this presupposes that Defense Secretary Robert Gates will WANT to stay in his post for a year under the Obama administration.

He could conceivably say thanks but no thanks.

This will certainly prove to all the doubters that there are Democrats that are competent and qualified to handle military and security issues.

Just not any that are as qualified as a Republican Daddy.

This is stupid.

Well, there's the proof. Dems are too wimpy to do defense. They need a real man, a Republican, to protect them from the mean boogy men. I hope the Republicans beat the hell out of Obama for this in 2012. What a cop out. What a wimp. What a Democrat. Pitiful.

A veritable slam dunk. Barf.

But it will fall flat with the rest of us. He tried the same sort of thing with his FISA vote, and it fell flat.

I think this is a good idea. Gates has to carry out the President's policies; he is better positioned to start the withdrawal of troops from Iraq than a new person would be, who was faced with all the complexities of Defense on top of implementing new policy. I have never seen Gates as a Bush-o-phile; he has said a lot of quite independent things, and he appears to be a sensible, intelligent and thoughtful participant in government. If he agrees to be part of the Obama team, I think he'll be effective in quickly implementing a shift in policy without detriment to our troops or our relationships with other countries.

I applaud this move. I'm sure he won't stay long, but I feel at this point, there is so much upheaval in the world, we need a steady presence at Defense and I think he has earned people's respect and trust.

Some of you seem to be forgetting, after 8 years of Bush basically following orders from his generals, that the PRESIDENT is the Commander-in-Chief. Obama will be the Commander in Chief and he will be making military policy -- not bowing to the whims of folks in Defense. I am willing to bet that Gates will appreciate that and be an able player.

But he is not perfect. This is a mistake, hopfully not a serious one, and it will not be his last.

Even though he will make mistakes and have setbacks I'm still hoping he proves himself to be as good as Bill Clinton... (without the sex scandle)

Kumbaya.

Anyone who has actually followed Gate's activities over the past few years has seen that he is a pragmatic man who discards dogma if it doesn't work. He has proven he is willing to buck the power structures within the Pentagon such as his firing of the Secratary of the Air Force when he refused to cut spending on F-22 fighters we don't need to pay for Predator drones that we do need. This is a very good move. If Obama had appointed anyone else it would take 6 months for them to even understand the playing field at the Pentagon. This is exactly the Obama I voted for.

I love the smell of change in the morning.

Shouldn't Joe Wilson be somewhere in the upper levels of the intelligence apparatus?

(For those with short memories, Joe Wilson is Valerie Plame's husband who debunked the Niger/yellowcake war propaganda.)

I've been waiting to see this guy get his due for a long time now, and putting his skills to use in the Obama administration would be a good start.

I consider Joe Wilson a true patriot. Having said that, what on earth makes you think he is qualified to run the national intelligence apparatus? They guy has guts but you don't assign something so critical because it is his "due".

Some people are saying, "Dammit! You shoul dhave picked a Dem to PROVE that Dems are just as tough!"

Yes, that would have been the politically correct move designed to win elections 4 years from now....but a bad idea to handle the crisis in Iraq right now!

Yeah, it sucks, but the truth is that training a new guy would slow things down.

Want a withdrawl in 12 months?

Then you better not waste it with a new guy (and his/her team) trying to learn the rops for 6 or 7 of those months!

Just speculating.

Yes, we're in the middle of a war, so continuity at the DoD makes sense. But by the same argument ... we're in the middle of an economic crisis, so does that mean Obama should keep Bush's people at the Treasury Department? And hard times + war = crime, so should Obama retain Bush's Attorney General? Our foreign relations are in the toilet; should Obama thus leave the State Department alone?

Etc. Of course there are crises going on. There are always crises going on. The idea that any crisis justifies keeping the top people who are largely responsible for the crises strikes me as absurd.

Perhaps Obama should just say to Bush, "You know, George, things are really a mess right now and what America needs is continuity. Tell you what, why don't you just stay on as President for a while, and I'll kind of hang out and watch you to figure out how the job is done." Um, no, I don't think so.

I didn't say "run." Just that he should have a high-level position in the apparatus, for which 22 years of diplomatic postings and gov't positions should make him qualified. (Though the State Dep't would make sense, also.)

The only rational choice for SecDef, IMNSGDHO. Solid Democratic credentials, a deep understanding of both the military and the international situation in which it operates, and nobody can claim he doesn't have the credentials. I was really disappointed in the way Obama threw Clark under the bus after Clark said something about McCain which was both patently true and beneficial to Obama; hopefully Obama will get over it and choose Clark to succeed Gates in the near future. But, politics being what they are, I'm not holding my breath.

"Etc. Of course there are crises going on. There are always crises going on. The idea that any crisis justifies keeping the top people who are largely responsible for the crises strikes me as absurd."

Please explain exactly how Robert Gates is responsible for any crisis. He came in to clean up the mess that Rumsfeld and Bush created and by all accounts is doing an excellent job. I didn't buy the guilt by association line that the right tried to tie to Obama and I won't go for it with Gates either.