Gates and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced the move at a press briefing Thursday.

Gates reiterated that U.S. troops will not be on the ground in Libya. He also said regime change in Libya was always a political goal, but it will take time.

Speculation for the briefing surrounded the possible naming of Cartwright as the replacement for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen when Mullen leaves the post in October.

Watch the live briefing, which started at 3:00 p.m.

“I think he’s exactly what our country needs more of. I think he’s what the Senate needs more of — courageous, independent thinking,” Hagel said. “That’s what the job is about. You are supposed to use your judgment.”

Hagel’s endorsement comes just shortly after New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg also intervened from outside the state and the Democratic Party to give Sestak a boost, and Sestak will doubtless be happy to point to both nods when courting Pennsylvania’s independent voters.

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, however, doesn’t think Hagel’s endorsement will help Sestak as much as it will help himself, calling it a “me for me” endorsement:

Hagel has made no secret of his interest in serving in the Obama Administration and was mentioned as a possible successor to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair when he resigned in May. (Hagel currently serves as the co-chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.)

And, with Defense Secretary Robert Gates making clear last week that he would like to step down in 2011, the timing of Hagel’s Sestak endorsement has to be more than coincidental. (Hagel was mentioned as a possible Secretary of Defense in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 election but the President chose to keep Gates on.)

I’ll proffer a third, rather obvious explanation as well. Hagel, a moderate Republican, never got on well with the ultra-right, Club for Growth element of his party. Pat Toomey is a former president of the Club and is now one of its biggest beneficiaries. If Hagel wants to demonstrate his bipartisan credentials by sticking it to a Republican, Pat Toomey represents the best — and sweetest — option for revenge.

Mr. Gates did not place a dollar figure on the total savings from the cutbacks, some of which are likely to be challenged by members of Congress intent on retaining jobs in their states and districts. But they appear to be Mr. Gates’s most concrete proposals to cut current spending as he tries to fend off calls from many Democrats for even deeper budget reductions, and they reflect his strategy of first trying to squeeze money out of the vast Pentagon bureaucracy.

While large headquarters have been combined and realigned over the years, Pentagon officials could not recall a time when a major command was shut down and vanished off the books, even though some jobs will probably be added elsewhere to carry on essential parts of the mission.

The Wall Street Journal estimates the cuts could save $100 billion over five years. I have no way of evaluating the impact of the actual cuts. But the strategy seems brilliant to me — and I would not be surprised to see other departments and agencies doing the same and cutting themselves before Washington does the cutting for them.

Fred Kaplan, at Slate, throws on some cold water, though, noting that Defense has a whole lot to cut and should anticipate further budgetary scrutiny going forward:

The steps Gates took today have far-reaching implications; I don’t mean to minimize them. But there are other issues and questions that tap more deeply into the foundations of what he himself calls our “cumbersome and top-heavy” military, which has “grown accustomed to operating with little consideration to cost.” For instance: How many submarines and aircraft carriers does the Navy really need? And do all those carriers need the same number of aircraft and escort ships? How many fighter planes does the Air Force really need? How many brigades does the Army really need?

Gates’ new reforms are based on two premises: First, that the nation can’t afford unceasing growth in the defense budget; second, that the nation can afford moderate growth in the defense budget, as long as the Pentagon shows good faith by slashing what any objective observer would label “waste.” The first premise is unassailable, the second probably too optimistic. The fact is, we can’t afford growth in the defense budget, period. To get the cuts he’s after, Gates — as a matter of political realism — has to leave the rest of the budget alone. But at some point, some secretary of defense is going to have to open it all up to scrutiny.

Five months after its scheduled parliamentary elections, Iraq is still at a political impasse in negotiations for a governing coalition. Some assume this means the U.S. must scale back its withdrawal, or at least simply reclassify combat troops as military support troops in order to meet the deadline, but Obama is expected to signal a continued commitment to the administration’s goals:

“Make no mistake: Our commitment in Iraq is changing, from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats,” Obama said in excerpts released ahead of the speech.

Obama will also have to address goals for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, about which the Administration and House leadership voiced different expectations on the Sunday shows. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, following the administration’s recent line, downplayed the significance of the July 2011 deadline to begin withdrawing troops, saying that it “will be of fairly limited numbers. … [I]t will depend on the conditions on the ground.”

House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who’s had to contend with an increasingly discontented Democratic caucus — 102 House Democrats voted against the most recent war funding bill last week — said Americans would not be satisfied with a mere symbolic show. ”Well, I hope it is more than that,” she told ABC’s “This Week.” “I know it’s not going to be, ‘Turn out the lights and let’s all go home on one day.’ But I do think the American people expect it to be somewhere between that and a few thousand troops.”

