Confirmed

So Robert Gates was confirmed by the US Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously (21-0). His nomination now goes to the entire Senate where he'll likely be easily confirmed.

The red meat for liberals were the following exchanges:

He warned that the war in Iraq risks provoking a "regional conflagration" unless a new strategy can arrest the nation's slide toward chaos. He called the status quo there unacceptable and said Iraq would be his "highest priority."

Asked by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, whether "you believe we're currently winning in Iraq," Gates answered, "No, sir." He repeated the assessment when asked the same question by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Gates later told the committee he agrees with the view of Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said yesterday that the United States is not winning in Iraq, but is not losing either.

What else did he say? A full transcript is here. Well, if you were paying attention, you'd find that he said that there were serious problems with what the US was dealing with in Iraq. Gates also thinks that more troops were needed in Iraq.

While this exercise sheds some light on Gates' philosophy, it does little to reveal what Gates will do with his time in office. Will he call for an enlargement in the US military forces overall? Will he call for an expansion in the overall US defense budget? There are real serious questions that the Sec. Def. and Congress needs to address going forward, including readiness for conflicts not yet anticipated (China, Russia) and those that are (Iran, Syria).

After all, the Washington Post/MSNBC noted that there are issues with how quickly equipment is being worn out by the constant service - the need for refurbished and rebuilt tanks, APCs, and other equipment is staggering, and could affect force projection if there is another major conflict. Billions need to be spent on new equipment, and rebuilding the spent equipment.

Someone has to manage this, and from the look of things, the Senate wasn't particularly interested in that crucial aspect.

Hot Air has the video. Allah noted that the Committee seemed to have a simple rationale for the confirmation - he was not Rumsfeld.

Outside the Beltway notes that if you're not 100% siding with one group or another that amounts to courage. I concur. The soundbite sounds worse than the situation indicates. Things do need to change, and the ISG report due out tomorrow will provide some more insight into what could be done, and what shouldn't be done.

Defense Tech notes that the confirmation hearing was short on specifics on how to deal with China. They point to a Fred Kaplan piece in Slate who was quite impressed with Gates, and his addressing of the Iran question:

"We have seen in Iraq," Gates replied, "that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable." The Iranians couldn't retaliate with a direct attack on the United States, he said, but they could close off the Persian Gulf to oil exports, send much more aid to anti-American insurgents in Iraq, and step up terrorist attacks worldwide...

When Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the panel's senior Democrat, asked if the United States was winning the war in Iraq, he said, "No, sir." Later, when James Inhofe, R-Okla., asked if he agreed that we weren't losing the war either, Gates replied, "Yes," but added, "at this point..."

Here's something to consider. Gates' job would be to prepare the US military for any potential conflicts on the horizon - from Iran to China to Pakistan and all threats in between. Some of those conflicts have differing and divergent tactics and weapons/platforms that are best suited for the tasks. Competing interests means that projects fight for funding in the budget.

Iran isn't going away as a threat, and regardless of how Gates answered that question, Iran is engaging US forces by way of supporting insurgents in Iraq and propping up Hizbullah in Lebanon. Iran is trying to surround US interests in the region with belligerents, and to think that the US should not return the favor in spades is to leave cards on the table that should be played. Indeed, if the US does not play all the cards in its hand, the Iranians and Syrians will take full advantage of the situation - witness Lebanon for the spectacle of a slow motion coup d'etat.

Gates also notes that if Iran does obtain nuclear weapons, it is quite possible that Iran would use them on Israel. An attack on Iran would be a last resort. Military action usually is the last resort when regimes have played out their hands diplomatically or by means that fall short of outright war. However, Iran's first salvo in a shooting war might be long range missiles hitting Israel before the Israelis or US forces are able to respond. In short, this suggests that Gates is wary of the preemption idea, even though rogue regimes like Iran are telegraphing their intentions and what their endgame involves.

Also blogging: Blue Crab Boulevard, Confederate Yankee, and Macranger.

Technorati: gates, bush, rumsfeld,confirmation, politics, robert gates.