|
All we have on the military, so far, from Pres. elect Obama has been a weak summary recitation of his campaign positions on Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with his announcements of a national security team which is rife with Bush administration holdovers from the top down.
Yesterday, the Pentagon announced that Mr. Obama has directed his holdover defense chief, Gates, to ask Bush's political appointees at the Pentagon to stay on for a while as he lays out whatever planks of his campaign platform he's willing to carry over to the reality of his office.
The common and repetitive refrain from detractors of his detractors on his Defense moves has been to assert that Pres. Obama will, when sworn-in, personally overrule these Bush holdovers who are busy promoting Bush policy right in front of us.
From Gates' and his generals' pronouncements that they intend a slower withdrawal of forces from Iraq than Mr. Obama has promised; to Gates' saber rattling at Iraq; to the military leaderships' announced intention to occupy more Afghanistan communities in defense of Kabul instead focusing on the pursuit of the 9-11 "perpetrators" outlined in the original authorization to use force; Mr. Obama has been mostly silent during the transition.
Where are the clear policy pronouncements from the President-elect which contradict or challenge the administration on their revisionist, ambitious rhetoric and policy positioning regarding Defense? Who are the individuals appointed who are offering anything close to the military policy that was outlined and promoted on the campaign trail by candidate Obama?
The supporters of Pres. elect Obama's defense transition are correct that we will eventually see what concrete steps the Obama administration will take in the direction of his promise to completely exit Iraq. It's already becoming clear that there will be some sort of 'residual force' left in place which is in line with what was promised in the election.
It's also becoming clear that there will be a massive increase in the military forces in Afghanistan. Whether they will be used to defend the installed government or to intensify the hunt for the 9-11 terror suspects remains to be seen. But, we haven't yet seen the same intense and public focus on these issues of defense and the military that the economy and other domestic concerns have received in the transition. What we've been subject to has been an almost complete surrender to whatever direction and policy the Bush holdover, Gates, and his fellow Pentagon cronies have chosen to promote; without any substantive or contradicting reaction from the President elect or any of his transition members.
But, we're expected to accept, from some defenders, that these Bush administration enablers are to be nothing more than foils for Pres. Obama's decidedly more progressive military policy and intention. On its face, that's just foolish and dangerous, if the intention is for Pres. Obama to steer these dug-in figures at the Pentagon and in the field away from the directions they're being aggressively pushed in, as we speak, by Gates, Mullen, Petraeus, and other holdovers.
However, if the policy intention of Barack Obama is to let these Bush holdovers in the Pentagon take the lead in shaping policy, as well as in implementing it, we are not going to see the 'clear change' from the militarization of the Bush administration that candidate Obama promised.
For now, all we can do is measure the prospect for that change against what the transition has offered; and against the hopes he generated in the campaign, because all we can hear right now, visibly unopposed by Mr. Obama, are the scrambling moves of these Bush administration holdovers to provide 'continuity' for the same destructive policies that were so actively and vocally opposed by our party (and the Obama campaign) just months ago.
It would be nice to hear the same clear assertions from the Pres. elect in his transition on his military and defense intentions that he's afforded other economic concerns. If not, opponents of Bush military policy will either be asked to fold their objections into the creeping direction these previous administration figures orchestrate or be forced in the position of opposing the Obama administration itself.
At this point, I'm really not sure how, if at all, the Obama administration will be able to distance itself from that creeping direction the lame-duck administration is subversively engineering behind their agents Obama has chosen to represent him on the military and defense so far.
|