From Newsweek:

“I got a call about five minutes ago, and my commander said he wanted me to hear it directly from him. He was very supportive and said, ‘I know this was something you didn’t want to hear.’ I said to him, ‘Thank you for your leadership.’ He’s been nothing but supportive of me throughout this whole journey.” Choi says his commander told him it was clear that “change was in the air,” and inquired as to his personal well-being. “He’s always been kind enough to ask me how I was doing, whenever we had calls or legal proceedings to go over.” Choi says he was told he had received an honorable discharge [...] and was awaiting the arrival of official documents shortly. “This doesn’t change the foundation of what I’m doing. A piece of paper doesn’t define my worth or honor, and we have a lot more work to do.” He spoke to NEWSWEEK by phone from Las Vegas, where he was recently arrested in a DADT protest action.

Choi had been fighting efforts to discharge him since last year, after he came out on national television and became a leading critic of the policy. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been the armed forces’ guiding policy for dealing with openly gay members of the military since 1993. In March, Choi criticized Defense Secretary Robert Gates for only relaxing enforcement of the policy rather than unilaterally ceasing enforcement. Earlier that month, he got himself arrested after chaining himself to a White House fence during a protest of the policy.

Efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” continue to move through Congress and the military. The Pentagon is currently conducting a study into a possible repeal’s effects. A report on that study is supposed to be presented to President Obama and military officials by Dec. 1.

Update: The Gay City News actually reported Choi’s discharge on Tuesday, although Newsweek somewhat dubiously claimed the exclusive today.

Later update: Newsweek, having learned of the Gay City News scoop, has admirably taken down the “exclusive” label.

But Gibbs also made all of his comments in the context of the administration’s current counterinsurgency strategy. Some observers have speculated that the prospect of cashiering McChrystal is an opportunity for overhauling the strategy. Andrew Exum, a former adviser to McChrystal on Afghanistan who also served under the general, noted, “If you feel the strategy in Afghanistan needs a radical change, this would be the ideal time to change commanders.” That wasn’t where Gibbs’ head was at in his press briefing this afternoon.

“Personality disagreements aside, we’re here to implement a new strategy” for the nine-year Afghanistan war, Gibbs repeatedly said. He emphasized that all senior officials and military leaders, including McChrystal, had an opportunity to contribute during the fall debate over strategy, and all left those meetings pledging to support and implement that agenda. “Over the course of many weeks, the strategy was refined and developed, which every member of the team pledged to implement, and agreed with that strategy,” Gibbs said. “That’s what we want everybody from the ambassador from the combatant commander to anybody else involved with this to focus on.”

None of that sounds like a White House that’s ready to scrap its counterinsurgency strategy in the year to go before it begins to shift to a heavier focus on training Afghan forces and withdrawing troops. But McChrystal will have to reiterate his commitment tomorrow to working with the team that, in many ways, signed onto a strategy he himself largely convinced the president to support. “This is bigger than anybody on the military or the civilian side,” Gibbs said. Translation: McChrystal can go or stay, but the strategy has been set. And that may be the greatest irony of the entire McChrystal imbroglio.

I read with concern the profile piece on Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the upcoming edition of ‘Rolling Stone’ magazine. I believe that Gen. McChrystal made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case. We are fighting a war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world. Going forward, we must pursue this mission with a unity of purpose. Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions. Gen. McChrystal has apologized to me and is similarly reaching out to others named in this article to apologize to them as well. I have recalled Gen. McChrystal to Washington to discuss this in person.

Update: I kind of regret that headline. Gates is certainly leaving Obama’s options open for handling McChrystal and expressing to McChrystal that he’s got a lot of reassurances to give and little time to give them. But he’s also clearly not dismissing the severity of anything McChrystal said, and you could read the statement as basically giving McChrystal a fork in the road. Either he becomes a team player who can stay on board and on message, or a new commander “must pursue this mission with a unity of purpose.”

Another of those leading figures, Gen. James Mattis of the Joint Forces Command, once thought to be the leading candidate to replace Conway, will apparently retire. Gates nodded to his prospective candidacy by saying he “considered several outstanding candidates.”

The full statement from Gates:

“I am pleased to announce that I have recommended to the President that Gen. James F. Amos be nominated as the next commandant of the United States Marine Corps. Gen. Amos’ combat experience includes command of a Marine aircraft wing and a Marine expeditionary force during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He went on to lead the Marines’ Combat Development Command and serve as deputy commandant for combat development and integration. If nominated and confirmed, Gen. Amos will be the first aviator to attain this post.

“I am also recommending that Lt. Gen. Joseph F. Dunford be promoted to replace Gen. Amos as assistant commandant. Lt. Gen. Dunford is currently the commander of I MEF and U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central Command, with responsibility for all Marines serving in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters.

