Obama needs a strong and experienced national security team
Save the "hope and change" for something else. When you're talking about national security, President-elect Obama needs toughness and experience.
The team he'll officially announce Monday morning apparently reflects the realities of a dangerous world.
Last week's nightmare of terrorism in India illustrates the point that endless threats remain.
Keeping Robert Gates as defense secretary signals that Obama is serious about the challenges ahead. During the Democratic primaries, he never would have suggested such a thing. He was all about reversing U.S. military policies. When he launched his campaign two years ago, opposition to the war in Iraq was his top issue. The economic downturn later jumped on the priority list, but successful implementation of new strategies in Iraq also made it less urgent to press for change there. Now it looks like we can achieve worthwhile goals by holding course there for a couple more years.
Of course, Gates isn't linked to Don Rumsfeld and his blunders. He's holding the Pentagon brass accountable for results. Just when he's putting the house in order there would be a lousy time to replace him. Obama is smart to ask him to stay.
I also like retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser.
The headline, though, is Hillary Clinton as SecState. Obama could do better, but she is known and respected overseas. She understands where the threats lie, and she's not a pushover.
I hope the CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies will also be directed by tough leaders dedicated to the protection of Americans at home and abroad and to the safeguarding of our liberties. The Mumbai horror shows how determined terrorists are and how easy it is for just a few to kill so many. That nothing like this has happened in the U.S. since 9/11 tells me our intelligence and security services have done good work to keep us safe. Continuing on that course is the next president's most important responsibility.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
An armed population is the only possible response to an American Mumbai. I suggest that if you are on the fence about gun control, you consider that you have been sitting, working, shopping and playing beside thousands of law abiding citizens who happen to be armed- and you have been safer for it.
Of course, there are certain elements of this society who fear independent, lawful gun ownership. You need only ask yourself- why would anyone want to disarm and/or criminalize a law abiding citizen? Is there a hidden agenda, or is it just mass hysteria- a pathological fear of their own inability to control rage?
Consider:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eyFHYQLzIE
Posted on November 30, 2008 7:01 PM
That is, since you mention Mumbai.
Posted on November 30, 2008 7:03 PM
That's a good point.
At the same time, you have to recognize the right of a hotel, for example, to prohibit guests from bringing firearms onto the premises, even with appropriate permits. In such a case, armed guests would not be able to shoot it out with terrorists.
Instead, hotels have to ramp up their own security. After all, they're responsible for the safety of their guests.
Posted on December 1, 2008 6:30 AM
I'm not so sure it was the work of Homeland Security and Intelligence that kept us safe on our sovereign soil as the message Bush sent following 9/11.
Bin Ladin got an idea that the reaction of the US was going to be quite different. It may have been the response of the first tower bombing and the embassy bombings in Africa when Clinton demanded the Taliban had over Bin Laden, was refused and lobbed a few missiles.
Saddam had no idea he was going to get more than another worthless "stop or I'll say stop again" resolution from the oil for food U.N. folks. He was offered three options: Inspectors, exile or invasion. Bad luck for him someone was mailing Anthrax. Wonder if he would have chosen another course given the result?
Our borders and ports remain porous. The idea that a determined group that killed thousands with some box knives and an operation that cost peanuts would be stopped cold by our new defenses is a reach. Al Queda wasn't driven by "hate our freedom and way of life".
They wanted to pressure us out of the region and thought the attack would cause a swell of public fear and capitulation. Previous policy was lack of conflict=peace and US aid.
The impression we will go to any length to avoid direct conflict and appease is what was most harmful.
Posted on December 1, 2008 12:19 PM
Hummmm.
By keeping Gates on it appears Obama has finally acknowledged that the Bush/Gates/Gen Patreus Surge in Iraq did in fact work. Or was he all along just trying to placate the Left anti-war crowd of whom he's now, as a result of his strong hawkish National Security appointments,
running away from.
Posted on December 1, 2008 12:25 PM
"Is there a hidden agenda, or is it just mass hysteria- a pathological fear of their own inability to control rage?"
Or is the right's response of giving everyone a gun as security policy some adolescent fantasy to play action hero? Countries with more citizens with guns have higher instances of violent crimes. If everyone were armed over there, this kind of thing could have escalated to an all out religious war between Hindus and Muslims in India. I think a better security apparatus would have better prevented this catastrophe.
Gomer, you seem to have forgotten what happened in Iraq. Saddam chose inspectors and we invaded anyway. The inspectors were on the ground when the war started. As for Bush's "message" after 9/11, it seems to have been that American foreign policy should be based on anger and swagger instead of coherence or competence.
Posted on December 2, 2008 12:36 PM