Speaking to the Muslim World

With inauguration just a month away, Americans are increasingly eager for President-elect Obama to take the nation's reigns from President Bush. The change he will undoubtedly bring may not be render itself through a long list of early accomplishments, but through a much-needed change (subtle or dramatic) in tone, approach, vision and candor. One of his first defining actions appears to be a major Obama speech delivered in an Islamic capital within the first 100 days of his presidency. The President-elect believes such a speech would “redefine our struggle” and take advantage of “a unique opportunity to reboot America’s image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular.” The speech will reportedly convey “a message of no-tolerance toward terrorism, while emphasizing the values America wants to share with the world.” The what has been largely determined, it's the where that has stirred international anticipation.

Obama’s plan, still in the formative stages, immediately set off speculation over where the new American president would choose to deliver his message and what he would say… Obama did not indicate where he might give the speech, but snap speculation by some experts centered on Cairo. Egypt is a US ally, and a traditional center of Muslim culture. At the same time, the country is governed by an authoritarian regime – a point that would make it a bold setting for Obama to make the case for democracy in the Muslim world.

[Other recommendations have included] either Istanbul, Turkey; or Casablanca, Morocco. Choosing Istanbul would symbolize a desire to bridge the economic, political, and perception gaps between the West and the Muslim world, he says. Casablanca would demonstrate an interest in going “deeper into the heart of the Muslim world,” while offering the added advantage of being in an Arab country – since, as Masmoudi says, the issue of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would also have to figure into the speech.

Helene Cooper weighs the various options and decides upon Cairo:

So where should he do it? The list of Islamic world capitals is long, and includes the obvious —Riyadh, Kuwait City, Islamabad — and the not-so-obvious — Male (the Maldives), Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), Tashkent (Uzbekistan). Some wise-guys have even suggested Dearborn, Mich., as a possibility.

…The consensus, after an entire day of reporting, is Cairo. Why Cairo? It’s a matter of elimination. I called Ziad Asali, the president of the American Task Force on Palestine, to gauge his thoughts. “Damascus would be cool, except it would look as if he was rewarding the Syrians and it’s too soon for that,” Mr. Asali said. True. Maybe in a year, if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gets around to a land-for-peace deal with Israel. But for right now, I’m not really seeing Damascus as the spot for the big speech.

…Jakarta’s too easy. Mr. Asali thought so too: “Jakarta? People would yawn about that.” Sure, Indonesia is the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country — some 177 million Muslims live there — but the very fact that Mr. Obama once lived and went to school there would make choosing it seem like cheating. Baghdad? Definitely out-of-the-box, but it could appear to validate the Iraq war, which Mr. Obama opposed. Beirut? Too many Hezbollah members — Secret Service would flip its collective lid — and anyway, the Lebanese president has always been a Christian.

Tehran? Too soon for that. Amman? Been there, done that. Islamabad? Too dangerous. Ankara? Too safe. Plus the Turks aren’t going to be too crazy about being used for outreach to the Muslim world when they’re trying to join the European Union. I asked a senior Turkish diplomat what he thought. He immediately started acting, well, diplomatic. “We don’t have a problem with our Islamic identity,” he said. “But our system is secular.” Riyadh? Mr. Obama’s national security aides say no. Kuwait City? Abu Dhabi? Doha? “I don’t think it will be in the Gulf,” one foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama said.

See? It’s got to be Cairo. Egypt is perfect. It’s certainly Muslim enough, populous enough and relevant enough. It’s an American ally, but there are enough tensions in the relationship that the choice will feel bold. The country has plenty of democracy problems, so Mr. Obama can speak directly to the need for a better democratic model there. It has got the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist organization that has been embraced by a wide spectrum of the Islamic world, including the disenfranchised and the disaffected. The Secret Service won’t like it one bit, but Cairo is no Islamabad. I called the Egyptian Embassy in Washington to ask officials there what they thought. Someone from Mr. Obama’s team had already mentioned the possibility, although embassy officials said Egypt has not been approached about a possible presidential trip to Cairo.

Still, Sameh Shoukry, the Egyptian ambassador, e-mailed me a statement. “Needless to say, the President of the United States is always welcome in Egypt,” it said. “Delivering such a speech from Cairo would no doubt reinforce the intended message. Cairo has long been a center of Islamic learning and scholarship, in line with Egypt’s central role in the Middle East.”

Michael Fullilove provides a recommendation of his own -- Jakarta:

Egypt, Turkey and Qatar have been suggested as possible sites for such a speech. But the best candidate is the country in which Mr. Obama lived as a child: Indonesia. Choosing Indonesia would throw light on the diversity and richness of Islam, which is not, contrary to lingering perceptions, practiced solely by Arabs or only in the Middle East. The country, home to the world’s largest Muslim population, does a reasonable job of managing its considerable religious heterogeneity. Going there would help Mr. Obama to reframe the debate in the West about Islam and terrorism.

An Indonesian audience would also make sense. Indonesians have been both victims and perpetrators of terrorist attacks, including the deadly Bali bombings. The government in Jakarta is an important partner in the effort against terrorism. Selecting Indonesia would demonstrate that Mr. Obama takes democracy seriously, given that Indonesia is a rowdy democracy — the third-largest in the world. It would show that President Bush’s misshapen democratization agenda has not turned his successor into an icy realist.

Reminding the world of Mr. Obama’s origins could help counter anti-Americanism. Who would have thought the United States would elect a president with memories of wandering barefoot through rice paddies and “the muezzin’s call at night”? Finally, a trip to Indonesia would indicate that Mr. Obama was serious about rebalancing America’s foreign policy. It would show that he understands the shift of global power eastward, and telegraph that Washington was finally going to take the nation — the linchpin of Southeast Asia — seriously.

Mr. Obama was criticized in the campaign as offering speeches rather than solutions. Cynics will say this time that you can’t fight terrorism with cue cards. But there is no better way to make an argument than with a speech — and for this speech, there is no better place to make that argument than Indonesia.

Powell on the GOP

"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh? Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?"

-- Colin Powell, on the problems of the Republican party.

Preventing Genocide

In a recent editorial, the NY Times comments on a report by the Genocide Prevention Task Force, co-chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, which calls for the prevention of genocide to be a top priority for the incoming Obama Administration.

Darfur, Congo, Rwanda and, before that, Bosnia. It is hard to contemplate man’s capacity for inhumanity without feeling despair and paralysis. The world usually pays attention only after the killing has spun out of control, when ethnic, religious and political divides are rubbed so raw that the furies are infinitely harder to calm. By that point, the United States and others are faced with the agonizing choice of either intervening militarily or allowing the killing to go on.

