There has been a lot of dissatisfied rumblings around the blogosphere about the reappointment of Bob Gates as secretary of defense, claiming that this both signals a continuation of Bush foreign policy and reinforces the damaging idea that only a Republican can lead the department of defense.
Yoni Applebaum at Talking Points Memo presents a contrary opinion that is worth listening to, arguing that if real change at the defense department is what you're looking for, Gates is the one who is already implementing it.
More after the jump.
First the obvious. Bob Gates is not the reason we are in Iraq. The Secretary of Defense executes the president's policy, and our president has chosen to remain. No one around him describes him as a neocon attached to our presence there, or possessing an particularly hard-core republican views which he is eager to carry out.
This alone is of course not reason enough to keep him. But Applebaum argues that he is quietly implementing many of the reforms and cutbacks that many progressives should be fighting for. He points to the example of the F-22 Raptor, and how Gates and his deputy John Young maneuvered around congress to prevent the unnecessary building of hundreds more expensive fighters. He points to a number of significant weapon systems that he sees as unnecessary for the government to fulfill its mission, and a number of reforms he is starting to implement in areas like putting the soldier's need ahead of simply purchasing more technology, and limiting interservice rivalries.
Here's the money quote on why Gates is the choice for reform:
One analyst, quoted in Politico's coverage of the pick, bluntly observed that "the defense industry would like to see the entire Bush team move on." But it's not the "Bush team" that's the problem for defense contractors; it's Gates. The Bush Administration has presided over an historic expansion of defense spending. But Gates has been warning that the party is over. His deputies are pushing to roll the ongoing and predictable costs of conflicts into the main appropriations bill, instead of using a supplemental, an important first step in regaining control of spending. And defense spending is just the tip of the iceberg.
In fact, Applebaum argues that Gates is much more reform minded than congressional democrats, many of whom have parochial reasons for supporting unneeded weapon systems (many such dems were infuriated by the F-22 freeze).
Richard Danzig, Obama's likely long term choice for the position, also weighs in:
Richard Danzig is reportedly Obama's choice for Deputy Defense Secretary, a role he is expected to full until he takes over for Gates. How does he feel about the Pentagon chief? "I think Secretary Gates has been a good secretary of defense," Danzig told reporters back in October. "I think he'd be an even better one in an Obama administration.... Many of the kinds of efforts he's made are in tune with what we're trying to do."
I think the point is not to be too quick to judge Gates based on mere affiliation with the Bush administration, but to examine him on substantive, and not symbolic grounds. And if Gates continues to reign in wasteful spending and implement meaningful reform, while continuing to competently execute his president's policies, it seems to me that we could do a hell of a lot worse.