Gates Wows Dems – Sun Sets in West
The Senate committee hearings on new Defense Secretary Robert Gates are a vivid demonstration of the “madman theory” at work.
Some of you will remember that during the Vietnam war Kissinger and Nixon cooked up said theory as one possible way to win the unwinnable. The theory went something like this: The U.S. would wildly bomb some non-strategic targets, or blow up the dams, or nuke Hanoi, or do something equally nutty to prove that Nixon was bonkers — all in the hope they would find Kissinger such a more attractive alternative that they would rush into disadvantageous negotiations with him.
That’s more or less what we saw in the Gates hearing. After five years worth of Don Rumsfeld’s manifest insanity, congressional Democrats rushed right into the arms of his successor.
It was enough for Gates not to foam at the mouth, not to speak in sarcastic riddles, not to literally ooze hubris for the Democrats to be wowed by him. Wowed them enough so that his nomination was approved unanimously and quickly with nary a peep or a hiccup from the Democrats.
Of course impressing the Democrats is about as difficult a task as leaving a foot imprint in three days worth of mud.
Here we are in the midst of perhaps the greatest U.S. political/military catastrophe of modern times and one day of confirmation hearings is enough to rubber-stamp the new nominee to run the Pentagon.
Then again, Gates isn’t new at all. Not only was he knee-deep in the Iran-Contra scandal, but perhaps his greatest achievement was — as CIA director– to have consistently politicized the gathering and presentation of intelligence. Sounds sort of familiar, doesn’t it?
When the Democrats took home with them from the hearings was a tepid (and later “clarified”) remark from Gates that we are “not winning” the war. Gosh, what a genius. And here I thought everybody knew at least that much.
Gates, as has now become for this sort of routine, said very little to nothing of substance during this staged burlesque show. The committee figured, oh well, he’s better than Rumsfeld.
And, oh yes, I suppose the Democrats are better than the Republicans. Though, they proved themselves fairly worthless during Part One of the Gates episode.
P.S. Here’s what we call in J-school “the kicker.” Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the back-bench Texas Democrat chosen by Nancy Pelosi to replace Jane Harman as incoming Chair of the House Intel Committee because she was too pro-war now says he wants to send more troops to Iraq!
Maybe 20,000-30,000 more. And only to “disarm the militias.” Oh, cool. That little task shouldn’t take more than 5 or 10 years.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Gates is an insider Beltway Realpolitik policy hack.
The Dems ran on insider Beltway Realpolitick policy hackery and they won.
It will be interesting to see whether the Left proposes an alternative to Beltway Realpolitick. The whole world is listening. Viva la democracy!
December 5th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
You’re absolutely right on this, that the Democrats allowed the Republicans to run this hearing was the first problem. This was an opportunity to do two things; 1)Begin to reassert the power of the Congress, 2)Begin to reshape US Iraq policy and US global policy.
To say the least, this is an awful beginning to Democratic control of Congress, they have 6 months to prove they can do something. If this is representative of the future, it doesn’t look good
December 5th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
I just followed the link to the Reyes article from Newseek and haven’t finished reading it. I don’t really have much insightful commentary, I’d just like this opportunity to take a deep breath and say…
…ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!
Joe is right above–this IS an awful beginning. I’ve remained consistently positive and optimistic about the possibility for change in this new congress, but gimme a break. If this is the kind of “change of course” policy we are gonna get from the Dems, why’d we even vote in November? Now certainly Reyes is just one congressman, but if this is the kind of vision we can expect across the board, we’ve got a problem.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:30 am
I can only agree with the comments above. The Reyes statements are truly amazing, but those statements–as well as the Democrats’ behavior in general re Iraq–might have the good effect of making antiwar forces realize that they cannot rely on the Democrats to get us out of Iraq. In essence, the Bush administration has tried to conduct a long war without asking Americans to make sacrifices, and antiwar leaders have asked us to oppose the war without having a real antiwar movement a la the anti-Vietnam war movement. So antiwar leaders trot us out about once a year for a big march, and that is supposed to be enough. The march now planned for late January in DC was originally scheduled for MARCH as one of its organizers was kind enough to inform us some weeks ago, and some of you may recall my reaction to that.