A new report by a task force headed by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Defense Secretary William Cohen offers some hope, arguing that it is possible to prevent genocide before it spins out of control. It offers practical policy suggestions — what Mrs. Albright calls a “mechanism for looking at genocide in a systematic way” — for the next administration. The report says that early warning and prevention are key and calls on the White House to create a senior-level interagency committee directed by the National Security Council to analyze threats of genocide and mass atrocities around the world and consider appropriate preventive action.

When initial signs of mass atrocities are detected, the task force would also require the intelligence community to do a full policy review and prepare a crisis response plan. The goal is to engage leaders, institutions and civil society in affected communities urgently, and at an early stage when talk and other help may defuse the situation. The task force urges the United States government to spend an additional $250 million annually on crisis prevention and response efforts, with a portion going to help international partners, including the United Nations and regional organizations, build their capacity.

It is hard to generate political will to fix a problem before it has crested. But if there is any doubt about the need for a new policy and structure, consider the Bush administration’s desperate failure in Darfur. Four years after President Bush declared the mass killings there genocide, the horrors continue. As many as 300,000 people have been killed and 2.7 million driven from their homes. With the region increasingly engulfed in interrebel warfare, a political settlement appears to be even further out of reach.

We hope President-elect Barack Obama and his top aides will seriously consider the report’s policy recommendations before they, too, find themselves grappling with such agonizing choices.

Inconvenient Truths

As reported in a recent must-read by Joshua Hammer in the Atlantic, “the investigation into the 2005 assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri is nearing its end--and a trial in international court looms. Insiders say the trail of evidence leads, ultimately, to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. But having spent three years fearing for their lives, the investigators are now grappling with a different fear: that Western concerns about regional stability will prevent the naming of the biggest names.” On Slate, Christopher Hitchens offers his thoughts on the Hammer article and “the investigation that could blow up the Middle East.”

Here are the known facts: If you are a Lebanese politician or journalist or public figure, and you criticize the role played by the government of Syria in your country's internal affairs, your car will explode when you turn the ignition key, or you will be ambushed and shot or blown up by a bomb or land mine as you drive through the streets of Beirut or along the roads that lead to the mountains. The explosives and weapons used, and the skilled tactics employed, will often be reminiscent of the sort of resources available only to the secret police and army of a state machine. But I think in fairness I must stress that this is all that is known for sure. You criticize the Assad dictatorship, and either your vehicle detonates or your head is blown off. Over time, this has happened to a large and varied number of people, ranging from Sunni statesman Rafik Hariri to Druze leader Kamal Jumblatt to Communist spokesman George Hawi. One would not wish to be a "conspiracy theorist" and allege that there was any necessary connection between the criticisms in the first place and the deplorably terminal experiences in the second.

Hammer's article is good for a laugh in that it shows just how much trouble the international community will go to precisely in order not to implicate the Assad family in this string of unfortunate events. After all, does Damascus not hold the keys to peace in the region? Might not young Bashar Assad, who managed to become president after the peaceful death by natural causes of his father, become annoyed and petulant and even uncooperative if he were found to have been commissioning assassinations? Could the fabled "process" suffer if a finger of indictment were pointed at him? At the offices of the long-established and by now almost historic United Nations inquiry into the Hariri murder, feet are evidently being dragged because of considerations like these, and Hammer describes the resulting atmosphere very well.

Controlling Arms

In 2008, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation sought input from 60 scientists, academics, members of Congress, senior congressional staffers, and representatives from advocacy groups, think tanks, and foundations to assess the priorities for the next Administration on nuclear arms control and non-proliferation. The full report is available here. An excerpt:

Top Three Recommendations

1. Provide a new direction on nuclear weapons policy that emphasizes “minimum deterrence,” extend the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), and signal intent to pursue negotiations with Russia on further reductions.

* Issue a statement explaining a new vision for nuclear weapons policy and guidance for the 2009 Nuclear Posture Review. The statement should include the intent to pursue nuclear weapons reductions and a reiteration that the only role for nuclear weapons is “minimum deterrence” – deterring the use of nuclear weapons against the United States or U.S. allies.

* Extend START I and begin bilateral negotiations with Russia on further permanent, legally-binding, and verifiable reductions toward a goal of 1,000 deployed and non-deployed nuclear weapons per side or fewer. Send a special envoy to Russia or appoint a working group to signal U.S. intent to maintain verification provisions and move toward reductions.

2. Announce intent to secure all vulnerable fissile material in four years as the best way to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism. Accelerate and prioritize these efforts accordingly and appoint a senior official to coordinate threat reduction efforts.

3. Announce intent to seek ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and begin working to build the bipartisan support in the Senate needed for approval.

Next Tier Recommendations:

* Announce intent to negotiate with Iran without preconditions.

* Recommit to promises (“13 Steps”) made at the 1995 extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and re-affirmed in 2000, and announce intent to fulfill these promises in the first term.

* Condition further deployment of ground-based midcourse missile defense in Europe on further tests that can confirm the effectiveness of the system.

* Begin efforts to create a new independent agency, or reform the current State Department structure, to deal more effectively and at a higher level with arms control and non-proliferation.

U.S. Immigration Patterns

Vimeo recently posted a fascinating video that shows immigration patterns to the U.S. from 1820 to 2007. Each dot represents 100 people.

Andrew Sullivan: "Maybe it's because I'm an immigrant myself, but I found this simple graphic deeply moving. Whatever America's faults, what other country draws so many for so long?"

Kelly 1, O'Reilly 0

As he proves time and time again, the only thing more astounding than Bill O'Reilly's self-righteousness is his ignorance, stubbornness and complete disregard for facts and reality. In this clip, Fox's own Megyn Kelly takes him to school on the topic of free speech:

False Logic

On a recent Hardball, Chris Matthews, Mother Jones' David Corn, and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney engage in an interesting and sometimes heated discussion about the lead-up to the war in Iraq and Dick Cheney's recent admission that the U.S. would have invaded Iraq even without the pretense of WMD.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Best John McCain Moments

Courtesy of the Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Best John McCain Moments

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

The Fallout From Mumbai

On the heels of the attacks in Mumbai, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari wants the world to know that “the terrorists want to destroy Pakistan, too.” An excerpt:

The Mumbai attacks were directed not only at India but also at Pakistan’s new democratic government and the peace process with India that we have initiated. Supporters of authoritarianism in Pakistan and non-state actors with a vested interest in perpetuating conflict do not want change in Pakistan to take root. To foil the designs of the terrorists, the two great nations of Pakistan and India, born together from the same revolution and mandate in 1947, must continue to move forward with the peace process. Pakistan is shocked at the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. We can identify with India’s pain. I am especially empathetic. I feel this pain every time I look into the eyes of my children.

Pakistan is committed to the pursuit, arrest, trial and punishment of anyone involved in these heinous attacks. But we caution against hasty judgments and inflammatory statements. As was demonstrated in Sunday’s raids, which resulted in the arrest of militants, Pakistan will take action against the non-state actors found within our territory, treating them as criminals, terrorists and murderers. Not only are the terrorists not linked to the government of Pakistan in any way, we are their targets and we continue to be their victims.

