If Obama keeps Gates, "[t]he message would be clear: even Democrats agree that Democrats can't run the military."

reacting somewhat. Obama is the C-in-C, and ultimately the foreign policy judgments are his. The SecDef is critical no doubt, as we've seen what a bad SecDef can do (Rumsfeld), and what a good SecDEf needs to do, but I don't necessarily think that keeping Gates on means status quo, at least not in the ways in which that would be a bad thing.

As to the political question, Obama is the Commander-in-Chief, and while he's apparently choosing a Republican for a key foreign policy post, I think it's less that he's ceding the national security initiative to the GOP, than a Democrat leading the way, except in a bipartisan fashion.

Although, I suspect this will remain true:

The team gives Obama experience in the bureaucracy and credibility with the military, although it could lead to criticism from his party?s left wing that the lineup is more hawkish and less revolutionary than his supporters expected.

I'm reminded of this question...

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

You mean, Simon, unlike the GOP, who can't even be trusted to handle a military occupation? Or who took advice from a certain future Democratic President on pursuit into Pakistan? Or can't be trusted to with transportation, since Bush picked Mineta for DoT?

Actually, you do have some of a point - the Clinton Administration had no good, high-level military management. Military management was a clear Clinton low spot. Obama's a different story, though; do keep in mind that Pakistan point, and that he's said he'll grow and reorganize the military enough that reserves can be, er, reserves. He gets the strategery.