Obama's Foreign Policy Team

I hate to say I told you so, but here it goes.

In late September, in this column, I criticized Barack Obama for what I called a "pathetic" debate with John McCain, in which Obama got nearly everything about foreign policy wrong:

"He checked all the boxes. Barack ("Senator McCain is right") Obama couldn't find anything to disagree with the militarist Arizonan about. Support for NATO expansion? Check. Absurd anti-Russian diatribes? Check. Dramatic escalation of the war in Afghanistan? Check. I'm ready to attack Pakistan? Check. (Actually, on this one, McCain was the moderate!) Painful sanctions against Iran, backed up by the threat of force? Check. Blathering about the great threat from Al Qaeda? Check. It went on and on."

I pointed out that Obama went out of his way to say things like: "I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization." And: "A resurgent and very aggressive Russia is a threat to the peace and stability of the region."

Last July, in a major feature piece for The Nation on Obama's foreign policy, I wrote:

"But in many respects, Obama seems likely to preside over a restoration of the bipartisan consensus that governed foreign policy during the cold war and the 1990s, updated for a post-9/11 world. ... Even as he pledges to end the war in Iraq, Obama promises to increase Pentagon spending, boost the size of the Army and Marines, bolster the Special Forces, expand intelligence agencies and maintain the hundreds of US military bases that dot the globe. He supports a muscular multilateralism that includes NATO expansion, and according to the Times of London, his advisers are pushing him to ask Defense Secretary Robert Gates to stay on in an Obama administration. Though he is against the idea of the United States imposing democracy abroad, Obama does propose a sweeping nation-building and democracy-promotion program, including strengthening the controversial National Endowment for Democracy and constructing a civil-military apparatus that would deploy to rescue and rebuild failed and failing states in Africa, Asia and the Middle East."

So are we surprised that now, as president-elect, Obama is selecting people whose views are coherent with Obama's frequently stated views? Are we surprised that the views of Obama's conservative and centrist advisers are, in fact, coherent with Obama's own? And are we surprised that his choices for his foreign policy and national security appointments are drawn exclusively from conservative, centrist, and pro-military circles without even a single -- yes, not one! -- chosen to represent the antiwar wing of the Democratic party? No, we are not.

What does it mean, then? Do we still believe that Obama was pretending to be conservative and cautious on foreign policy during the campaign, in order to get himself elected? Or is the truth, like Occam's razor, far simpler? Perhaps what Obama (and his advisers) said during the campaign reflects what they really believe.

We could all make lists of people that we might have chosen for secretary of state, defense, attorney general, homeland security, intelligence, and national security adviser. (True, not all of Obama's appointments are certain, yet, but the writing is on the wall.) It's now likely that not one of those posts will be filled with someone who either voted against the war in Iraq as a member of Congress or who, from outside Congress, vocally opposed the war. Not one.

What about Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd, Sherrod Brown, and Jim Webb from the Senate? Where is John Kerry? What about Gary Hart and Al Gore? What about any one of a dozen or more prominent members of the antiwar and progressive caucuses in the House of Representatives, such as Lynn Woolsey, Jim McDermott, or Jim McGovern? What about the generals who, unlike General James E. Jones, didn't campaign with McCain and who spoke out against the war? What about the many prominent experts on disarmament and nonproliferation, like Lt. General Robert Gard, Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, and Peter Galbraith, all of whom serve on the board of directors of the Center for Arms Control? Or Joseph Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund, a leading arms control expert? Well, you get the idea.

Here's the likely lineup so far: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and National Security Adviser James E. Jones. For director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, a retired admiral tangled up in the military-industrial complex? Key Obama advisers such as Richard Danzig, a former secretary of the Navy; Tony Lake, a former national security adviser; Susan Rice, an Africa specialist and former State Department official; and Mark Lippert, Obama's top Senate foreign policy aide are likely to get important deputy-level jobs, though Danzig -- who is on record supporting Gates for the job -- may yet get the top Pentagon post.

As I pointed out in my July piece for The Nation, Rice and Lake -- along with outside advisers Samantha Power and Sarah Sewell -- are on record supporting tough military action overseas in case of humanitarian crisis. Rice and Lake have said explicitly that they favor war against Sudan. Two years ago, they wrote in the Washington Post:

"The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan's oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy -- by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.