India is a mature nation and a stable democracy. Pakistanis appreciate India’s democratic contributions. But as rage fueled by the Mumbai attacks catches on, Indians must pause and take a breath. India and Pakistan — and the rest of the world — must work together to track down the terrorists who caused mayhem in Mumbai, attacked New York, London and Madrid in the past, and destroyed the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad in September. The terrorists who killed my wife are connected by ideology to these enemies of civilization. These militants did not arise from whole cloth. Pakistan was an ally of the West throughout the cold war. The world worked to exploit religion against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by empowering the most fanatic extremists as an instrument of destruction of a superpower. The strategy worked, but its legacy was the creation of an extremist militia with its own dynamic.

Pakistan continues to pay the price: the legacy of dictatorship, the fatigue of fanaticism, the dismemberment of civil society and the destruction of our democratic infrastructure. The resulting poverty continues to fuel the extremists and has created a culture of grievance and victimhood. The challenge of confronting terrorists who have a vast support network is huge; Pakistan’s fledgling democracy needs help from the rest of the world. We are on the frontlines of the war on terrorism. We have 150,000 soldiers fighting Al Qaeda, the Taliban and their extremist allies along the border with Afghanistan — far more troops than NATO has in Afghanistan.

Nearly 2,000 Pakistanis have lost their lives to terrorism in this year alone, including 1,400 civilians and 600 security personnel ranging in rank from ordinary soldier to three-star general. There have been more than 600 terrorism-related incidents in Pakistan this year. The terrorists have been set back by our aggressive war against them in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the Pashtun-majority areas bordering Afghanistan. Six hundred militants have been killed in recent attacks, hundreds by Pakistani F-16 jet strikes in the last two months.

Terrorism is a regional as well as a global threat, and it needs to be battled collectively. We understand the domestic political considerations in India in the aftermath of Mumbai. Nevertheless, accusations of complicity on Pakistan’s part only complicate the already complex situation. For India, Pakistan and the United States, the best response to the Mumbai carnage is to coordinate in counteracting the scourge of terrorism. The world must act to strengthen Pakistan’s economy and democracy, help us build civil society and provide us with the law enforcement and counterterrorism capacities that will enable us to fight the terrorists effectively.

Huckabee vs. Stewart

Mike Huckabee was the guest on last night's Daily Show, and quickly walked into an interesting debate over the appropriate role government should play in our lives.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 1

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

The Gates Dilemma

The LA Times recently reported on the ongoing budget battle between Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the DoD bureaucracy. With a nation confronting budget shortfalls and a military confronting the challenges of modernization while fighting two wars, Gates will certainly have his hands full.

In Obama's administration, Gates will face two primary issues: how the Pentagon buys weapons and which weapons it chooses to buy. Gates has been a critic of both. …Gates acknowledges the need for strategic bombers and billion-dollar ships. But he has questioned whether the most sophisticated weapons can best counter low-intensity threats. During his first two years at the Pentagon, Gates pushed the bureaucracy to field specialized equipment in Iraq, such as mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs, that have helped reduce the number of casualties from roadside bombs.

Gates believes that the Pentagon must improve its ability to develop cheaper and low-tech weaponry for counterinsurgency missions, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the military services remain focused on big weapons programs -- ships, planes and new generations of tanks and troop transports, officials argue.

While Gates may have initially planned to push some of these tough decisions to the next Administration, they are now squarely back in his lap.

For months, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has criticized the Pentagon's spending priorities but has done little to change them, choosing instead to leave the most difficult decisions to the next administration. With the announcement by President-elect Barack Obama last week that Gates will remain in his job in the new administration, the Defense chief has been given broad new power to reshape how the Pentagon selects, designs and builds new weapons systems.

…Gates explained his decision to remain at the Pentagon last week by citing acquisition reform and military modernization as crucial challenges. Pentagon officials, meanwhile, are bracing to see how Gates translates his words into action. Many officials believe that, under President Bush, Gates "punted" on key decisions such as the competition to build a new refueling tanker and whether to halt production of the F-22.

"Now he is going to be the recipient of those punts, and he won't be calling a fair catch," said Geoff Morrell, Pentagon press secretary. "He is prepared to deal with them head-on."

Blago's Greatest Hits

On Politico, Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns provide their list of “the top ten moments to listen for when the recordings of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, his chief of staff John Harris and his wife and other advisers become public.”

1. “It’s got to be good”: On Nov. 4, Blagojevich was already plotting to use Illinois’s soon-to-be-open Senate seat to his advantage – and talked about opening the bidding. He said he planned to ask, “How much are you offering, [President-elect]? What are you offering, [Senate Candidate 2]? . . . Can always go to. . . [Senate Candidate 3].” Blagojevich wasn’t specific about what he wanted, but he did explain: “It’s got to be good stuff for the people of Illinois and good for me…It’s got to be good or I could always take [the Senate seat].”

2. “Fucking golden”: The next day, Blagojevich said again that he would appoint himself to the Senate if he didn’t get what he wanted from the Obama team. “I’ve got this thing and it’s fucking golden,” Blagojevich says. “I’m not giving it up for fucking nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there.”

3. The trade: On November 7, Blagojevich, his chief of staff and a Washington-based adviser held a conference call suggesting a direct trade with Obama: the Department of Health and Human Services in exchange for appointing Obama’s favored successor — believed to be adviser Valerie Jarrett. “Rod Blagojevich indicated in the call that if he was appointed as Secretary of Health and Human Services by the President-elect, then Rod Blagojevich would appoint Senate Candidate 1 to the open Senate seat,” the complaint reads.

4. “Selfish grab”: The governor’s chief of staff, John Harris, advised him to avoid making “it look like some kind of selfish grab for a quid pro quo,” but Blagojevich was blunt about his motives: “I want to make money.” Later in the call, he put a price tag on his ambitions, saying he wanted a job that paid between $250,000 and $300,000.

5. Blago’s bank-shot: During a Nov. 7 conference call, Harris also suggested a three-way deal with Obama and the labor coalition Change to Win. From the FBI report: “Harris suggested that SEIU Official make Rod Blagojevich the head of Change to Win and, in exchange, the President-elect could help Change to Win with its legislative agenda on a national level.”

6. Flaming PEOTUS: On November 10, Blagojevich held a two-hour conference call with several advisers, including his wife, to figure out what options he could pursue if an administration appointment didn’t work out, as looked increasingly likely. Frustrated, Blagojevich told his advisers he didn’t want to give this “motherfucker [the President-elect] his senator. Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him.” A new option the plotters raised: getting Mrs. Blagojevich appointed to a number of corporate boards in order to rake in more cash for the Blagojevich family. According to the FBI, “Blagojevich stated that he is ‘struggling’ financially and does ‘not want to be governor for the next two years.’”

