www.barackobama.com
Wednesday, 12th November 2008
Chicago, Illinois
Driving the Conversation:
http://www.politico.com/arena/
Susan Rice has taken a hit or two among conservative pundits of late. She deserves to be defended by a (relatively conservative) fellow Democrat in reply.Full disclosure: Susan and I are longstanding friends and colleagues. That said, I haven’t held back on publicly disagreeing with Senator Obama, and her as well, on Iraq policy over the last two years, so I hope my favorable words about her here will be seen as credible.It is important that Senator Obama hear from centrists on Iraq, and Susan may not be such a person on that subject. As such, given Iraq’s relative importance, it is crucial that in addition to military officers with responsibility for the operation there, at least one key member of the cabinet not be firmly wed to Senator Obama’s ill-advised proposal for a firm and rapid withdrawal schedule from Iraq over the coming 16 to 18 months.But beyond that concern, I would argue that Rice is formidable. She is indeed a progressive, but she is not an ideologue as some assert. Her public written record shows that she is hawkish on Afghanistan, for example, and I believe that she deserves some of the credit for Senator Obama’s prescient emphasis on beefing up our military mission there. She is also sure to focus considerable attention on Pakistan and its myriad problems. More...
Dr. Rice is also hawkish on Sudan, with an expressed willingness to consider the use of force against a regime guilty of genocidal behavior in Darfur. Some might see Sudan as a distraction from more crucial strategic interests of the United States. Rice’s toughness on Sudan hardly makes her an ideologue, however. In fact, the United States is not only morally obliged, but also legally committed, to stop genocide if and when it occurs around the world, so Rice’s views are hardly unreasonable. In fact they are noble—even if the specifics of her suggestions need to be carefully evaluated before being turned into policy.Rice is pragmatic on Iran, favoring negotiations. Like Obama himself, she can perhaps be criticized for believing that direct talks have a high chance of producing a breakthrough in relations. But in fact, talks are a good idea anyway, to show the world that the United States at least is trying to work out a modus vivendi with leaders there. That way, if and when negotiations fail, our ability to strengthen international pressure on Teheran will probably increase. This approach is what former Bush administration official Victor Cha, writing about North Korea, described as the case for “hawkish engagement,” and there is no reason to believe Rice disagrees with Cha. In fact, Obama’s recent tough talk towards Iran may partly reflect Rice’s hand, given her considerable influence with the president elect.By all accounts, Rice has done an excellent job coordinating the Obama foreign policy effort over the past two years. As such her managerial abilities would seem impressive as well. And even for someone like me who has spent part of the last year or two quarreling with her over a couple of crucial issues, her personality and character tend to inspire loyalty and commitment from friends and colleagues.My own personal hope is that President-elect Obama will make Dr. Rice the first secretary of a new Department of Reconstruction, Stabilization, and Development. Such a new agency would be formed by pulling the Agency for International Development, Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, and Office of Stabilization and Reconstruction out of the State Department. If Rice were to lead it, she should probably have two chief deputies, a civilian with expertise in development and perhaps a military officer with substantial experience in Iraq or Afghanistan. But if Mr. Obama prefers a different arrangement, I would have little doubt that Rice would be up to the job. It would be more than fair during any confirmation hearings for Congress to press Dr. Rice on her views about Iraq. But her critics should be careful about assuming that her views on that subject translate into a broader worldview or ideology with which they must take issue.
Reappointing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would be a masterful stroke, both substantively and politically. On the substance: it would (as the Washington Post’s Michael Gerson has said) be a reward for excellence. Secretary Gates has a sophisticated grasp of the issues facing this nation and the world. He has shown a willingness to hold people accountable and demand results. In many ways the anti-Rumsfeld, Gates has won the confidence of the Pentagon, as well as the confidence of General David Petraeus (whose importance in the years ahead cannot be overstated). Re-appointing Secretary Gates would signal continuity and competence to the rest of the world, and there would be no learning curve necessary (which is doubly important during these tumultuous and unstable times). More...
On the politics: re-naming Gates to such a major post would show that President-elect Obama was serious in his promise to run a bi-partisan/post-partisan Administration. It would reassure people who voted against Obama that their worst fears may not be realized. It would show confidence, broad-mindedness, and a large-minded concern for the national interest. It would borrow a page from the example of Lincoln, whom Obama (rightly) reveres. President-elect Obama could hardly do better.