It is time for all the Bush haters to stop satisfying themselves with Bush hate noise (I am beginning to see that this characterization by Liberty Daddy has some merit) and show us just how outraged they really are by this war that both Republicans and Democrats intend to continue for the indefinite future.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:48 am
btw when John Kerry was on with Wolf Blitzer Sunday he was asked whether he would vote for Gates, and he said yes. I guess the days when a Senate confirmation hearing was designed to get all the facts about a nominee before a decision was made about confirmation are in the past. So the Democrats are participating in a charade, and we should see that for what it is.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:07 am
And while I am on the subject of sacrifice, here’s Michael Kinsley of Slate on Bush’s party girls and the lack of sacrifice his family is showing:
http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=2154856&nav/tap1
December 6th, 2006 at 2:01 am
Tactically, rubberstamping the Gates nomination was probably the smartest thing for the Dems. It’s politically safe — after all, if he’s true to his word, they can say they backed the right horse; if (as is probably the case) he’s a liar, an encourager of liars, and a protector of liars, they can say, “But Bob *told* us something entirely different in the hearings. He *told* us.”
Going after him for past transgressions, thus only bogging down the proceedings, would have been a losing tactic. If he hasn’t been nailed on those over the last 25 years, nobody’s going to nail him now. No, it’s much better to get him out on the field, ASAP, so that there will be some basis built up for predicting his behavior even before the next Congress convenes. Iraq moves fast. He’ll have to respond fast. He’ll have to show his true colors soon enough. For example, he has said that the first thing he’ll do after being confirmed is to go to Iraq and talk to commanders in the field. Well, he just got confirmed. Let’s watch and see if he goes.
I suspect he’ll prove useful to this administration over the next couple of years. The Bush Follies would have been shot down years ago, probably well short of invading Iraq, if it hadn’t been for potential dissident intelligence analysts being worried about shooting down their own careers in the process. The appointment of Gates, who apparently thinks intelligence operations should be more, um, “client-centric”, will help keep a lid on leaks and negative intelligence reports. If I’m not mistaken, those leaks and that negativity seem to have increased greatly in the last six months or so, probably because of near-mutiny conditions under Rumsfeld.
Gates is a pair of “fresh eyes” — but also, perhaps more important, a fresh whip. Fresh eyes aren’t particularly important right now — everybody knows that Iraq is a mess, and everybody knows the options, and that none of them are particularly good. A fresh whip, however, as independent investigations circle, focus and tighten under the Dems in Congress, may end up being all that stands between Bush and impeachment proceedings for the rest of his term. The Dems certainly know this, and must also know that, had they stalled Gates unto withdrawal of nomination, it would probably only mean facing yet another confirmation proceedings for some other grizzled junkyard dog. Better to get it over with.
December 6th, 2006 at 3:50 am
“Better to get it over with.”
Maybe so. But here is what business as usual is leading to. Viewer discretion advised:
http://tinyurl.com/y3kojl
December 6th, 2006 at 5:03 am
Oh. A 48-minute video telling me that Iraq is a bad situation. Gosh, who knew?
What if Rumsfeld were still SecDef? Wouldn’t that *also* be “business as usual”? More of the same?
Try making sense for a change, Balter.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:58 am
I posted this video as a public service because it makes a number of points not only about how bad things are in Iraq but about trying to cover the war journalistically. And it also makes the point that we actually don’t know how bad it is, by having us experience some of what is happening first hand. I realize that is not Turner’s way of knowing about the world. It is well worth watching, so I hope people here won’t let Turner’s gratuitous comments dissuade them from clicking on the link.
I don’t think that rubber stamping Gates will work to the Democrats’ benefit unless he leads us on a drastically different path. How likely that is I will lead it to others to predict.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Pushing for more troops is a safe position to take. There is no way to do it without calling for a draft. So the limp dicks get to look like they have hair on their balls while advocating something that is non-starter.
“Looking tough†is more valued than being tough.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Well, to paraphrase a line from “Next of Kin,” ‘You ain’t seen tough yet, but it’s coming.”