7. Shaking down Buffett and Gates: A day later, on November 11, Blagojevich and one of his advisers discussed the possibility of Obama’s wealthy supporters cobbling together a 501(c)(4) organization for Blagojevich to run. The FBI reports the Illinois governor “raised the idea of the 501(c)(4) organization and asked whether ‘they’ (believed be the President-elect and his associates) can get Warren Buffett and others to put $10, $12, or $15 million into the organization.” Later, Blagojevich added another target to his shakedown list, suggesting: “the president-elect can ask Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and others for money for the organization.”

8. “My political situation”: On November 12, after a conversation with an SEIU official in which he pushed his 501(c)(4) plan, Blagojevich spoke with Harris about his criteria for choosing the next Illinois senator: “our legal situation, our personal situation, my political situation.” When Harris said Blagojevich’s legal situation was the most tenuous of the three, the governor replied “that his legal problems could be solved by naming himself to the Senate seat.”

9. White House hopes: Being governor of Illinois, possibly appointing himself to the Senate or taking on a posh private-sector gig wasn’t enough for Blagojevich, who expressed “a desire to remake his image in consideration of a possible run for president in 2016.”

10. “Hold up” Cubs cash: Angry at some of the Chicago Tribune’s editorials, Blagojevich threatened to hold up state support for the Tribune-owned Chicago Cubs unless the newspaper reorganized its editorial board. In response to an editorial calling for Blagojevich’s impeachment, the governor’s wife told her husband: “hold up that fucking Cubs shit. ... Fuck them.” Blagojevich urged Harris to approach the Tribune and tell them to “Fire those fuckers.”

Obama Wouldn't Play Ball

As reported on Kos, one of the most interesting parts of the Criminal Complaint about Governor Rod Blagojevich is the section that speaks to “Candidate 1”, Obama's preference to replace him in the US Senate. An excerpt:

By this time, media reports indicated that "Senate Candidate 1", an advisor to the President-elect, was interested in the Senate seat if it became vacant, and was likely to be supported by the President-elect. During the call, Rod Blagojevich stated, “unless I get something real good for [Senate Candidate 1], shit, I’ll just send myself, you know what I’m saying. ...And if I don’t get what I want and I’m not satisfied with it, then I’ll just take the Senate seat myself.” Later, Rod Blagojevich stated that the Senate seat “is a fucking valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.”

But Obama wouldn't play:

Rod Blagojevich stated that he is "struggling" financially and does "not want to be Governor for the next two years." Rod Blagojevich said that the consultants (Advisor B and another consultant are believed to be on the call at that time) are telling him that he has to "suck it up" for two years and do nothing and give this "motherfucker [the President-elect] his senator. Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him." Rod Blagojevich states that he will put "[Senate Candidate 4]" in the Senate "before I just give fucking [Senate Candidate 1] a fucking Senate seat and I don't get anything."

Later in the conversation, Rod Blagojevich said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. Fuck them."

The Best of the Primaries

On TPM: Remember the primaries? When it was all mittens and varmints, Kucinich and UFOs, and Terry McAuliffe with a bottle of rum on Morning Joe? Oh, those were the days. Join TPMtv for a special stroll down memory lane.

Prop 8 - The Musical, Cont.

On Countdown, Keith Olberman recently sat down with Mark Shaiman, creater of "Prop 8 - The Musical," and two of its biggest stars, Jack Black and John C. Reilly. Good discussion on the issue, and pure entertainment...

Political Archaeologists

"For a bunch of small-government Republicans, these guys built a hell of an empire."

-- An Obama transition team member who worked in the Clinton White House, quoted by the New York Times, "who has now stepped back inside for the first time in eight years."

The Obama Team

With General Shinseki’s recent nomination as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, it’s becoming more and more apparent that Barack Obama is not only bringing a new cast of characters into the highest echelons of government but that, probably more importantly, he’s bringing a vastly different approach to governing. For a nation that remains largely divided, it’s critical. Instead of the political hacks and “loyal Bushies” of the past eight years, Obama’s Cabinet, particularly his national security team, are proof that he seeks good judgement and results, not complete deference to the boss, and that he rewards competence over loyalty. If true change is on the horizon, our nation will need serious people to lead us through serious times. In that regard, Obama is off to a good start.

The Times on the Obama national security team:

After years of watching American leadership crumble under the weight of bad decisions made in a White House shuttered to all debate, President-elect Barack Obama’s national security team is a relief. Starting with the selection of Hillary Rodham Clinton, his former rival, as secretary of state, the president-elect has displayed his usual self-confidence. Declaring that he prizes “strong personalities and strong opinions,” Mr. Obama, who has limited foreign-policy experience, showed that he wants advisers with real authority who will not be afraid to disagree with him — two traits disastrously lacking in President Bush’s team.

…Both the selection of Mr. Gates and the appointment of General Jones should ease Mr. Obama’s early relations with the Pentagon. The military’s leaders tend to lean Republican and often mistrust presidents who do not have any military service, as they initially did with Mr. Clinton. When the United States is fighting two wars, good ties with the military are crucial. Mr. Obama seems to have already scored points by reaching out to important commanders, like Gen. David Petraeus. There is no underestimating the challenges facing Mr. Obama, and he will need a strong team to help him. [His choices thus far] are a strong start.

The Post:

Barack Obama’s announcement of his national security team immediately prompted questions about whether he had created a "team of rivals" who would spend as much time feuding as formulating policy. That strikes us as unlikely. True, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates are Washington heavyweights with their own strong views about foreign policy and national defense, while incoming national security adviser Gen. James L. Jones has been NATO commander. If Susan E. Rice, nominated as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has a relatively lighter résumé, she compensates by having the closest personal relationship with the president-elect, whom she served during the campaign.

…Mr. Gates, Ms. Clinton and Gen. Jones have also all questioned Mr. Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawing from Iraq and underlined the need to end the war without touching off a surge of violence in the country. Mr. Obama appears to be tacking toward their position: While he reaffirmed his 16-month timeline yesterday, he also said his "number-one priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase and that the Iraqi people are well served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security." While it's possible those priorities could be upheld during a 16-month withdrawal, most likely Mr. Obama's own team will press him for greater flexibility.

The president-elect said yesterday that he favors "strong personalities and strong opinions" around him in part because this prevents "groupthink." But groupthink may still be a danger on this team. Eager to correct the perceived errors of the Bush administration, Mr. Obama and his appointees are heavily invested in the notion that better diplomacy can answer Iran's drive for a nuclear weapon, ease the threat of terrorism from Pakistan and maybe even solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. We hope they are right. If they are wrong, particularly about Iran, someone in this group will need to speak up.

