At first glance, the new national defense strategy released by Bush administration Secretary of Defense Robert Gates last week seems like a fresh start. He seems to be intending to position it as "post-Bush," with much talk of working with allies and, heaven forbid, other U.S. government agencies. Gates's realist approach, which suggests a greater balance in the tools used to pursue U.S. security interests, positions him as a sort of "anti-Rumsfeld." The question is, how deep are the differences between the two?

This isn't the first time Gates has projected a kinder, gentler approach to national security. In his speech earlier this year at Kansas State University, Gates called for substantial increases in spending for the State Department, pointing out that there are fewer professional diplomats in the U.S. foreign service than there are personnel on an average aircraft carrier task force (of which the U.S. has twelve). But he also stressed that he did not want these new funds to come at the expense of growing Pentagon budgets.

Gates seems to want to have it both ways -- prepare for conventional and irregular warfare; get civilian help on tasks like reconstruction, development and governance while institutionalizing the Pentagon's own capabilities in these areas; have a strategic dialogue with China while making sure to maintain U.S. dominance; seek allies while opposing anything that would limit U.S. "freedom of action" (even though real alliance building, forging of treaties and other less formal agreements all involve limiting one's "freedom of action.")

It all seems to boil down the keeping the iron fist clothed in a velvet glove. It's a more intelligent strategy for empire and global dominance, but one that ignores a central reality: that the U.S. is losing the economic, political, and cultural underpinnings that its post-World War II preeminence was based upon.

Even so, there are a few interesting strands in the Gates document -- talking about the military not being the primary tool for keeping WMDs from terrorists, or for thwarting cyberattacks; but again, arguing for a military capability (like the idea of tagging, tracing, and destroying WMDs militarily) if civilian strategies don't pan out. Gates also talks about looking forward to the day when terrorism is just a "nuisance" that can be handled by law enforcement (dangerously close to the position that got John Kerry in trouble in the 2004 election campaign), and addressing the "root causes" of terrorism (apparently they're not doing it simply because they "hate us" and our freedoms, as Bush would have it).

What hasn't changed in the Gates strategy is the expansive definition of U.S. interests, including "protecting" free trade and the flow of resources to the U.S. and its allies. Without a change in the definition of U.S. interests, major change in U.S. defense policy is unlikely.

The biggest obstacle to implementing the new Pentagon strategy is money -- with two wars already under way and serious economic problems domestically, the military budget could level off or even fall relative to inflation. If so, there would need to be cuts in longer-term programs like the F-22 combat aircraft, attack submarines, the Army's high tech "Future Combat System" and others. It's either that, or truly shut down one or both of the current wars (not likely, even under Obama, whose best case scenario is getting down to about 50,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq in his first term).

So, like it or not, the next administration will be forced to make choices: between investing in military force or diplomacy; high-priced Cold War weapons or provisions relevant to current conflicts; and, most importantly, a continued drive for unparalleled U.S. military dominance versus an ability to address pressing domestic needs. Progressives need to weigh in on this debate, early and often, regardless of who takes office in January 2009.