Obama security team delights the hawks

Obama does not care about political stripes as long as they are establishment hawks it seems.
Why the left ever thought Obama was anti-war or anti-imperialist is beyond me. The only respect in which he could be that is in his proposal to withdraw troops from Iraq. But recall that is because he wants to send more troops to Afghanistan and perhaps mount even more attack than Bush in Pakistan. Even the withdrawal of troops from Iraq will be done with the advice of Gates. Anyway the SOFA in effect forces withdrawal albeit over a longer period.

December 1, 2008
Barack Obama's security team delights the hawks
Bush’s Defence Secretary to stay at Pentagon
Tom Baldwin in Washington
Barack Obama will announce his national security team today to approval from the military establishment and Republicans, distant cries of dissent from liberals and head-scratching from others.
The President-elect is expected to confirm the nomination of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, ask Robert Gates to remain at the Pentagon, and make General Jim Jones his National Security Adviser.
All three are heavyweight figures with whom Mr Obama has policy disagreements of varying intensity, and these choices are intended to emphasise his policy of reaching out to former rivals and opponents.
“You don’t just put the people who were on your side in the campaign,” said Claire McCaskill, a Democratic senator, yesterday. “He wants the best and the brightest and he does not care about their political stripes.”
Yesterday Republicans were showering praise on these selections. Senator Lindsey Graham said that Mr Gates, President Bush’s Defence Secretary, had “led us through difficult times in Iraq” and that Mrs Clinton had a “little harder line” than Mr Obama on foreign policy.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is said to have formed a “very positive” early impression of Mr Obama and been similarly heartened by his appointments. Mr Gates differs from Mr Obama on nuclear policy. General Jones has served the Bush Administration as an envoy in the Middle East, where he was critical of Israel, and, though supportive of redeploying troops to Afghanistan, has previously suggested that a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq would be against the national interest.
It is, however, Mrs Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of State that will attract the most attention after a long battle for the Democratic nomination in which she had sulphurous disputes with Mr Obama on foreign policy. He criticised her vote to authorise military action in Iraq and scorned her claims to international expertise. She suggested that he lacked credentials to be commander-in-chief.
Yet so strong has been the determination to ensure that Mrs Clinton becomes Secretary of State that Bill Clinton has agreed to no fewer than nine concessions to clear the way for his wife which include publishing a once-secret list of 200,000 donors to his foundation and accepting no more foreign money for his charity.
Critics from the Left have said that Mr Obama is breaking promises to bring change. The Nation magazine has noted that “not a solitary dyed-in-the-wool progressive” has been floated for a senior Cabinet position.