Former Bush speechwriter, Michael Gerson, offers his thoughts on Obama's "Team of Centrists:"

It is a lineup generous in its moderation, astonishing for its continuity, startling for its stability. A defense secretary, Robert Gates, who once headed the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M. A secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who supported the invasion of Iraq, voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and called direct, unconditional talks with Iran "irresponsible and frankly naive." A national security adviser, retired Gen. James Jones, most recently employed at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who served as a special adviser to the Bush administration on the Middle East. A Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who is one of Henry Paulson's closest allies outside the administration. A head of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, whose writings and research seem to favor low tax rates, stable money and free trade.

It is tempting for conservatives to crow -- or liberals to lament -- that Barack Obama's victory has somehow produced John McCain's administration. But this partisan reaction trivializes some developments that, while early and tentative, are significant. First, these appointments add evidence to a debate about the political character of the president-elect himself. Conservatives have generally feared that Obama is a closet radical. He has uniformly voted with liberal interests and done nothing to justify a reputation for centrism.

Until now. Obama's appointments reveal not just moderation but maturity -- magnanimity to past opponents, a concern for continuity in a time of war and economic crisis, a self-confidence that allows him to fill gaps in his own experience with outsize personalities, and a serious commitment to incarnate his rhetoric of unity. …Whatever the caveats, Obama is doing something marvelously right: He is disappointing the ideologues. This is more than many of us hoped -- and it is causing some of us to raise our hopes in Obama again.

Even Henry Kissinger is getting into the act, providing his thoughts on the “Team of Heavyweights:”

President-elect Barack Obama has appointed an extraordinary team for national security policy. On its face, it violates certain maxims of conventional wisdom: that appointing to the Cabinet individuals with an autonomous constituency, and who therefore are difficult to fire, circumscribes presidential control; that appointing as national security adviser, secretary of state and secretary of defense individuals with established policy views may absorb the president's energies in settling disputes among strong-willed advisers.

It took courage for the president-elect to choose this constellation and no little inner assurance -- both qualities essential for dealing with the challenge of distilling order out of a fragmenting international system. In these circumstances, ignoring conventional wisdom may prove to have been the precondition for creativity. Both Obama and the secretary of state-designate, Sen. Hillary Clinton, must have concluded that the country and their commitment to public service require their cooperation.

…No one has ever been appointed national security adviser who had the command experience of retired Gen. James L. Jones, the former head of the Marine Corps and NATO commander. Inevitably, the facilitating function of the security adviser will be accompanied by a role in policymaking based on a vast, almost unique, experience.

...The continuation in office of Robert Gates as secretary of defense is an important balancing element in that process. Alone among the key players, he is at the end, not the beginning, of his policy contribution. Having agreed to stay on in a transitional role, he cannot be interested in the jockeying that accompanies all new administrations. The incoming administration must have appointed him with the awareness that he would not reverse his previous convictions. He must make the difficult adjustment from one administration to another -- a tribute to the nonpartisan nature of the conduct of his office in the Bush administration. He is a guarantor of continuity but also the shepherd of necessary innovation.

Process is no substitute for substance, of course. But even with this caveat, the new national security team encourages the hope that America is moving beyond its divisions to its opportunities.

Nothing To It

"As I'm chatting with Obama, the moderator says, 'Governor Richardson, what do you think of that?' And I look at him like a deer in the headlights. I was about to say that I hadn't heard, when Obama puts his hand over his mouth and says, 'Katrina.' So I gave my four-point plan on Katrina. When I was done and the debate moved on, I looked over and said, 'Thanks, you're okay.' He said, 'Nothing to it, brother.'"

Commerce Secretary-designate Bill Richardson on how his new boss saved him during a Democratic primary debate.

Alaska's Newest Senator

Recently, the NY Times profiled Alaska’s newest Senator, Democrat Mark Begich, who defeated Ted Stevens in November. Stevens, the “Alaskan of the Century,” had retained that Senate seat since Begich was 6 years old and the state of Alaska was 9 years old. Needless to say, change was long overdue.

Mr. Begich has a history of courting skeptics, becoming mayor in 2003 (he avoided a runoff by just 18 votes) after losing twice before. He is certainly a different kind of politician from Mr. Stevens, 85, a World War II veteran and Harvard-trained lawyer who, like many other elected officials here, moved to Alaska as an adult. Mr. Begich, who never went to college, was born and raised in Anchorage, Alaska’s only big city. His wife is the former head of the state Democratic Party, and his father, Nick, was a member of Congress. As a young man, Mr. Begich managed apartment buildings in Anchorage, and at 26 was elected to the nonpartisan Anchorage Assembly, or city council.

…Mr. Begich won rural Alaska overwhelmingly in November, even though Mr. Stevens had delivered improvements like cleaner drinking water and airplane landing strips to remote villages. Yet the Begich name is also well known in rural areas.

Mr. Begich’s father was the last Alaska Democrat elected to the House. Nick Begich won his second term in November 1972, weeks after he was killed when a small plane he was traveling in disappeared during a campaign trip. Don Young, a Republican, won the seat in a special election the next year and still holds it. The state’s last Democratic senator, Mike Gravel, was defeated in a re-election bid in 1980.

Mr. Begich is married to Deborah Bonito, the former Democratic Party chairwoman and a small-business owner, and they have a 6-year-old son. He has not lived outside Alaska since he was a boy and his father was in Congress. Mr. Begich was 10 when his father died. He says he still makes a habit of keeping tools in his truck after years of helping his mother, Pegge, manage apartment buildings the family owned. He has also worked in the vending and restaurant industries and in real estate.

Crisp in his business suits and smooth in his delivery, the mayor has more urban polish than many other elected officials in Alaska. He is a regular presence at events like mortgage bankers luncheons and chamber of commerce gatherings; he also likes to slip in stories about standing in the supermarket aisle, commiserating about the high prices with residents who may not know he is mayor. He says he seeks out the discounted day-old bread. Mr. Begich portrays himself as a bold and contrarian Democrat, but he becomes more elliptical when discussing certain social issues.

..Mr. Begich said his top priority in Washington would be energy policy. He said drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could be done safely because of improved technology and should be part of a broad energy policy that also used wind, geothermal, hydropower and other renewable fuels. Saying energy policy should be shaped in the context of global warming, he pointed to street lamps on Benson Boulevard in midtown Anchorage and noted that the city was converting them to high-efficiency LED bulbs.

“The Republicans in our delegation didn’t even wake up to climate change until I started talking about it,” he said. While Mr. Stevens once threatened to campaign against lawmakers who did not support his proposals, Mr. Begich said he planned to win people over, not roll over them.

Asked whether he would be loud and aggressive in Congress, he said: “I’m going to be loud and respectful. There’s a difference. I’m loud when I need to be, but Ted was ‘you owe me.’ No one owes you anything in life. You’ve got to earn it.”

