Wednesday, November 08, 2006

New Secretary of Defence Named


Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

PRESIDENT BUSH TAPS FORMER CIA CHIEF ROBERT GATES TO REPLACE DONALD RUMSFELD AS DEFENSE SECRETARY, AP REPORTS

Robert Michael Gates (born September 25, 1943) is an American intelligence official, currently nominated by President George W. Bush for the position of United States Secretary of Defense. Gates served for 26 years in the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council. Under President George H.W. Bush, Gates served as Director of Central Intelligence. After leaving the CIA, Gates wrote his memoirs and became president of Texas A&M University, serving on several corporate boards.

President George W. Bush announced on November 8, 2006, the day after the 2006 midterm elections, that he would nominate Gates to succeed the resigning Donald Rumsfeld as U.S. Secretary of Defense. The Senate must confirm this nomination for Gates to become Secretary.[1]

For more read Wikipedia.



The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

6 comments:

Mike H. said...

I disagree intensely with the idea of changing leadership in the middle of a war. On the other hand, I disagree with being put in the spot that Bush has been put in by the voters.

I hope that we can muddle through with a minimum of damage to everybody involved. We need to start slicing on the M$M and carve them out of the communications market.

Mike H. said...

Another thing, I wonder how long the advise and consent process will take? Will Gates be confirmed before or after the new senate takes control?

Indigo Red said...

I have absolutely no prblem with changing leadership in the middle of anything.

Pres. Lincoln who said it was unwise to cahnge horses in midstream. He then went on to change General of the Army several times until he found one that would fight - US Grant. It's imteresting that we find ourselves in a somewhat similar situation in Iraq. After taking comtrol of the Army of the Potomac, Grant proceeded to settle into a static war of high casualty, low gain. Differnce to today is that the South did not have an inexhaustable supply of fodder.

As it has turned out, Colin Powell should have been dumped long before he quit. Recently, we have learned that he knkew the truth about the Plame game, but kept sinlent because it was doing damage to the President whom he no longer supported.

It's hard to say, but I think Condi Rice became a liability when she went to State. She is ao out of her element there that she is now a stone around the neck of the presidency. She should go.

I think the Lincoln model is something Bush should look to. Abraham appointed his political and Congressional enemies to Cabinet posts where they were under his control.

Simple rule of life: if what you're doing isn't working, don't continue doing the same thing the same way, that is the definition of insanity. Make changes until the changes work. The best trait of Pres. Bush is that he is loyal. His worst trait is that he is loyal.

Indigo Red said...

Will Gates can be confirmed by the current Congress, but runs the risk of angering the new Congress which according to an announcement just now on the news is now completely House and Senate run by Democrat majorities.

Gates could also serve an interem term without confirmation if Rumsfeld leaves immediately and I believe he is packing up and getting out of Dodge now. It would be more difficult for the new Senate to refuse Gates after having served for two months. But children don't always do the smart thing.

Mike's America said...

Just wait until you see what kind of a circus that confirmation hearing is going to be. Now that Dems control the Senate, they will use this as a trial of the entire war and demand Gates do things their way or else.

This is a victory for the generals in the Pentagon, especially in the Army who did NOT want to change to a modern force according to Rumsfeld's direction. They know Gates is a cream puff and from the old school of Bush '41' where they don't like to upset the apple cart too much.

We have this huge, massive and expensive Army and yet we're overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan because so much of the Army is tied to outdated missions where generals have their comfortable fiefdoms.

Fire Rumsfeld if we must. But fire a bunch of those damn generals too.

Indigo Red said...

I'm seeing Pres. Abraham Lincoln here, not that George Bush is anything close to Lincoln.

The situation is very reminiscent of the 1860's. A war thrust upon the nation, an ossified War Dept (Dept. of Defense,) Generals who looked good in uniform but didn't fight, trying to free a people who had never been free from a people who would lose everything if defeated.

Lincoln found Grant, Sheridan, Sherman. Fighting men who hated war, but invented a totally new style of killing and victory. War is not pretty, pretending it can be is only self-deceptive and self-defeating. Grant and Sherman knew that to win, an army must grab the enemy by the neck and throttle life and will from him. Lincoln instructed Grant that his target was Lee, not cities. 'Wherever Lee goes, you go. Do not stop until this thing is done.'

I don't see these kinds of men or women stepping up to be seen above the Generals who have reverted to the VietNam "hearts and minds" mindset. Lincoln's tactics changed so often he spent his days and nights at the telgraph office lest he receive news from the front too late. But his strategy never wavered, "the Union must be preserved."

A whole lot of firing needs to be done. There are too damned many McDowells, not enough Grants. And sorry to all her fans, but Condi needs to go, too. Drop the PC crap; we have to end his thing.