Secretary of Defense: What now?

Obviously the departure of Secretary Rumsfeld is a huge positive sign for Iraq, the U.S. military, and, well, sanity. Last month a poll revealed that 52% of Americans thought Secretary Rumsfeld should be fired -- not that he should leave, but that he should be fired -- and a bipartisan chorus has been calling for his ouster for years. His fatal flaws were myriad, including incompetence, arrogance, delusion, and unrelenting partisanship.

To me, though, the worst element of his tenure was the environment he created at the Department of Defense. Under his autocratic leadership, people began to fear and resist passing "bad" news up the chain of command. In a system where accurate assessments are literally the difference between life and death, the creation of that kind of atmosphere was unconscionable and unforgivable. It's hard for me to believe that his legacy will be one of anything but disgrace, and I can't think of a man more deserving of that fate.

Nominee Robert Gates is an establishment type, and served in the intelligence community over the course of four decades. He is well-liked in national security circles, demonstrated by the big wet kiss Rep. Harman bestowed (prematurely, I think) yesterday. The positives are that he has a long career in intelligence, is not generally thought of as a partisan hack (see: Goss, Porter), and, well, it's hard to imagine anybody worse than Secretary Rumsfeld. On the other hand, people are already up in arms about his connections to Iran-Contra principals, his long-standing connections to the Bush family, and allegations of cherry-picking intelligence analysis.

While I don't think unproven allegations are immediate disqualifiers, these elements will obviously require discussion and transparency. For those who want to see the nomination Borked for spite, remember that second nominations aren't necessarily better than the first (see: trading Miers for Alito). In any case, I don't think most criticism thus far addresses the most important issue: What does he think about Iraq?

Due to the massively failed current policies, it's vital that confirmation hearings be comprehensive and inclusive. The Senate must determine what Mr. Gates believes should be done in Iraq, and I'd be reassured by a repudiation of past policy. If he wants to work with officials on both sides of the aisle to change course, his appointment could be a beneficial development. If, however, he's being used as a fig leaf for continued poor strategy, that's unacceptable. It's up to the Senate to find out. (It's not encouraging, of course, that the President is trying to push him through in the upcoming session -- his nomination should be considered by the Senate Americans voted into power this week.)

Between the elections and Rumsfeld's ouster, the President has clearly entered lame duck territory. The question is, will the massive Democratic Congressional mandate force him to actually compromise and get things done to benefit the country, or will he dig in his heels? The press conference Wednesday was encouraging (if frequently bizarre), but I want to see some good faith from the administration and from Congressional Republicans before Dems start reaching out. Besides, with a Democratic majority in both houses, the question isn't whether we'll work with President Bush, but whether he'll work with us. We'll see. As The Wolf memorably said in Pulp Fiction, "Let's not start sucking each other's . . ." well, you know what he said. Secretary Rumsfeld's departure was long overdue, but with his ouster, and especially along with the Democratic landslide in Congress, I am, for the first time in a while, hopeful.