what would happen to the people below Gates. That is, the people held over from the ideology-driven Rumsfeld years. Today the Washington Post has the answers and the news is good. According to the transition team many of Gates' top deputies are on their way out the door. Hopefully with that door hitting them on the way out. Good riddance.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Spotlight on National Security Team

By Carol Gee

Things will get less crazy -- Today is a big day for the cause of sanity in U.S. foreign policy. President-elect Barack Obama announced his choices for the new administration's national security team. The news for this post is drawn from foreign newspapers in order to provide a flavor of what those outside our borders are thinking about the Obama team. The sources include The Financial Times, the BBC News, Aljazeera and the International Herald Tribune.

Three "heavyweights" lead the list. And they will need to be big and strong because they could be called upon to lead Obama's promised foreign policy redirection. They could be asked to look at turning some of the U.S. Defense Department's kinetic "swords" into State Department diplomatic "plowshares." It is an amazing possibility, that three who were seen by many as "hawks," would be willing to sign on to such a long overdue shift within the national security enterprise . David Sanger explains in an excellent analysis for the International Herald Tribune. He begins,

. . . all three of his choices — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the rival turned secretary of state; General James Jones, the former NATO commander, as national security adviser, and Robert Gates, the current and future defense secretary — were selected in large part because they have embraced a sweeping shift of resources in the national security arena.

With the economic crisis in the forefront as the highest priority, the themes running through the group's qualification include bipartisanship, experience, self-confidence, intellect and willingness to speak the truth to power. That means that their strong leadership, informed by Barack Obama's vision, will guide the nation along the right path from early on. Not named, but part of the solution, is former President Bill Clinton, who will be making significant sacrifices to clear the way for his wife's appointment to her former rival's administration.

Of the six choices that were announced today, three are women. Each appointee made a statement, Clinton speaking first and longest. In addition to Senator Clinton, President-elect Obama named Susan Rice as U.N. Ambassador (raised to a Cabinet-level position) and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security. Rounding out the team is Eric Holder as Attorney General. The group is diversity personified, as Holder and Rice are African-Americans. Vice-President-elect Joe Biden was present on stage and also made a good statement reinforcing the sophistication and depth of his knowledge of foreign affairs.

The "Wow factor" is quite astonishing as I think about it. For years I have admired Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Janet Napolitano, and Jim Jones. I have been more recently impressed by Holder's courage and evident constitutional bent, as well as Rice's towering intellect.

The appointments will not be without criticism, as Aljazeera reports. To quote their good story's conclusion,

'Moving backwards'

Critics have told Al Jazeera that the appointments were a move backwards.

"What we're seeing here is that Barack Obama is once again taking us back to the 1990s in terms of the people he's assembling," said Jeremy Scahill, the author of Blackwater.

"It's the old guard people who have been so wrong about so much from the beginning."

However, some say that the old guard blamed for past mistakes have gained valuable experience from those very errors said to have put the US in its current tenuous financial and military situation.

"There's a hope that he is using very experienced people with centrist credentials to drive a very bold, progressive programme," said Robert Borosage of Campaign for America's Future.

Mondays at this blog have usually been set aside for Republican rants, stories of their latest failures, scandals, indictments or trials, and rounding out with a sigh of relief as we are more and more able to say, "Goodbye to all that!" Sanity will be coming back to Foggy Bottom and the NSC. The adults are again going to be in charge.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Obama's foreign policy and national security team

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, here it is.

From left to right (photo: NYT) : Holder, Napolitano, Gates, Biden, Obama, Clinton, Jones, and Rice. (Links to some of our pre-nomination posts.)

Obama still needs to name his top intelligence officials.

Creature is "all for this team," but there's a big if: if this "centrist (arguably hawkish) national security team keeps the right cowed enough" to pursue a progressive foreign policy.

I tend to think Obama's foreign, military, and national security policy will be more progressive than some of the appointments (notably Gates, Jones, Hillary) would suggest.

And, as I argued last week, I don't think Obama is the sort of establishment centrist some of his progressive detractors think he is. What Obama seems to be doing here is picking the right (and, in some cases, the right right-leaning) people to pursue a liberal-progressive foreign policy (including withdrawing from Iraq, re-engaging with the U.N. and the international community, revamping the war on terror, restoring America's standing around the world, promoting energy independence, and combatting global warming). In other words, he is surrounding himself with talented people and doing what is politically necessary to achieve his objectives.

Obama: "I am confident that this team is what we need to make a new beginning for American national security."

Let's hope that it is, and that there will be.

**********

See my posts on Obama and Hillary as a "Team of Allies" here and here, with some additional considerations here.

See also my criticisms of Gates here and here.

For more, see:

-- Carl on Hillary, on the Clinton court, and on criticism from the left.

-- JTD's top ten things about Hillary becoming secretary of state.

**********

'A rebalancing of America’s national security portfolio'

By Creature

Obama introduces his national security team:

[A]ll three of his choices -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the rival turned secretary of state; Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander, as national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, the current and future defense secretary -- have embraced a sweeping shift of priorities and resources in the national security arena.

The shift would create a greatly expanded corps of diplomats and aid workers that, in the vision of the incoming Obama administration, would be engaged in projects around the world aimed at preventing conflicts and rebuilding failed states.

If picking a centrist (arguably hawkish) national security team keeps the right cowed enough to push this progressive, talk first, talk a lot, bomb never foreign policy then I'm all for this team.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)