Organizing for America | Sam Graham-Felsen's Blog: Q&A with Samantha Power

Post from Obama HQ:

Q&A with Samantha Power

By Sam Graham-Felsen - Sep 14th, 2007 at 5:13 pm EDT

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Tags: Foreign policy, Iraq

Samantha Power is a professor at the Kennedy School of Government and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book, “A Problem from Hell,” which explores genocide and American foreign policy in the 20th century. Today, I spoke with Power, who is currently serving as a foreign policy advisor to Senator Obama, about Barack's Iraq plan and his potential to bring about a new direction for American foreign policy.

First of all, can you tell us how you decided to become an advisor to Senator Obama?

I have tried just about every means I have at my disposal to try to convince foreign policy-makers to consider the human consequences of their decision-making. I teach at the Kennedy School of Government, I write books, I give lectures, I'm on boards of first-class NGOs. I had never really considered going into government or getting involved in electoral politics. But then I met Barack.

When Obama came on the scene, I was floored by his combination of deep, ingrained principle and intellectual rigor. It was unusual to meet a person who didn’t simply accept and regurgitate received wisdom, but who pushed back. And when I then watched him inspire Americans into believing that they could be a part of making change, I was further impressed. Principle, rigor, and inspiration don’t usually come in the same package. And given the gravity of the world’s challenges at present, they seemed urgently needed.

I thought to myself, if your aim is to change the world, you can try to change it yourself in your own limited way, in your own small world. Or occasionally, rarely, perhaps once in a lifetime, somebody comes along who so ignites the imagination and convinces you of their potential and their leadership and you say, ok forget your day job, this is more important. I met Barack for the first time in the spring of 2005 and was surprised to hear myself tell him at our first meeting that I was prepared to leave my job at Harvard and come work for him in his Senate office, which I did in 2005 and 2006. Now that he’s running for the office we most need him in, I do what I can behind the scenes as part of his foreign policy team.

Can you talk about the run-up to the war in Iraq? What do you make of Barack's early opposition?

Today, people are having a hard time remembering just how one-sided the “debate” was in this country in the run-up to the war and just how rare it was for people in the mainstream media and political culture to take a public stand in opposition to the war. Even at Harvard, the foreign policy herd all went in favor of the war. Opposing the war was very isolating, even at a liberal institution like that one.

What deserves emphasizing about Barack is not simply that he had the judgment and prescience to oppose the war when his leading rivals in this race lined up behind the administration, but that he was prepared to stand up and criticize the invasion while he was fighting for his political life in his campaign for Senate. Today, because the war is deeply unpopular, it's easy for people to say 'oh, good for Obama, he opposed the war, everyone opposes the war.' It befits all of us to go back in time and reflect on just how marginalizing it was for him to make the choice he did.

All of the political winds were blowing in the other direction and I'm sure that any wise political consultant would have told Barack that it would be dangerous for him to oppose a war that our leaders and pundits were predicting would be a “cakewalk.” This episode underscores both his ability to weigh costs and benefits more shrewdly than most in our political culture, and his willingness to endure political costs in order to do the right thing.

Continue reading after the jump for Power's thoughts on Barack's Iraq plan and his overall vision for a new foreign policy.

Let's talk about Barack's plan to turn the page in Iraq. What do you think distinguishes Barack's approach on Iraq from the rest of the field?

Barack Obama moves us away, again and again, from the false dichotomies that pervade our politics. In the Iraq debate right now it often feels as if you have, on one side, the President and his supporters who are in total denial about what's happening on the ground. They claim that this catastrophic war can all be turned around by US troops, and they warn of the calamitous consequences of withdrawing – sectarian violence against civilians, heightened Iranian influence, an al Qaeda foothold, without ever so much as acknowledging that these are the present realities in Iraq, precipitated by the US invasion and occupation. But on the other side of the political divide at home, we hear from those who support withdrawal that US forces are the source of all of Iraq's problems, with the implication that that once we get out the mess will clean itself up, or, even if it doesn’t sort itself, its not our problem. The debate seems to lunge between denialism on the one side and indifference to consequences on the other.