“Gen. James Conway will complete his term as commandant this fall and retire from the Marine Corps after four decades of outstanding service. On behalf of the American people, I want to thank Gen. Conway for his faithful and selfless service that included tours as a battalion commander in Operation Desert Storm, a Marine expeditionary force commander in Iraq, and director of operations for the Joint Staff. We will properly recognize Gen. Conway’s extraordinary service at an appropriate time.

“I came to these leadership decisions after a thorough process that considered several outstanding candidates. I am convinced that Gen. Amos and Lt. Gen. Dunford are the right team to lead the U.S. Marine Corps at this time, especially as it balances the capabilities needed to support current operations, its unique maritime heritage and its future role defending America.”

Even President Obama, set to name a new Marine Corps commandant in the coming weeks, is likely to face significant pressure to select someone who is not too outspoken in his opposition to repealing the law. All of the candidates being considered for the job have expressed reservations about repeal during wartime, according to senior U.S. officials familiar with the process.

Gen. James Conway, the outgoing commandant, was the only service chief to actually oppose ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It hasn’t escaped anyone’s attention that the working group Defense Secretary Robert Gates convened to guide the implementing of the repeal of the 17-year-old ban on open gay service will report to Gates in December, after Conway has retired. At the same time, if the next commandant shares Conway’s perspective, then speculation about those two schedules is, at best, academic. We’ll find out when the confirmation hearing for the Conway’s successor gets underway, whoever that successor may be.

All this should underscore that ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is easy — but integrating open gays into the military is a generation-long challenge. Anecdotal information, backed by the general polling trends in the country at large, indicates that junior and mid-career officers are significantly more comfortable with open gay service than the current crop of flag officers. Jaffe’s story illustrates that some challenges for integration — sure to be addressed by Gates’ working group — are the provision of partner benefits to married or partnered gay couples and the freedom of chaplain officers to preach that homosexuality is immoral. Not to fall victim to the complacency of belief in inexorability, but it’s hard to imagine circumstances under which those concerns don’t grow weaker with age. But that still leaves years’ worth of struggles for the military to figure out how to equitably recognize the gay servicemembers it has always had in its ranks.

But undeterred by all that is a coalition of liberal and conservative defense wonks from the Project on Defense Alternatives, the Center for American Progress, the Cato Institute, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Center for Defense Information and more. Calling themselves the Sustainable Defense Task Force — thereby taking up the “sustainability” call for budget austerity from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his undersecretary for policy (and likely successor), Michele Flournoy — they identify up to $960 billion in spending cuts over ten years. That’s in a new report they’re releasing this morning.

The cuts don’t come from war spending, but from the Pentagon’s “base budget”: everything that the department buys or maintains on a regular basis, as opposed to a contingency basis for wartime emergency. Cuts are supposed to come across the board, from nuclear forces, missile defense and space programs (nearly $200 billion saved over ten years); big service priorities like the Joint Strike Fighter, the KC-X refueling tanker, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and the Osprey helicopter (nearly $90 billion saved over ten years); getting rid of two Air Force tactical fighter wings and cutting the Navy to 230 ships (nearly $167 billion saved over ten years); reforming DOD’s increasingly expensive health care system (nearly $50 billion saved over ten years); and many, many other canceled, delayed or reformed programs. You can read the full (PDF) report here.

It would be an understatement to say that the cuts identified by the task force run against the ever-upward trajectory of the defense budget. But they also run up against certain priorities of the current Pentagon leadership, even as that leadership goes further than most in sharing the task force’s goals. The Joint Strike Fighter and KC-X are priorities. So is maintaining an expanded ground force. But the task force urges the Pentagon to roll back the growth in the Army and Marine Corps as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars end. And while several post-Cold War Pentagon leaders have argued for reducing the U.S.’s garrisoning footprint in Europe and Asia, another task force priority, the diplomatic equities at stake have proven to be a powerful inertial force. And then there’s the fact that the House is thumbing its nose at Gates’s efforts just to get rid of an engine that the services say they don’t want in the Joint Strike Fighter.

But it’s one thing to propose specific costs to specific programs. It’s another to offer a set of criteria to identify wasteful spending going forward. That gets into the issues of national strategy that Flournoy discussed in her speech yesterday to the Center for a New American Security. And the task force is happy to oblige, urging policymakers to eschew:

Department of Defense programs that are based on unreliable or unproven technologies,

Missions that exhibit a poor cost-benefit payoff and capabilities that fail the test of cost-effectiveness or that possess a very limited utility,

Assets and capabilities that mismatch or substantially over-match current and emerging military challenges, and

Opportunities for providing needed capabilities and assets at lower cost via management reforms.