The choice of foreign policy messengers is no more relevant than the change from Condoleezza Rice to, say, Bill Richardson, although that can only be regarded as a step down. The message itself has already been sent via the presidential election and the fact that no matter who won, the world would not have George Bush to kick around anymore. Aside from image (I'm thinking here of the Che Guevera-like block print posters of Obama that abounded outside the US), candidate Obama grossly overstated the foreign policy changes that would actually take place. In fact, the greater and more sudden the change (rapid abandonment of Iraq, caving to Russia on the missile shield, reneging on trade agreements) the less credible he will be with foreign leaders when times get really tough.
Obama needs a couple of prominent Republicans to restore a bipartisan foreign policy and to give him cover against the perennial GOP charge that Democrats are soft on national security, I propose Chuck Hagel for Secretary of State who shares Obama's view of the world as a complex place not starkly divided between good and evil.
The Secretary of the Treasury should rightly be considered a member of the national security team at this point in time (and, perhaps, hereafter). National security must be integral to the president’s overall strategy to take the country forward, and therefore his national security team must be cognizant of his domestic policies and his domestic team of his national security priorities. Homeland security and the many threats our country faces have also clearly erased the line between domestic and foreign to a degree this administration must continue to grapple with. More...
As to the “who,” the need for balanced debate in the cabinet has been proven time and again in U.S. history, from the Civil War through the Cuban Missile Crisis. But the “team of rivals” formula that worked for Abraham Lincoln has failed in many other presidential cabinets (including in the first term of the Bush administration), so while Obama will need the confidence to entertain open debate and attract differing voices not afraid to speak up, he is wise to adopt a cohesive cabinet populated by members who are ambitious but not egoistic. As Obama has said, there is only one president at a time. With that philosophy in mind, and with his natural ability to collect the best and the brightest and to learn from them, this has the makings of a great presidency at the very moment we and the world need it most.
More than most newly elected Presidents, Obama needs to "start over", which means he should avoid ideologues and create a small army of professionals to reach out quickly to governments around the world to reassess in a more dispassionate way how problem areas can be addressed and relationships improved. Thus he should stock his team with Republicans (Hagel, Leach, Eisenhower, Armitage, Powell) as well as Democrats, and with special envoys as well as titled officials.
Top priority: declare the new administration a "neoconservative free zone." It will be tempting to assemble the "usual suspects": just peel off the top layer of the Clinton administration and let everyone move up a notch. You get experience that way, but you also get a team that didn't exactly cover itself with glory last time around. It is also worth remembering that many of the people being considered were in favor of the Iraq war before they were against it. So I hope the transition team looks outside the familiar collection of liberal interventionists (ooops, I meant internationalists) and includes some people who opposed the war from the beginning and who offer a different vision of America's global role. More...
For the past fifteen years, both Republicans and Democrats have believed that the United States could do just about anything it wanted; the main difference was the Dems wanted to operate within multilateral institutions and the GOP wanted to go it alone. We are at a moment in history where the United States cannot do everything and shouldn't try. Team Obama will need some people who know how to gauge threats accurately, set priorities carefully, and who understand what American power can and cannot accomplish. In other words, he'll need some realists.
One of the most significant messages of President - elect Obama's campaign is a willingness to listen to the perspective of other countries, and try to understand how their national self-interest and culture can coincide with America's -- as opposed to the sanctimonious preaching and judgmentalism that has too often been the perception of American foreign policy for too many years.Of all things impressive about the president - elect, it is evidence of his being a good listener throughout his life and, generally, his absence of sanctimony. His foreign policy team above all should reflect those same qualities.
The president needs a team that will promote policies to keep the nation safe, free, and prosperous-and their policies must pursue all three of these objectives equally well.
The election of Obama has already sent a strong message to the world, so I would focus on sending a message to Capitol Hill. Republican Senator Richard Lugar should be in the mix. Not only does he have experience and respected views on foreign policy, on both sides of the aisle, but he has a good feel for Senate Republicans and can help bring along some of their votes and support as President-Elect Obama tries to bring an end to the Iraq War. Bill Richardson would be very good as well, though not as helpful on Capitol Hill. For national security advisor, Susan Rice or Samantha Power would be bold picks. More...
On homeland security, the president should take a good look at states like New York and Massachusetts, and potentially tap into one of the individuals heading security efforts there. They have the best feel for what is going on at the ground level: where we are vulnerable in everyday life and what some of the local challenges are in protecting the home front. They would be far better than one of the conventional national figures who would be less capable of needed innovation.
Comments are closed for this post.