Obama is busting out of this false dichotomy, and saying, responsibly, “look, we need to begin withdrawing immediately, we were totally wrong to go in, but instead of simply asserting there won’t be any strategic or humanitarian consequences to our exit, let's begin right now to do all we can to mitigate those consequences.” Closing our eyes and ears and suspending thought about withdrawal until it occurs isn't smart or humane, so can we begin to do consequence mitigation now? That means planning a counter-terrorism residual force, bringing in international partners, using what leverage we have in Iraq and in the region to ensure minorities are less vulnerable when we leave, talking to our foes to try to neutralize their negative influence, helping neighboring countries shoulder the mounting burden of this war, etc..

This plan reflects Barack's ability to take responsibility for difficult challenges -- to not wish away complications but embrace them and try to resolve things as best he can. I think it reflects, on a micro and macro level, his longstanding belief that none of the essential transnational problems that exist on the horizon—counter-terrorism, non- proliferation, you name it—can be solved by military force alone. He recognizes that we need a surge in political action, a surge in diplomacy within Iraq when it comes to bringing the Sunni on board, and it isn’t US troops who should be responsible for that surge in diplomacy. For too long we have asked the US military to bear the burden of stabilizing Iraq. They have done what has been asked of them, but it is long past time to acknowledge that Iraq’s stabilization hangs not on the US military’s performance but on Iraqi political compromise. However unlikely that compromise seems at present, the only way to increase the odds of it happening is to use all the tools in the American toolbox – diplomatic, political, and economic.

How will Barack work with other countries to help stabilize Iraq?

Obama's is the first plan that actually is willing to provide tangible resources to Iraq's neighbors, which have themselves suffered the spillover of Iraq. His plan recognizes that we can't just snap our fingers and expect regional powers to run to the table and offer help to the United States or to Iraqi stability —that we've got to incentivize their cooperation. These people are deeply nervous about what the influx of Iraqi refugees is going to mean in their countries. His plan says, 'Look we recognize that we invaded this country. Iraq’s neighbors, you are the countries dealing with the humanitarian consequences of our invasion. You are the ones facing two million refugees pouring into your borders, and we are going to help you.'

He understands that the humanitarian dimension of Iraq – which the Bush administration hasn't dealt with at all -- is fundamentally a strategic dimension, a national security dimension. Barack knows that we need to get beyond the false dichotomy between our interests and our values. The refugees are a moral problem but they are also a strategic problem. That fragile sectarian demographic balance in the region is something that will implicate US interests for generations to come. And we're not going to get support from Iraq's neighbors if they don't feel like they're getting support from us in grappling with the colossal domestic challenge of managing the arrival of two million Iraqis.

Can you point to specific leadership qualities in Senator Obama that will help him turn the page not only in Iraq, but in foreign policy generally?

If you look at his record in the US Senate and State Senate, what stands out is his ability to work with un-likeminded people—to go into a room and find overlapping terrain and forge compromise. His record of bipartisanship is remarkable. That's just the kind of capacity for compromise -- for extracting concessions where they're not expected -- that one needs in the field of international diplomacy.

The fact that he's of the world -- that he's half-Kenyan, speaks a fair amount of Indonesian, speaks pidgin Swahili, is comfortable in the world and doesn't have an insular perspective -- is going to make a huge difference in terms of his ability to do diplomatic work and listen to other perspectives. It doesn't mean he will defer to those perspectives, but if the next president is to pursue the US national interests in a globalized world, the president better understand those perspectives. As he has made clear in the debate over whether we should talk to our enemies, Obama knows that by being in the room he will not sacrifice his principles. He knows that he can be tough while being in the room. And he is tired of the counterproductive habit of lumping US foes together. He wants to pry them apart, but to do so, we have to improve our understanding, and we have to lose our reputation for arrogance.

For all of the mistrust of the United States right now, people in Darfur, Iran, Indonesia, and even Iraq aren’t sitting around hoping for another superpower to come on the scene. The very depth of their anti-Americanism is a sign that they have retained the capacity to be disappointed by the United States. Despite all that has happened, they still expect more from us.

When Obama goes out into the world as President and shows that different face of the United States—a much humbler face but a very confident face, one that's very proud to be American but understands that it is American to listen to others and that it advances the national interest to tackle transnational threats collaboratively and to promote individual dignity -- the United States will be on the road to restoring its leadership and enhancing its security.

Show 199 Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.