"If the United States fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it. Impossible? No."

Clinton, who now seems to be a lock for the State Department, would be likely to hire a passel of hardliners for her own aides, including people like Richard Holbrooke, Dennis Ross, and Leslie Gelb, all three of who serve on the advisory board of the ultra-hawkish group, United Against Nuclear Iran. She'd also draw on relatively conservative officials from the Center for a New American Security, the Brookings Institution, and other Washington thinktanks who are in tune with her own hawkish views on Israel, Iran, and projecting U.S. muscle abroad.

And then there is General Jones.

Out of the blue, in the third presidential debate, Obama cited Jones as someone he trusts on national security. He is an advocate for stepped-up defense spending. And, notes CNN, it's all one big, happy family:

"One person close to the transition noted Jones is a bipartisan figure who has warm relationships with both current Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who may stay on the job for at least a brief period, as well as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who is now on track to be nominated as Secretary of State after Thanksgiving."

Not once, but twice he was asked by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be her deputy secretary of state. Adds the London Times, in an analytical story on Jones:

"Last year he conducted an investigation on behalf of Congress on the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"'Make no mistake, Nato is not winning in Afghanistan,' he said. He also said that the war in Iraq had caused the US to 'take its eye off the ball' in Afghanistan, and gave warning that the consequences of failure there were just as serious as defeat in Iraq – views publicly expressed by Mr Obama.

"Before Mr Obama travelled to Afghanistan during the presidential campaign he was briefed by General Jones, who in 2007 was appointed by Dr Rice as a special envoy for Middle East Security."

National Review Online calls the idea of Jones at the NSC "a pretty good sign for hawks, a pretty bad sign for doves," which just about sums it up.

Comments (23)

1. Military Industrial Complex - too big to fail

   AIG - too big too fail

   Citigroup - too big to fail

   GM, Ford, Chrysler - too big to fail

   All of these appointments; state department, finance, defense, etc. represent this mantra - "too big to fail"

   While I respect Obama's appointments for the purposes of actual debate in the executive branch (as opposed to the "decider" doctrine), I feel at this point that he may be so overwhelmed with hawks and financial zealots as to tie his own hands on nearly every domestic and international issue.

   Can we please get to a point in our policy decisions where we don't hear the phrase "too big to fail" anymore?

   Posted by HAL9000 at 11/24/2008 @ 08:53am

2. "What about Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd, Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown, and Jim Webb from the Senate?"

   "Jim Webb" twice?

   Also, I continue to find it amusing that folks here at "The Nation" keep trumpeting the "progressive bona fides" of Sherrod Brown (especially in THIS article)....

   who voted FOR the Military Commissions Act (aka "torture bill") in 2006 just to win his election.

   Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 08:57am

3. "Rice and Lake have said explicitly that they favor war against Sudan."

   posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 11/23/2008 @ 9:22pm

   Mr. Dreyfuss this statement worries me a great deal. These are the same liberals who opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet are willing to send our sons and daughters into a protracted civil war that has nothing to do with us?

   My son is in Afghanistan right now and I'm praying to God that he will finish his tour (hopefully) in April.

   Posted by ACook at 11/24/2008 @ 09:20am

4. What does it mean, then?

   It means Obama is a captive of the Pentagon & the CIA.

   And probably has been a swell find of theirs for nearly 20 years or so. Spotted, mentored, advised, supported by MIC cutouts.

   A Manchurian president-elect, if you will. The One, all right, the perfect one

   Posted by sloper at 11/24/2008 @ 09:57am

5. Posted by sloper at 11/24/2008 @ 09:57am

   And sloper now replaces RESE.

   What's next, slope? "Joe Biden is building concentration camps in Delaware for leftist 'openants' (RESE sp?)!!!!!" "Obama going to declare martial law and nuke Iran for AIPAC/Israel!!!"?

   Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 10:35am

6. We were fooled because Obama was against the Iraq war and were deluded that his administration would be anti-war.You have articulated exactly the reasons why I was bothered by the signals Obama has been sending. Spot on. Some have always said that there is only one party in America,and that "democracy" is a pretense, and the elections were just theatre. The "chosen one", chosen by the powers that be, surrounded by a pre-ordained cabinet of the Military Industrial Complex, creates the illusion to the world that all is all right with America again. But the rest of the world are not fools. They see Obama has "chosen" a cabinet of advisors 1/3 of whom are Zionistically neo-con bent, a secretary of state whose only foreign "experience" is running for cover on a Kosovo airport strip which turned out to be a lie, and they realise that it is BUSINESS AS USUAL. And to prove it, expect not one genuinely independent commission, not one person to go to jail. And the excuses will be that we "have to attend to other important issues". Yeah. Like fascism?

   Posted by mystic at 11/24/2008 @ 10:56am

7. Posted by mystic at 11/24/2008 @ 10:56am

   Hey, slope...I think we found your "PLUNGER"!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 11:54am

8. Perhaps the true audacity of the electorate was in hoping Obama's campaign rhetoric was articulated to ensure he took away a major potential liability on foreign policy matters--that of not being sufficiently hawkish. If in fact he intends to govern that way, without in any way challenging the mindless militarism of his predecessors, including the Clintons, his vaunted claims for change will not only fail, but demoralize his supporters. More troops in Afghanistan and more interventions will not solve anything. Perhaps it is true that the more things "change," the more they stay the same. Unacceptable.

   Posted by DiddyWahDiddy at 11/24/2008 @ 12:37pm

9. Let's see what he does, before we decide he's screwing up.

   We don't know what Obama will do, but it isn't a bad move to start from a tough position and use persuasion to get to agreement. Unlike Bush he has a brilliant mind of his own and will review information submitted to him with a level of perception and reflection much greater than Bush. Reportedly, Bush liked executive summaries rather than briefing books so it was much easier for the ideologues around him to advance their agendas.

   One of the many mistakes the Bush Administration made was to ignore the experience of the Clinton Administration--particularly on terrorism. We'll see how many of the hard-liners are around after the 2010 Congressional elections.

   Obama is way more centrist than many of us let ourselves believe in the primaries and during the election. For progressive items on the agenda he must first create a competent government.

   And he may be just about to prove that the two party system is irrevocably broken and needs reform.

   Posted by ohsotired at 11/24/2008 @ 1:47pm

10. Tom Hayden's advice was right: get ready to demonstrate!

    Posted by mimsky at 11/24/2008 @ 4:11pm

11. I said during the campaign that Obama was in a sense Bush repackaged and was scoffed at - but so far Obama has not proven me wrong.

    Posted by jimijazz at 11/24/2008 @ 4:16pm

12. Posted by jimijazz at 11/24/2008 @ 4:16pm

    Holy bananas......I thought it was going to be the RIGHT who went nuts and started screaming about "Obama's going take my guns and force my kids to learn homersex'ulty and hate Jesus!"...

    I guess The Fringe IS bipartisan.

    Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 4:33pm

13. I miss Rese. I wish life were as sensible as a dark, twisted Bilderberg conspiracy.

    Posted by winyahn at 11/24/2008 @ 10:28pm

14. Wowow---- I keep thinking this far left freaking is going to settle out.

    Election hope bubble?

    Wow- again, I don't see the downtrodden Katrina blacks demographic as worried. Or even the "uppity" ones!

    Remember them, their moment?

    Posted by winyahn at 11/24/2008 @ 10:50pm

15. I believe most of our problems in the world can be solved through diplomacy. I don't believe a series of treaties are needed to fix every problem, but listening to people and treating countries with respect would be helpful in creating a more peaceful world. I therefore share Mr. Dreyfuss concern about the rhetoric of both Democratic and Republican candidates in the precent election campaign. I do not believe we are ready to provide intelligent leadership in foreign affairs. Only a complete idiot would burden the office of the Presidency with campaign rhetoric against other countries.I have come to believe there is no intelligent life in the beltway and Washington D. C. in particular. However, since the first news event, I can remember was the attack on Pearl Harbor, I really believe in providing for the common defense with a good size military establishment. I don't care if it never leaves our shores, but I want it there just in case there is trouble. I am not a pacifist, but I do not go looking for trouble.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/24/2008 @ 10:52pm

