Second this. As an Aggie I was sad to see him leave -- though I think we've found a very capable replacement, fortunately, she's not Gates -- but as an American I was hoping he could do a great job as SecDef -- and he's exceeded expectations.

I wrote a few posts on this a long while back. If there's anyone on Bush's team to keep on, it'd be Gates -- and that's largely because I don't see him on Bush's team at all, really, but on America's team, just appointed by Bush.

Texas A&M has benefited twice by bringing in apparently conservative people with strong military ties -- Earl Rudder, then Robert Gates -- to make sweeping changes that liberalized campus. Rudder broke the all-military restriction and opened A&M up to women; Gates greatly broadened diversity and pushed for enormous improvements in faculty size and quality.

I'm a Gates fan. I do see him as holding the position in a defined transitional role -- there are a number of Democrats who'd be great as SecDef, but continuity at this time would be a great move.

IIRC, there are restrictions on flag officers getting that sort of job, something like ten years out of uniform first.  He hasn't hit that yet.

Also, Gates is not pushing Bush's policies.  Gates is one of the people moderating Bush's policies.  Bush has been a good deal less insane, vis a vis foreign policy, since Gates was confirmed.  Think about it.  Heard any more "Axis of Evil" speeches lately?  Have we invaded Iran?  Many thought we would have by now.

Just sayin', he's actually doing what Colin Powell intended.

When Obama takes office, he needs to begin the discreet purge of the DOD and State of the Bush appointees.  I can see the argument for continuity, but at this juncture, I don't think we need or want continuity.  Not with the Bush administration, not even its less insane parts.

And why would we want continuity?  What pressing part of the Bush foreign policy do we need to be continuous with?  Iraq?  Afghanistan?  Iran?  There is nothing there to keep.  We need to get out of Iraq quickly and as painlessly as we can, giving a short time constraint, we need to try to chill the tensions with Iran, and we need to finish the job on the Pakistan border and then get out of Afghanistan.  We need to wind down the whole perpetual War on Terror and its concomitant massive hemmorhage of money to right-wing paramilitary welfare groups like Blackwater and KBR.  And then we need to focus on fixing America's business.  Continuity doesn't get us there.

with something like defense, things like these don't work, specifically because GOPers have such a different foreign policy outlook. You made a great point about Powell vs. President Clinton. That led to the "gays in the military" disaster along with Black Hawk Down, during which Powell was along for the ride right before it.

Who cares about memes? If Obama decides to keep Gates it means we won the election so what difference is a meme going to make? Republicans make shit up anyway to attack us. I don't see how keeping a competent R as sec dev for the sake of continuity is really going to hurt D's in an election 2-4 years later.

As for continuity. Its pretty important during wartime. Instead of spending six months getting a new person, new staff, etc up to speed--time which could prove crucial with afghanistan on the brink and Iraq unstable--we keep things rolling. Continuity in this case doesn't mean convenience, it means people's lives--soldiers, civilians,etc, as well as money. Gates has gone on the Hill and stood up to Bush. That says something about the man's character and although I'm sure there are very competent D's, how do we know they'll stand up to Obama if need be? As long as he's willing to implement Obama's policy I'm all for it. Screw partisanship. Screw memes.

If you think that Gates can close Gitmo over the objections of Bush & Cheney, I have some bridges I'd like to sell you.

I agree with Reap.  Gates has been a moderating influence and he's pretty damned competent, whether you agree with him on everything or not.  I'm confident that if Obama orders some changes of direction, Gates will execute accordingly.

I don't know who Obama has in his camp with high-level, credible military policy background.   I was a hell of a lot more comfortable with Hillary's crew.   Wes Clark may play a role somewhere but I don't know that SecDef is it.

Good post, Reap.  

Funny you should mention, I am convinced that Gates actually made an attack on Iran a legal impossibility for the Bush administration early last year.  As I've diarised before I don't believe a conventional attack on Iran would achieve the implied objective of crippling their well protected nuclear program and according to our current war plans and chain-of-command the SECDEF is the only other official whose assent the POTUS requires for a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

I believe that Gates let the Bush administration know such agreement would not be forthcoming around the time of his 'just another day in the Persian Gulf' comment in February of last year.  The smile said it all.

Whether that suggests he would be a good choice as SECDEF for Obama's first term is an open question but it certainly doesn't disqualify him.  Given the likelihood of some new national security challenge early in Obama's tenure it may not be such a bad idea.

Curiously, though, that's exactly the kind of thing his numerous detractors here are criticising Powell for not doing.

We can disagree without being disagreeable.  You know that and I know you do.  Gates has been a change at the DoD, and not a small one.  If you think he's a bad choice, that's fine (and hardly surprising) but I do not appreciate your tone here.

Change does not require tossing out what's actually working.  And as for Gitmo?  Nobody outside of it wants it shut down more than me.  It's my understanding that Gates isn't much of a fan either.  You'll recall he wasn't SecDef when they opened that fucking abyss.

Bob, he's done good work.  Please understand that I very specifically stated that I would want a caretaker period, no more than a year.  And the policies would change to precisely those Obama wants.  If Gates can't sign on, then he'll obviously not be kept on.

I ask that you be open-minded enough to treat my blog with a little more respect than you have.  You don't have to agree with me to accept the fact that I've got an argument.  So do you, and I freely admit it.

The Defense Department is competently executing the orders it has been given.  The SecDef has pushed back where he could against the worst excesses.  Even liberal Democrat friends of mine in uniform all say the same damned thing: he gets it and they want him to stick around.

Gates is precisely the kind of person that Bush ignored going into the war.  He's the only member of this Administration I would even give a passing grade, and frankly I give him a B+.  Find me an error he's made, please.  I don't know of one.

Obama's appeal is change, and that will be his mandate.  That word is somewhat amorphous and non-specific.  Is that change a set of new policies or a new tone and approach?  I would think it is both.  If, and I wanna stress this is not a given, but if Obama and Gates can sit down, hash things out, and agree on how we go forward then I want him to stay on a little while.

Even a busted clock is right now and again.  The fact that Gates works for Bush does not change the quality of his work or his excellent approach to his job.  I say this as someone who'd probably give up his left hand to have stopped this damned war from starting, and all the rest of it.

'Evil' keel?  Forgivable Freudian slip, to be sure.