Calling All Pakistanis

In his latest column, Thomas Friedman cites the violent street protests that followed the publication of Danish cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad and asks “When Pakistanis and other Muslims are willing to take to the streets, even suffer death, to protest an insulting cartoon published in Denmark, is it fair to ask: Who in the Muslim world, who in Pakistan, is ready to take to the streets to protest the mass murders of real people, not cartoon characters, right next door in Mumbai?” An excerpt:

After all, if 10 young Indians from a splinter wing of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party traveled by boat to Pakistan, shot up two hotels in Karachi and the central train station, killed at least 173 people, and then, for good measure, murdered the imam and his wife at a Saudi-financed mosque while they were cradling their 2-year-old son — purely because they were Sunni Muslims — where would we be today? The entire Muslim world would be aflame and in the streets.

So what can we expect from Pakistan and the wider Muslim world after Mumbai? India says its interrogation of the surviving terrorist indicates that all 10 men come from the Pakistani port of Karachi, and at least one, if not all 10, were Pakistani nationals. First of all, it seems to me that the Pakistani government, which is extremely weak to begin with, has been taking this mass murder very seriously, and, for now, no official connection between the terrorists and elements of the Pakistani security services has been uncovered.
…But while the Pakistani government’s sober response is important, and the sincere expressions of outrage by individual Pakistanis are critical, I am still hoping for more. I am still hoping — just once — for that mass demonstration of “ordinary people” against the Mumbai bombers, not for my sake, not for India’s sake, but for Pakistan’s sake. Why? Because it takes a village. The best defense against this kind of murderous violence is to limit the pool of recruits, and the only way to do that is for the home society to isolate, condemn and denounce publicly and repeatedly the murderers — and not amplify, ignore, glorify, justify or “explain” their activities.

Sure, better intelligence is important. And, yes, better SWAT teams are critical to defeating the perpetrators quickly before they can do much damage. But at the end of the day, terrorists often are just acting on what they sense the majority really wants but doesn’t dare do or say. That is why the most powerful deterrent to their behavior is when the community as a whole says: “No more. What you have done in murdering defenseless men, women and children has brought shame on us and on you.”

Why should Pakistanis do that? Because you can’t have a healthy society that tolerates in any way its own sons going into a modern city, anywhere, and just murdering everyone in sight — including some 40 other Muslims — in a suicide-murder operation, without even bothering to leave a note. Because the act was their note, and destroying just to destroy was their goal. If you do that with enemies abroad, you will do that with enemies at home and destroy your own society in the process.

Foretelling...

From the Iowa Democratic Presidential Debate:

A Wartime Transition

The NY Times recently solicited op-ed contributions from a number of national security experts. They provide interesting perspectives on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the many challenges and opportunities awaiting President-elect Obama.

Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, discusses the two-front war confronting the Obama Presidency.

He has less than two months to go from broad rhetoric to concrete day-to-day action. On Jan. 20, he will take over at a pivotal point in negotiating Iraq’s status of force agreement with the United States, in the middle of a winter military campaign in Afghanistan, and during a political, security and economic crisis in Pakistan. None of these issues will wait for America to deal with its financial problems. And no one involved believes that the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s northern territories can be fully won, or even transferred to Afghan and Pakistani hands, by even the end of President Obama’s first term. For at least the next two to three years, the war will intensify, and virtually all of the additional burden will be borne by the United States.
Leaks of a new National Intelligence Estimate have shown that we are now losing the war for several reasons: a lack of Afghan competence; a half-hearted Pakistani commitment to the fight; a shortage of American, NATO and International Security Assistance Force troops; too few aid workers; and nation-building programs that were designed for peacetime and are rife with inefficiency and fraud. This is why Gen. David McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan, and other military leaders have called for 20,000 to 25,000 more troops and warned that even those reinforcements may not be adequate.

Even with a potential drawdown in Iraq, the military is being stretched ever thinner. The Army already extends the deployment of troops beyond their commitments, and it and the Marine Corps may well find it impossible to meet their goals for shortening deployment cycles. As things stand, it will almost certainly take until 2011 to bring enough military advisers into Afghanistan to train its army and police forces to the level where locals can replace international troops. And with increasing terrorist attacks on non-governmental groups, many aid workers are being forced to leave the country.

…Even if the United States fully withdraws from Iraq in 2011, as Mr. Obama and the Iraqi government say they would like, we will remain on something very like a war footing there throughout the next presidency. While the combat burden on our forces will decline, withdrawal will be as costly as fighting. It will take large amounts of luck (and patient American prodding) for the Iraqi government to move toward real political accommodation while avoiding new explosions of ethnic and sectarian violence.

Even with progress on those fronts, we will have to withdraw while still helping to win a war, contain internal violence, limit Iranian influence and counter its nuclear program, create effective Iraqi security forces, and help Iraq improve its governance. Not a full war perhaps, but at least a quarter war in terms of continuing strains on our military and budget. ...In spite of recent progress under Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Mr. Rumsfeld’s inability to manage any key aspect of defense modernization has left the Obama administration a legacy of unfunded and expensive new trade-offs between replacing combat-worn equipment, repairing and rehabilitating huge amounts of weapons and equipment, and supplying our forces with new, improved equipment.

At best, President Obama will have to conduct the equivalent of one-and-a-quarter wars throughout his first term. At worst? The outside chance of war with Iran as well.

Fred Kagan, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, insists that we must capitalize on the common interests we share with Iraq vis-à-vis Iran.

Iraqis want to remain independent of Tehran, as they have now demonstrated by signing the agreement with the United States over Iran’s vigorous objections. They want to avoid military conflict with Iran, and so does America. Iraqis share our fear that Iran may acquire nuclear weapons, which would threaten their independence. And they resent Iran’s efforts to maintain insurgent and terrorist cells that undermine their government. Of course, the Iraqis recognize, as we do, that Iraq and Iran are natural trading partners and have a religious bond as majority Shiite. This may be to our benefit: the millions of Iranian pilgrims who will visit Iraqi holy sites at Najaf and Karbala over the coming years will take home a vision of a flourishing, peaceful, secular, religiously tolerant and democratic Muslim state.

The reintegration of Iraq into the Arab world is also under way. Many Arab states have already begun to open embassies in Baghdad. We should keep in mind that Iraq also shares interests with America regarding Saudi Arabia and Syria. Increasingly, Iraqi leaders speak quietly of replacing the Saudi kingdom as the dominant Arab state. Iraq also knows that Syria has allowed Al Qaeda fighters free passage across their common border for years, and has served as a staging base for Iranian support to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Washington and Baghdad have a common interest in persuading the Syrian regime to abandon its support of terror groups.