16. I believe most of our problems in the world can be solved through diplomacy. I don't believe a series of treaties are needed to fix every problem, but listening to people and treating countries with respect would be helpful in creating a more peaceful world. I therefore share Mr. Dreyfuss concern about the rhetoric of both Democratic and Republican candidates in the precent election campaign. I do not believe we are ready to provide intelligent leadership in foreign affairs. Only a complete idiot would burden the office of the Presidency with campaign rhetoric against other countries.I have come to believe there is no intelligent life in the beltway and Washington D. C. in particular. However, since the first news event, I can remember was the attack on Pearl Harbor, I really believe in providing for the common defense with a good size military establishment. I don't care if it never leaves our shores, but I want it there just in case there is trouble. I am not a pacifist, but I do not go looking for trouble.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/24/2008 @ 10:52pm

17. This alarmist post is pretty disturbing. I hope that Dreyfuss is wrong about this:

    "What does it mean, then? Do we still believe that Obama was pretending to be conservative and cautious on foreign policy during the campaign, in order to get himself elected? Or is the truth, like Occam's razor, far simpler? Perhaps what Obama (and his advisers) said during the campaign reflects what they really believe."

    Because if that's true there are going to be tens of millions of really pissed-off voters.

    Posted by jackwells at 11/25/2008 @ 3:54pm

18. Wow. Mr. Nicaragua himself Robert Gates in an Obama administration. So much for The Nation's infantile affair with "pragmatism" in helping elect another douchebag to office. Is the left ever going to have a voice in this fascist popsicle stand? Or are we going to just keep throwing support behind politicians that don't need it? NOV 4th signaled a mandate by voters for actual change. What did we get? An exonerated statesman from Tel Aviv, Mr Lieberman and leaders from both Houses of congress that continue to bow down to minority pressure. Pelosi and Reid are real motherfuckers and if I ever saw that faggot Barney Frank walking down the street I would pie him in the face and give him a swift kick in the ass. These "leaders" have no moral compass and do not speak for us... Fuck them!!

    Posted by PiousVirus at 11/26/2008 @ 11:57am

19. ... and fuck Eric Alterman. I happily voted for Nader.

    Posted by PiousVirus at 11/26/2008 @ 12:00pm

20. The only good your magazine offers is Alex Cockburn. The Nation is losing it's street cred and I have a feeling that the only change we'll see is the White painted black.

    Posted by PiousVirus at 11/26/2008 @ 12:04pm

21. The anti-war advocates, myself included, have never articulated a pro-active, strength-based, empathy-based, creative approach to multi-lateral problem-solving. This would be an approach that listens first, takes facts into full account, and enlists conflicting sides into mutual collaboration toward finding solutions that will be constructive and peaceful for both sides. This means we'd have to hear and understand what the criticisms against our own positions and historic stands are, without irrationally delegitimizing the viewpoints and perspectives of the other side, and without irrationally idealizing our own roles in bringing about the conflicts we now have to work to resolve.

    The one ray of hope, for me, in all this is that our country has now elected a President who can at least listen (even to those who do not agree with him), and who might be able to think things through for himself (we hope, and if elected Presidents ever have time left in their schedules for an actual process of thinking about what our country is doing).

    But we need constructive intellectual leaders who can help this administration see a positive and more effective alternative to what we've been doing since the Eisenhøwer days. Who will be those leaders?

    Posted by MTOLincoln at 11/26/2008 @ 6:29pm

22. Apart from the phraseology there was never any significant difference between Obama's views on foreign policy and Sarah Palin's. Both were obviously bloodthirsty neo-cons. Yet most Americans who voted backed those two even though they could all have voted for Nader. Americans will be truly anti-war when all candidates know they have to talk like Nader in order to get votes. And that's when American liberals will have the right to mock Sarah Palin.

    Posted by callisto at 11/27/2008 @ 04:14am

23. Excellent article. Some additional info on Jones-- he has also sat on the boards of Chevron and Boeing--Just the guy I want to advise us about our next invasion. Disappointed Progresives in Georgia have decided to boycott the 12/2 senate runoff election because of the hawkish moves of the Democrtic party's leader

    Posted by mikeatl at 11/27/2008 @ 6:50pm