Why would Obama keep Gates as his Sec. of Defense if his plan is to hand over control and pull out of Iraq before summer of 2010? If President-Elect Obama's intention is to boost military presence in Afghanistan and push into Pakistan to defeat Al Qaida, then what role of significance value would Gates be playing in all of that?

First, Iraq war has ebbed down and the military mission has succeeded so far with the surge. The political stability and government administration is what needs to be shored up with additional support. President-Elect Obama himself had said repeatedly during the primary face-off with Hillary and also in the general election campaign against McCain, that America's continued presence in Iraq does not in any way measurably improve or guarantee the establishment of political stability and indigenous control of Iraq by the Iraqis themselves and that he was vehemently in favor of exiting out of Iraq. If he will keep his word, then any plan for Iraq should be one where the military is pulling back and diplomats are increasing their engagements with Baghdad. If any continuity is directly relevant it is that of the State department, and not Pentagon.

Second, Afghanistan. . . . we've been here before! America funded mujaheedins and freedom fighters in the 80's to kick USSR ass when it invaded Afghanistan. Much of the fighters were imported from neighbouring Islamic states. Of note, Pakistan got paid by US to join in the war against Soviet. That war lasted for 10years or a little more. We are now entering the 8th year in the war against terrorism and again, Pakistan got paid for its participation. It might be worth asking why Pakistan, in spite of knowledge and open admission of their support for Taliban and Al Qaeda, would be allowed to develop nuclear weaponry, unrestricted and free of IAEA monitoring but yet was excluded as an axis of evil, while Iraq - a country that had no weapons of mass destruction - was an evil state on the fringe of destroying humanity with a "vial of anthrax". The priorities were misplaced in 1979, they were misplaced in 2001 and they will continue to be misplaced on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Ground zero is not in Afghanistan and it is not in Iraq, it's in Pakistan. Al Qaida and Taliban cannot migrate West because Iran does not sympathise with them; they cannot go North because Tajiks and Uzbeks are aligned to Russia; but they gan go East to Pakistan where they find alliance with the Pashtuns. It makes sense then to take the war to Pakistan and block their gateway into and out of Afghanistan, thereby choking their subsistence. Now, you need a tactical command on the ground but the mission is already squandered. US and Europe, through NATO, is taking the gains of 1979 USSR-Afghan war and attempting to tame Taliban and Al Qaeda into a managable force that in the event, God forbid, of a confrontation in the Eastern bloc, these combatants could become war front assets against the enemy. To accomplish that, you deal a blow sufficiently powerful to demoralize but not too lethal to cause permanent scar or a complete wipe out. If I am wrong in this assessment, then I challenge anyone else to come up with an alternate theory to explain why US is quick to over run Saddam's Republican Army in Baghdad but seemed befuddled and dizzy, in association with NATO, on what to do with Taliban jihadists in Kandahar. True, Gates was a specialist on Russia back when he worked in CIA, but this is not about Russia. Or is it?

Two of Bush's cabinet secretaries were experts on Soviet - Robert Gates (Defense) and Condoleeza Rice (States). The difference in their fields of expertise is that Gates was an operative, whereas Rce was an academia. On the terms of his campaign promises on Iraq, Gates is less of an asset to Obama than Rice is. None of them is a worthy asset to him on Afghanistan or Pakistan. If we look ahead and past those two wars and consider what could happen with unpredictable moves by Russia and Iran, especially with Russia's increased presence in South America, it makes sense to retain a Secretary of Defense who also doubles as a Russian expert and a counter-weight to both Putin and Medvedev conitellpro background. The retention of Gates by President-Elect Obama is a wise choice. It suggests that his replacement will more than likely mirror the same background - an avid anti Soviet-, unless the scenes change in the diplomatic circles. I hope the offer of Sec. of State to Clinton can be withdrawn. Facing Russia with Gates and Clinton is a misstep. Conflicts of interest, though not intended, are bound to arise.