Why give Iran a reason not to fear a military attack?

Washington Post ^ | November 18, 2010 | Editorial

[Ooh-Ah]

PART OF President Obama's mantra about Iran has been that "all options are on the table" - meaning he will not rule out military action to stop its attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. President George W. Bush said the same thing; in fact, there is broad agreement among American policymakers that the threat of force must be part of the mix of pressures and incentives aimed at Tehran. So why does Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates keep undercutting the message? Twice in the past week, Mr. Gates has publicly argued against a military option - even though neither the United States nor Israel appears to be close to launching a strike.

Mr. Gates first rejected a statement by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who said that if the United States "hopes to stop Iran's nuclear program without resorting to military action, it will have to convince Iran that it is prepared to take such action." That sounds like Mr. Obama's policy; why say that "all options are on the table" unless the point is for Tehran to believe it? But Mr. Gates said: "I disagree that only a credible military threat can get Iran to take the actions that it needs to end its nuclear weapons program." He added that while "we are prepared to do what is necessary . . . the political, economic approach we are taking is having an impact in Iran."

[The Sons of Liberty]

Gates is one of the worst SECDEFs ever to hold the position.

[Evil Slayer]

God help us survive these next two years. If we can get rid of the most evil illegal that is sitting in the Oval Office in 2012 (or earlier), we might have a fighting chance to reverse all the evil he has done to this once great nation.

[iopscusa]

Thanks to GWB and his Compass Con....Gates needs to go as soon as Obama & his crew do.

[Godwin1]

Maybe Gates knows something we don’t. The forces are stretched very thin. Congress is about to deliver a body blow to morale/recruitment/retention by encouraging sexual deviants to enlist and openly parade their perversion in the barracks, day rooms, and sleeping bays. Maybe Gates thinks we can’t do this stuff any more. Maybe he welcomes that fact. A perfect SECDEF for Zero.

[Ben Ficklin]

I don't know if you saw it in the news this past week, but GW Bush said in his book that he first offered the SecDef job to James Baker but had to go with Gates after Baker turned him down.

Bush expressed his amazement that Baker turned him down because that would have given Baker the distinction of having served as Sec of Treasury( Reagan), Sec of State(GHW Bush), and Sec of Def(under GW Bush)

[The Sons of Liberty]

No. I didn’t see that. Too bad, because Baker would’ve been an excellent SECDEF. I guess he had his reasons, but I’m sorry he didn’t accept.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Ooh-Ah.

• Stealth power (F-35 for Israel)

[squidly]

Gates is one of the worst SECDEFs ever to hold the position.

He certainly wasn't any better as DCI back in the day. Count me among those who scratched their heads when he was appointed to succeed Rumsfeld.

[The Sons of Liberty]

From my perspective, Gates seems a little too eager to please his master - 0bama, regardless of the impact to the welfare of The Country.

I suspect Gates was chosen by Bush because after Rumsfeld's alienation of the left, Bush was eager for a candidate that was palatable to the left so he could get an easy confirmation. This is somewhat confirmed by the fact that Gates was the only one from Bush's administration 0bama asked to stay on.