Obama extends the Bush legacy

OK, we know that the SecDef was kept on, and with good reason, he's good. Now Obama has taken it a step further, keeping the same top military leaders. Also, Gates is appointing other Generals/Admirals to top posts, ensuring that the Bush military team (and mission) continues unfettered over the next few years:

http://militarytimes.com/news/2009/03/army_gates_mullen_cartwright_031809w/

Posted : Thursday Mar 19, 2009 10:50:13 EDT

Adm. Mike Mullen and Marine Gen. James Cartwright have been nominated for second terms as the chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

In addition, Gates announced that he has nominated Adm. James Stavridis, commander of Southern Command, to lead European Command; Air Force Lt. Gen. Douglas Fraser, deputy commander of Pacific Command, to lead Southern Command; and Adm. Robert Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, to lead Pacific Command.

----------------

To see how liberals are reacting, check out this site! (they are not amused)

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=259x25928

 

Well, I was never under any illusion that there would be any change from what Bush did with what Obama's doing. Politicians will do and say anything they have to to get elected and stay in office

 

Stupid.

 

I didn't either, but I am quite sure most liberals did. They probably fantasized that we'd be out of Iraq by now. Far from that, there has been a steady-state at the Defense Department.

 

From what I remember, Bush never tried to govern from the center and was ALWAYS about partisanship.

I mean damn, it's a lotta pessimists in today's society who just believe that things will never change no matter what.:smt009

 

As long as Republicans and Democrats are in office, very little will ever change. They both will do anything to stay in power. They both demonize the other party for doing the very things that they do themselves. They're both hypocrites.

 

I think it is wise for Obama to do what he is doing in Iraq, and that is basically "stay the course" (sound familiar?).

It is a good sign to our allies and foes alike to see this type of continuity in foreign policy.

I am surprised though, and I think many of his supporters will be disappointed.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how maintaining the same military personnel in Iraq during a period of military drawdown gets interpreted as "extending the Bush legacy?"

McCain's idea of maintaining our stay indefinitely would be such a thing, but implementing a plan of complete drawdown within two years is not.

Think.

 

Exactly.

 

Conservatives are flailing desperately for any positive spin on Bush's failed presidency. Pay this no mind.

 

I am the first to admit that I'm not across USA politics beyond what is shown in the media, but I understand you to be saying that the military advisors and department heads are beging retained under the new administration?

If I have understood this corectly, then, well, at the end of the day, this makes perfect logical sense. Why would you remove all the people with such knowledge of the history of the Iraq situation simply due to politics? I have no doubt that these men are politically aligned, probably to the right...but, their job is to implement the policies of the current government. They're not stupid. They know if they start implementing a personal agenda, they'll be out.

The executive is, theoretically, politically neutral and whilst we all know that this is not a perfect world, this is probably a best case scenario in a democratic society. So - my point is that it would be foolish for Obama to remove the people who are closest to the issue simply because they were previously implementing an alternative agenda.

Furthermore, it would be remiss of Obama to come in and remove all troops from Iraq tomorrow. A lack of an adequate exist strategy and follow up is, in my understanding, partly to blame for the current war (which is resultant, at least in part, from issues stemming way back to the 1st Gulf War). I believe he is making the necessary changes with the best method available and I was impressed to see that he had kept his election promises - at least so far....

But, like I said, I don't know enough about it - so if I've got it wrong please let me know.

Now - I'm going off to exercise my democratic responsibility and vote (it's election day for me!)

 

I agree with you that this makes sense, however retaining a SecDef/Chairman of Joints Chiefs team from a previous administration is unprecedented going back at least 40 years. Furthermore, as the article in the opening post states, this team has already appointed the generals and admirals to all significant regional commands. This is absolute and long-term continuity, not transition.

The Bush administration had already negotiated a withdrawal plan with Iraq. The signed agreement calls for all US forces to be out by the end of 2011. Obama has stated that he intends to comply with the agreement as written.

I don't think this is what the anti-war supporters of Obama had in mind, this is my point and this quote from the liberal blogsphere echos it:

http://mathaba.net/news/print25.shtml?cmd[40]=i-42-a0cd5cb4151a78bd53696a4a11032256

"Obama's vague campaign promises of "change" are rapidly evaporating as the key positions...are filled with veterans of the US political establishment. Far from ending war abroad...Obama's choices underline the essential continuation of the policies of the Bush administration."

 

And I'm sure if Obama fails, the left will put the most positive spin on his presidency. So what's new?

 

Source?

Actually Obama's plan and the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) are not the same thing. If you researched these things more, you'd know that.

 

Please find me a link where the bush admin. had negotiated a withdrawal plan for iraq.

 

Sure. Hope you're ok with the Washington Post as a source:

U.S., Iraqi Negotiators Agree on 2011 Withdrawal

By Karen DeYoung and Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 22, 2008

BAGHDAD, Aug. 21 -- U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011, and Iraqi officials said they are "very close" to resolving the remaining issues blocking a final accord that governs the future American military presence here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/21/ST2008082101838.html

 

In early 2007, Obama introduced a bill calling for a complete drawdown by the middle of 2008. Bush vetoed a different congressional bill calling for American troop withdrawal in May 2007.

What spurred Bush's change of heart?

There is the obvious fact that most Americans polled were calling for troop withdrawal in an election year. Something that didn't mean anything to a lame duck like Bush, but Republicans needed whatever leverage they could get going into November 2008. There is also the fact the Iraqi government made U.S. troop withdrawal the core sticking point to any further negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq.

When someone tells you that Obama's plan is a reflection of Bush's, they're either lying or misinformed. Obama called for a phased drawdown of American troops, not Bush or anyone in his administration. The concessions of the Bush administration were spurred on by domestic opposition to the war and the desire of Iraqis to see us gone.


__________________________

Obama's Iraq plans vindicated as US agrees to pull out by 2011

by Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad

Iraq and the United States have finally agreed on a security pact which would mean that US forces would withdraw from Iraq by 2011, American and Iraqi officials said yesterday.

. . .

President Bush was opposed to timelines or dates for an American withdrawal and the US is still stressing that this is conditional on improved security in Iraq. But it is unlikely that the Shia majority will want to share power with the US.

Iraqi politicians have always assumed that Washington's insistence on signing a new accord before the presidential election was motivated by the White House's hope that the accord would be seen as a sign that its Iraq policy had at last produced a success. The Republican contender, Senator John McCain, started off his campaign by saying that US troops might stay for 100 years and there should be no date for their withdrawal. The Democratic candidate, Senator Barack Obama, wants combat troops home by the middle of 2010, which was also the date originally proposed by Mr Maliki.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obamas-iraq-plans-vindicated-as-us-agrees-to-pull-out-by-2011-962874.html

 

There's one difference: Obama hasn't failed yet. Get back to me 2012.

 

I don't think he will fail. He is smart enough to take advantage of what is working. His decisions to keep the Defense ship steady, stay the course in Iraq and pick up the pace in Afghanistan will fare well for America's national security interests.

 

We'll see.