In The Blogs
- ‹ previous
- 1310 of 2040
- next ›
Democrats at the Pentagon
DEMOCRATS AT THE PENTAGON....With Republican Bob Gates staying on as Secretary of Defense, does that mean that all his Republican deputies will be staying on too? Matt Yglesias says no:
To provide some background and context, you need to understand that a lot of these guys were never Gates' people anyway. Gates and Donald Rumsfeld had some pretty different ideas about a lot of stuff, but when Gates joined the Bush administration he wasn't given the opportunity to clean house, fire everyone, and bring his own people on board. Since he's been in office for a couple of years there's been some turnover since that time, but still a guy like [Eric] Edelman has always been a Cheney/Rumsfeld guy who happens to be serving as one of Gates' top deputies, not a Gates guy who Gates is desperate to hang on to. In fact, I think we can be fairly certain that Gates' views are closer to those of a moderate Democrat like [Michèle] Flournoy than to Edelman. So whether or not to get rid of people probably wasn't a bone of contention between Gates and the transition. What needs to be negotiated isn't whether or not some of these folks need to go, it's who to replace them with.
I doubt that Obama has asked for a complete purge of the upper ranks of the Pentagon, but at the same time it's almost inconceivable that his conversations with Gates didn't make clear that a whole bunch of Democrats ought to move into senior positions pretty quickly. Gates, not being an idiot, surely understands this as the way the world works, and is OK with it.
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
it's who to replace them with.
That's whom
By the way, what's with this tiny, tiny box for comments?
Can it at least extend for 80 columns, like normal people are used to? I feel like I'm operating in a very restricted space - if I wanted to do gynecology, I would have become one.
Well if you're going to be that way about it, craigie, it's "with whom to replace them" because, as Winston Churchill is supposed to have said, a preposition is something you should never end a sentence with.
To double the column width of the comments box would double the cost of the blog. Don't you know there's a recession on?
did you get up on the wrong side of the bed, Craggie?
BTW it should be
"it's with whom to replace them."
remember dangling prepositions from 6th grade?
I thought the whole "That is something up with which I shall not put" was a myth. Or was it that the rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition turns out not to really be a rule? Or both.
Anyway, there are degrees of pedantry. "whom to replace them with" is good enough for me.
crai, I don't know if it's a myth or not, but it makes a good set of quotes either way.
Personally, I end sentences with prepositions whenever it seems to fit. Just being an @$$#ole.
It figures that the comments on this thread have descended into squabbling over proper usage of prepositions.
That is because none of the dudes commenting here, nor Matt Yglesias, nor Kevin, really have any effing idea what Gates is going to do, or what is going on at the Pentagon right now.
Personally I comment on what matters to me.
So Kevin, if y'all want us to be concise please say so and we'll try to oblige and we'll mock those who don't.
You don't need to box us in with the tiny comment box.
And, optical - huh? (shrug) Commenting on minutia is what we do. Is there a problem with that? You don't have to be abrasive.
Tripp, that's minutiae. No PS3 for you, son.
And yes, pedantry is a substitute for actual knowledge; a way of keeping entertained until the lights go out.
Posters playing at pedantry-- at least it's sort of fun.
Which news outlet reported over the weekend, I think it was, that the brass on the ground in Iraq has been configuring for an exit for a while now, maybe two years?
That was Gates's mission, as I always saw it, imposed on the boy emperor (puer as in puerile-- I can play at pedantry too!) when Rumsfeld was forced out because of those election losses in 2006.
Gates has always been among the slimiest operators in DC, perfectly capable of telling bush he's following his orders while doing what he damn well pleases.
I can't imagine that Obama's people wouldn't have named a couple of ringers Gates has to put on his staff just so they can report back to the White House. Capable ones, but they'll be there to keep tabs on Gates and they'll have some real clout, unlike Cheney's little Grima Wormtongue clones.
Gates is fine with that, though, because in this case, what he wants and what Obama wants seem to be pretty close. That's one among many good reasons to keep him on, albeit under close surveillance.
it's almost inconceivable that his conversations with Gates didn't make clear that a whole bunch of Democrats ought to move into senior positions pretty quickly. Gates, not being an idiot, surely understands this as the way the world works, and is OK with it.
Man, I wish you wouldn't say things like this unless you have some actual information about the content of those conversations and the nature of Gates' understanding.
In fact, we have no idea what Obama and Gates said to each other, let alone what mutual understandings they think they have with each other. Given the irredeemable shitstorm that has been Federal public policy in the last eight years, I think we have to resist the assumption that governmental actors will behave in any way that the rest of us would call "rational."
I hope this administration will be better than the last, but even if it is, how likely is it that people who run things in Washington will actually begin act in a way that would seem reasonable to lay observer?
Where you say "Republican Bob Gates" are you making a deliberate statement?
Even though he's worked for Republican administrations, he's never affiliated himself with the party. Like Richard Clarke, he stays officially non-partisan so that he can work with either side. (Harry Reid even said he's "never been a registered Republican", though I'm not sure how he'd know.)
That's what all the blogs and stories say anyway. Are you saying you think that's false?
Inevitably, there will be a period of "educate the new bosses" throughout government. It usually turns out fine, though there's always someone who thinks they need to reinvent the wheel.