Washington Memo
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: November 30, 2008
<...>
The shift would create a greatly expanded corps of diplomats and aid workers that, in the vision of the incoming Obama administration, would be engaged in projects around the world aimed at preventing conflicts and rebuilding failed states. However, it is unclear whether the financing would be shifted from the Pentagon; Mr. Obama has also committed to increasing the number of American combat troops. Whether they can make the change — one that Mr. Obama started talking about in the summer of 2007, when his candidacy was a long shot at best — “will be the great foreign policy experiment of the Obama presidency,” one of his senior advisers said recently.
<...>
Denis McDonough, a senior Obama foreign policy adviser, cast the issue slightly differently in an interview on Sunday.
“This is not an experiment, but a pragmatic solution to a long-acknowledged problem,” he said. “During the campaign the then-senator invested a lot of time reaching out to retired military and also younger officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan to draw on lessons learned. There wasn’t a meeting that didn’t include a discussion of the need to strengthen and integrate the other tools of national power to succeed against unconventional threats. It is critical to a long-term successful and sustainable national security strategy in the 21st century.” Mr. Obama’s advisers said they were already bracing themselves for the charge from the right that he is investing in social work, even though President Bush repeatedly promised such a shift, starting in a series of speeches in late 2005. But they also expect battles within the Democratic Party over questions like whether the billion dollars in aid to rebuild Afghanistan that Mr. Obama promised during the campaign should now be spent on job-creation projects at home.
Mr. Obama’s best political cover may come from Mr. Gates, the former Central Intelligence Agency director and veteran of the cold war, who just months ago said it was “hard to imagine any circumstance” in which he would stay in his post at the Pentagon. Now he will do exactly that.
A year ago, to studied silence from the Bush White House, Mr. Gates began giving a series of speeches about the limits of military power in wars in which no military victory is possible. He made popular the statistic, quoted by Mr. Obama, that the United States has more members of military marching bands than foreign service officers.
He also denounced “the gutting of America’s ability to engage, assist and communicate with other parts of the world — the ‘soft power’ which had been so important throughout the cold war.” He blamed both the Clinton and Bush administrations and said later in an interview that “it is almost like we forgot everything we learned in Vietnam.”
Mr. Obama’s choice for national security adviser, General Jones, took the critique a step further in a searing report this year on what he called the Bush administration’s failed strategy in Afghanistan, where Mr. Obama has vowed to intensify the fight as American troops depart from Iraq. When the report came out, General Jones was widely quoted as saying, “Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan,” a comment that directly contradicted the White House.
more*** Focus on Jones, not Clinton: Some advice for our friends in the media, don't focus on Clinton,
focus on Jim Jones, someone personally more close with John McCain than Obama. And with an office in the West Wing, it will be Jones who has the day-to-day ear of Obama, not Clinton. In fact, of the three big national security posts, it's possible a President McCain could have picked Jones and Gates as well. This is a throwback to the Bush years, not Bush 43, but Bush 41. Jones and Gates, in particular, seem to be from the Brent Scowcroft school of foreign policy.
link by Tom Andrews and Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.)
The media obsession over who's in and who's out of consideration for the Obama Cabinet brings the admonition on the famous "War Room" wall of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign to mind: "It's the Economy Stupid!" Those of us eagerly awaiting relief from the debacle called the Bush administration should avoid getting swept up the in DC parlor game of who is getting what position in the new administration and focus instead on the fundamental changes we need the Obama administration to start making. In short, "It's the Policy Stupid!"
President Obama will begin his presidency with enormous good will from the American people and great hope from the world at large. It is imperative that he seize this opportunity by quickly moving his campaign pledges into bold and decisive action despite the opposition that surely awaits him.
Step one: End the US military occupation of Iraq. Immediately begin withdrawing US combat forces within sixteen months, clearly delineating the number and role of any remaining troops to limited non-combat roles such as providing security to the US embassy and training Iraqi security forces...
Step two: Change course in Afghanistan. Responding to the Bush administration's failure in Afghanistan by initiating an escalation of US combat troops could be the next step into a quagmire that would be a catastrophe for the United States, Obama's presidency, and the region...
Step three: Engage Iran. President Obama should declare that seeking regime change in Iran is no longer the policy of the U.S. and initiate diplomatic contacts with the Iranian government immediately without preconditions.
Step four: Make a just and lasting peace in the Middle East a top priority by seriously arbitrating a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and capitalizing on the common interests of states in the region to prevent an implosion of Iraq and to establish stability.
Step five: Replenish the strength of our weakened military by cutting the number of troops that are put into harms way and striking unnecessary and obsolete military weapons from the defense budget. Step five: Replenish the strength of our weakened military by cutting the number of troops that are put into harms way and striking unnecessary and obsolete military weapons from the defense budget...
more
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