December 6th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
The Repubs were probably wise to put Gates up before the release of the ISG report. I wonder if the Dems made any effort to delay the hearing so that he could be quizzed on its points? It would appear not. So the Dems, if they are working together, are waiting for some other occasion to press for change action. You wonder if one can keep one’s powder so dry for so long that it will just blow away in a strong wind….
It is probably unfair to expect a coherent Dem strategy for the lame duck session of Congress, still controlled by the Repubs. The next test on politics of the war is positioning vis a vis the ISG report. For serious people, it all comes down to answering the question: should the US maintain a force in Iraq in order to preserve some semblance of order, or at least to protect those who have been “loyal” to the American anti-Saddam, anti-Ba’athist forces? To answer that, once must first have concluded that our remaining does more good for those people than harm. If the answer is that we should not keep our forces in Iraq, then the only question is when to begin withdrawal/redeployment, and how long it will take. If we decide we are going to maintain some sort of a force, or are going to increase our pressure on whoever is the enemy this week, we need to decide (1) how many forces we need now [more or less than at present?], (2) what they will be doing, and (3) when the US troop levels will be reduced, whether the trigger be a date or an event.
The ISG report, apparently, calls for significant withdrawals of troops by [or is it beginning?] 1st Q, 2008. The issue for those who have opposed the war is whether that becomes the starting point for discussion, or whether opponents and those seeking an early end of American participation will continue to press for earlier withdrawal. I haven’t read the report, so I’m not sure if there is any rationale for supporting the delay until 2008. But I have to believe that it is important to continue to evaluate events in Iraq with independent eyes.
It is a tough call. It seems that much tougher to those who intend to run for President in 2008. No one wants to step out first…well, except for Joe Biden, whose motto seems to be, “What the hell…?”
Whichever candidate stakes out a position first will be subject to attack ffrom all sides, a situation to be avoided wherever possible this early in the game.
December 6th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Sorry folks I guess Pelosi didn’t want to go with Alcie Hastings for obvious reasons so she went with Reyes. I suspect he’ll be quite critical of the intelligence fiascoes given his previous statements – he has NO say on troop strength.
Did anyone here not think Gates would be appointed. As Russ Feingold has said a president gets to pick his cabinet. In this case he was told to pick his own Cark Clifford and that is what I suspect happened.
Now let us talk about the real news of the week. The long awaited report of the Iraq Study Group which represents the thinking of the DC Establishment. And their unanimous resposne is – we’re screwed! Above all they add that it may be too late for their recommendations to have any good and I was most impressed bytheir call for an international conference – including Syria and Iran – to discuss not only Iraq but the Israeli-Palestinian question which they see as central to a comprehensive Mid East settlement.
I consider this the most important element of the report. It suggests that the Great and the Good in Washington are getting fed up with Israel (and the Likud and its variants) wagging the dog. Combined with Jimmy Carter’s book it suggests that the Establishment has had it with the neocons and their “Israel first” policies and are going to create a real battle. In short they have had enough. Now combine this with a real energy program and we may finally be able to disentangle ourselves from that lousy sandpit and its crazy people.
Finally, anyone here really think either party wants to go into 2008 with substantial troops in Iraq? It is obvious to the rulers that Bush’s adventure is killing us and the only question now is how much pounding the boy-emperor will take to get that message into his thick skull!
December 6th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
RLC: Now combine this with a real energy program and we may finally be able to disentangle ourselves from that lousy sandpit and its crazy people.
I hate to call you on it- given that I agree with your analysis vix Israel/Palestine (though the folks they back in Palestine have very little legitimacy) – and because I’m sure its unintended, but that language is racist as well as innaccurate. I know you aren’t insulting Arabs per se so I” adress this – If the Middle East is crazy, which I don’t thinkit is, it is because of Imperial action and stunted, resource based development. It is also because of recent US and Israeli actions. It is beause of the death of the Left (not the US backed liberals, but the Left) as a viable political option, as of late – and a vacuum filled by Islamic movements that are often genuine in their desire for economic justice, while profoundly reactionary in other matters to say the least.