America will withdraw its forces from patrolling in Iraq and will significantly reduce the number of soldiers there over the coming years — that is not and never has been in question. The timing and nature of that withdrawal, however, is extremely delicate. It is vital that we help see Iraq through during its year of elections, and avoid the temptation to “front-load” the withdrawal in 2009. It is equally vital that we develop a broader strategic relationship with Iraq using all elements of our national power in tandem with Iraq’s to pursue our common interests. President Obama has the chance to do more in Iraq than win the war. He can win the peace.

Peter Mansoor, former executive officer to General David Petraeus, discusses an appropriate American withdrawal from Iraq that will leave that country intact.

Barack Obama has the opportunity to recast American policy toward Iraq in a meaningful way, by providing much-needed support to its political center. His administration should view the new status of forces agreement between Washington and Baghdad as a means to shape the withdrawal of our combat forces while maintaining enough leverage to guide Iraq toward a more stable future.

…The key now is to sustain the momentum toward reconciliation, even while combat forces are withdrawn — a delicate balancing act. Although insurgent attacks have been appreciably reduced and Al Qaeda in Iraq is devastated, considerable distrust remains among various ethnic factions and religious sects and within the Iraqi government. As honest brokers, American forces keep the peace in key areas. Yet it is possible that we can complete their departure over three years, as envisioned in the status of forces agreement, assuming that the Iraqi Army has matured enough to take on added responsibilities.

Up to four brigades and their associated support — 20,000 to 25,000 troops — could be withdrawn in 2009, which would provide reinforcements for the war in Afghanistan. Withdrawals should then accelerate, as the division of power and resources is cemented locally across Iraq, with half the remaining combat forces and their associated support withdrawn in each of the following two years. By the end of 2011 — subject to Iraqi concurrence, of course — some 20,000 to 40,000 troops would remain for an extended period. These would be mainly military advisers, counterterrorist units, combat aircraft crews and support, and intelligence and logistical personnel.

Much of the stability in Iraq stems from a patchwork of agreements across the country between local leaders and the American military or the Iraqi government. To make sure that these agreements endure, the Iraqi government needs to prove to its people that it represents their interests in these ways: by ensuring adequate representation in political life of all sects and ethnicities in the political life; by incorporating a significant number of the Sons of Iraq (Sunnis who have supported the counterinsurgency) into the police forces and other government jobs; by providing tangible incentives for the return of Iraqi refugees from abroad; and by equitably distributing government funds and services to all areas of Iraq.

…Even as we pull troops out, the United States is not without significant leverage. We provide the Iraqi armed forces needed assets, from intelligence and logistics to air support and advisers; our civilian advisers are helping to improve the efficiency of the Iraqi government; our global diplomatic leverage can help Iraq in a number of ways; and Washington can encourage business investment in Iraq, particularly in its dilapidated oil industry.

To nudge the Iraqi government in the right direction, the new administration must let it know, quietly but firmly, that the blank check given by the Bush administration is no longer in force. It should make clear that we, too, want to see the expeditious withdrawal of American combat forces, but only in a manner that ensures Iraq will not again dissolve into chaos and civil war. Long-term American diplomatic, economic and military support should be contingent on a comprehensive political solution with a fair division of power. The alternative — a sectarian Shiite government that marginalizes other sects and ethnicities and is perhaps aligned with Iran as well — is
unacceptable.

Syria First

As Aaron David Miller contends in the Post, while working toward a sustainable Arab and Israeli peace settlement, President-elect Obama should remain cognizant of the very real possibility that an Israeli-Syrian agreement could be right around the corner. An excerpt:

A new president eager to repair America's image abroad may be tempted to try for an agreement, but he should avoid the sirens' call. No conflict-ending agreement is possible now, nor is one likely to be anytime soon, and the stakes are too high for America to harbor illusions that would almost certainly lead to yet another failure. The gaps separating the two sides on the core issues (Jerusalem, borders, refugees and security) remain too wide, the current leaders are too weak to bridge them, and the environment on the ground is too complicated to allow for sustainable negotiations.

In Palestine, dysfunction and confusion reign. The Palestinian national movement is riven with geographic and political divisions between Hamas (itself divided) and Fatah (even more divided). There is little chance of creating a united Palestinian house that can take control of the guns and offer up a viable and unified negotiating position that any Israeli government could accept. Weak leadership and unstable coalition politics prevail in Israel, too. And Israeli settlement activity, which continues unabated, rounds out a nightmarish picture that ought to scare away any smart mediator. It would be folly to go for broke, given these conditions. The notion that trying and failing is better than not trying at all might be an appropriate rallying cry for a college football coach; it isn't a suitable foreign policy principle for the world's greatest power.

…The more compelling argument is for a major push on another negotiation: between Israel and Syria. Here, there are two states at the table, rather than one state and a dysfunctional national movement. A quiet border, courtesy of Henry Kissinger's 1974 disengagement diplomacy, prevails. And there are fewer settlers on the Golan Heights and no megaton issues such as the status of Jerusalem to blow up the talks. Indeed, the issues are straightforward -- withdrawal, peace, security and water -- and the gaps are clear and ready to be bridged.

For a president looking for a way to buck up America's credibility, an Israeli-Syrian agreement offers a potential bonus. Such a deal would begin to realign the region's architecture in a way that serves broader U.S. interests. The White House would have to be patient. Syria won't walk away from a 30-year relationship with Iran; weaning the Syrians from Iran would have to occur gradually, requiring a major international effort to marshal economic and political support for Damascus. Still, an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty would confront Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran with tough choices and reduced options.

None of this will be easy. An Obama administration, and particularly the new president, would need to be in the middle of things. It would be excruciatingly hard, time-consuming and expensive to satisfy Israel and Syria's economic and security needs, and a final agreement would most likely involve U.S. peacekeepers. More important, the United States would need to push the two sides further than they are now willing to go, on the extent of withdrawal from the Golan Heights in Israel's case, on normalization and security in Syria's. But with Israeli and Syrian leaders who are serious, and with a new administration ready to be tough, smart and fair in its diplomacy, a deal can be done.

So, Mr. President-elect, go ahead and try to buck up the Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire, train Palestinian security forces, pour economic aid into Gaza and the West Bank, and quietly nurture Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. But don't go for the endgame -- you won't get there. Instead, invest in an Israeli-Syrian peace, and, afterward, you might find, with a historic success under your belt and America again admired for its competence, you will be better positioned to achieve the success you want in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, as well.

Retaining Gates

The decision by Barack Obama to retain Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense is being met with mixed reviews. As reported in the NY Times:

President-elect Barack Obama has decided to keep Defense Secretary Robert M.Gates in his post, a show of bipartisan continuity in a time of war that will be the first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party, Democrats close to the transition said Tuesday. …The move will give the new president a defense secretary with support on both sides of the aisle in Congress, as well as experience with foreign leaders around the world and respect among the senior military officer corps. But two years after President Bush picked him to lead the armed forces, Mr. Gates will now have to pivot from serving the commander in chief who started the Iraq war to serving one who has promised to end it.