It is the hallmark of the problem with the way Americans respond to the Imperial dilemma, which is to oppose Imperialism because its bad for America (of course it is) but not also and more importantly, that it is bad for its victims. Too often you hear the number of Americans killed in various wars without hearing the far huger number of Imperial victims. The point of jsutice in Palestine is not to make the region less crazy, so the Empire doesn’t have to concern itself with the Wogs. The point of justice is….justice.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
I agree that a President in our system gets to have the cabinet he wants. But the Senate gets to probe the candidates and pass on them anyway. It seems to me that given the significance of the Iraq war to what the next Sec. of Defense will be doing, Gates should have been quizzed on his position vis a vis the various major points made by the Baker/Hamilton group. Why couldn’t the committee have waited a week or two so the candidate could read up (and consult the Administration), and the committee prepare some pointed questions?
I also was very surprised and impressed that the study group addressed the Israel/Palestine issues. No doubt the many Cold War pragmatists who have been frustrated by the jihadist neocons in the White House and Pentagon thought, “well, if we are going to get to causes here, let’s talk about real causes…”
December 6th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
“If the Middle East is crazy, which I don’t think it is, it is because of Imperial action and stunted, resource based development. It is also because of recent US and Israeli actions.”
Well let’s see J, the Arabs are not crazy. But because they talk crazy, behave crazy, and believe crazy, then one may logical deduce they’re crazy. In this case, they stll would not be crazy because…..well….the devil made them do.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
I agree with rlo and Crosby that the report’s discussion of Israel/Palestine seems significant. It specifically mentions implementation of UN resolutions 242 and 338, which everyone from Israel to the neocons to Hillary Clinton would like us to forget about despite their love for so many other UN resolutions.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
The same devil, btw, that gave you the freedom to run your mouth against it…. and likely also the freedom to run your ass to Canada when called upon to preserve it for others.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:57 am
On the issue of whether it was a good idea for the Democrats to rubber stamp the Gates nomination, there was an interesting discussion a couple of days ago on a San Francisco radio station on which Marc has appeared in the past. Go to this link:
http://yourcallradio.org/archive/archive.html
and then click on the program for 5 December. The program features a former CIA operative who has a record of opposing Gates and a military affairs correspondent for Washingtonpost.com. While the two of them disagree on many points, the program offers insights into Gates’ history and why he was not confirmed as CIA director in 1987.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:31 am
“The Arabs” Way to dehumanize, Jim R. If you just don’t get it, then I am sorry. Perhaps like one Islamophobe I know, you need to get cancer and have a brilliant Arab oncologist.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Our decision matrix is so screwed up with this Iraq clusterfuck. Who cares a fig about what’s good for the Iraqis???
We should only care what’s good for America. America GIs deserve to be deployed only where our nation’s interests are served. American citizens deserve to have the 1/2 trillion dollars currently going down the drain in Iraq spent on improving America.
Iraq deserves a society that reflects their desires. Obviously, their desires were for a dictatorial, genocidal regime. If they wanted different, they could have done what every other people does when their government doesn’t reflect their desires. Revolt.
This isn’t our business. We were wrong to go there, it’s wrong to stay there … Let Iraqis deal with this. We deserve better.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:01 am
But Vivien, what about the weapons of mass destruction? Don’t you think Saddam’s cronies are still hiding them someplace?
December 7th, 2006 at 10:12 am
I’m falling in love, Micahel B. Stop it
I can’t resist men who can do sarcasm!!! SMOOCH!
December 7th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Oh wow, I’m outta here.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Look I’m sorry if I sound callous about Arabs but there was a “little” war in Central Africa that took millions of lives and no one gave a damn. No Oil. Besides, if we weren’t dependant on Mid east oil we might not have meddled and maybe things would be better. Do you think the Nationalists of Mossadegh look better now?
December 8th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Point taken –
OF course re Mossadegh.(and Nasser) look better…but America will never wean itself from oil until the planet does. One reason I am pro-Venezuela is that Hugo is far preferable to Bandar, etc. All wars are resource wars, and many of the wars in Africa have to do with mining and battles between European, Chinese and American capital, using proxies.
I am not a dogmatic Marxist, but I highly suggest perusing Marxist theories of Imperialism (by which I do not mean Lenin, but Leo Panitch among others)
January 18th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
how to pick up women easily…
how to pick up women the right way…