In deciding to ask Mr. Gates to stay, Mr. Obama put aside concerns that he would send a jarring signal after a political campaign in which he made opposition to the war his signature issue in the early days. Some Democrats who have advised his campaign quietly complained that he was undercutting his own message and risked alienating war critics who formed his initial base of support, especially after tapping his primary rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, for secretary of state.

But advisers argued that Mr. Gates was a practical public servant who was also interested in drawing down troops in Iraq when conditions allow. “From our point of view, it looks pretty damn good because of continuity and stability,” said an Obama adviser, who insisted on anonymity to discuss confidential deliberations. “And I don’t think there are any ideological problems.” Associates said Mr. Gates was torn between a desire to retire to a home in Washington State and a sense of duty as the military faces the daunting challenges of reducing forces in Iraq and increasing them in Afghanistan.

… Mr. Gates, who served as C.I.A. director under the first President Bush, would not have to be reconfirmed by the Senate. The prospect of retaining him generated praise from the military establishment and Capitol Hill, where he is viewed as a pragmatist who turned the Pentagon around after the tumultuous tenure of Donald H. Rumsfeld.

…The developments came as Mr. Obama prepared to begin unveiling his national security team after the long Thanksgiving weekend. Besides formally announcing his nomination of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state, Mr. Obama was expected to appoint Gen. James L. Jones, a retired Marine commandant and NATO supreme commander, as his national security adviser. …The team is shaping up as one of experience more than change, figures with long résumés but at times conflicting backgrounds. Nothing reflects that more than keeping a Republican-appointed defense secretary. Although Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald R. Ford made no change at the top of the Pentagon when they took office, no president has kept a defense secretary from a predecessor in another party, Donald Ritchie, a Senate historian, said.

Some Democrats have viewed the selection of Gates with more skepticism -- arguing that it lends further credence to the faulty assertion that Democrats are weak on defense and tend to rely upon Republicans as Secretary of Defense. As noted on Kos, “if Gates stays the full four years, it would mean that from 1953-2013, a Republican will have held the SecDef post for 5.5 of 60 years. A list of Secretaries of Defense and party affiliation beginning with the Eisenhower years:

Charles E. Wilson - Republican (1953-57)
Neil H. McElroy - Republican (1953-59)
Thomas S. Gates - Republican (1959-61)
Robert S. McNamara - Republican (1961-1968)
Clark M. Clifford - Democrat (1968-1969)
Melvin R. Laird - Republican (1969-1973)
Elliot L. Richardson - Republican (1973)
James R. Schlesinger - Republican (1973-1975)
Donald H. Rumsfeld - Republican (1975-1977)
Harold Brown - Democrat (1977-1981)
Caspar W. Weinberger - Republican (1981-1987)
Frank C. Carlucci - Republican (1987-1989)
Richard B. Cheney - Republican (1989-1993)
Les Aspin - Democrat (1993-1994)
William J. Perry - Democrat (1994-1997)
William S. Cohen - Republican (1997-2001)
Donald H. Rumsfeld - Republican (2001-2006)
Robert Gates - Republican (2006-Present)-

And as reported, not everyone in the Obama camp is thrilled about the choice.

The speculation over Gates' tenure has been most intense inside the Obama transition team. The team received a request from Gates that, were he to stay, he would want to retain some of his top civilian assistants. The request led to concerns among the Obama transition staff: "Gates is not a neo-con or even a hardcore Republican," a person close to the process noted, "but the people around him sure as hell are." A former Bill Clinton administration official who has been deployed by Obama to conduct a series of "meet and greets" with top officials at the Pentagon scoffed at the notion of a continuation of Gates' tenure: "The [presidential] election was a clean sweep," he says, "and that includes Bob Gates. It's called a change in government."

But others inside Obama's close-knit group of advisors think that a continuation of Gates' tenure can provide Obama with a bridge to the nation's military leadership - essential, they say, because of US troop commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. These advisors point out that Richard Danzig, a former secretary of the navy and reputed front runner for the Pentagon post ("always the smartest man in the room", as retired four-star US Marine Corps General Joe Hoar describes him), supports a continuation in Gates' tenure. Then too, Gates is apparently admired by Obama himself, who has been in close touch with a number of Gates' former colleagues (dubbed "graybacks"), like Brent Scowcroft, from the first George W. Bush administration. "The graybacks have weighed in, and they're all for Bob," a defense official says.

Presidential Counsel

As the Post reports, it's becoming clear that Joe Biden may not necessarily have a portfolio in the new Administration other than the role of a counselor. An excerpt:

…While Mr. Obama has moved quickly to assemble his White House staff and the beginnings of a cabinet, he is lagging behind even the chronically late President Bill Clinton in bringing clarity to the role his vice president will play. So far, Mr. Biden has not been given a defined portfolio, the way Al Gore was given the environment and technology in 1992. And Mr. Obama’s aides say they do not expect Mr. Biden to assume the kind of muscular role that Vice President Dick Cheney has played over the last eight years, although he is expected to put out a number of fires.

“I’m sure that there will be discrete assignments over time,” said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president-elect. “But I think his fundamental role is as a trusted counselor. I think that when Obama selected him, he selected him to be a counselor and an adviser on a broad range of issues.”

…Mr. Biden seems to be adapting. He is hiring for his office, including a chief of staff, Ron Klain, who has worked with him since he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the 1990s. With Mr. Obama having settled on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state, Mr. Biden, whose most recent Senate post was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has privately told people that he recognizes he will not be the point man on foreign policy. Mr. Biden has also interviewed candidates for chief economist, and associates say he is honing his economic credentials.

…Mr. Biden is spending most weekdays in Chicago, where he stays in a hotel and has lunch once a week with Mr. Obama. [He has also] been involved in cabinet and policy decisions, offering advice to the president-elect, aides said.

The lack of specificity stands in contrast to the more clearly defined role of Mr. Gore. Within days of Mr. Clinton’s election in 1992, advisers to the president-elect said Mr. Gore would be in charge of a broad initiative on science and technology, heralding what they promised would be a new era in which the government’s focus on making armaments would shift to fostering new civilian technologies and industries. By early December 1992, even before Mr. Clinton had made any cabinet appointments, Mr. Gore was out in front on the environment, issuing a statement calling for an investigation of a hazardous-waste incinerator and signaling that the administration planned an aggressive approach to enforcing environmental laws. During an interview with Gannett on Dec. 8, 1992, Mr. Clinton said Mr. Gore would have “certain specific responsibilities over and above” a general advisory role, including “lobbying the Congress on our program, especially in the health care area, dealing with issues related to the environment and technology.”

As for the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, aides to both men insist that the relationship is strong, with each man settling into his role.