Obama's Big Tent

Say what you will about Barack Obama's national security team, but clearly the President-elect wasn't fibbing when he promised to bring unity to Washington. Who else could get Robert Gates, General James Jones, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice on the same stage--let alone the same team?

Press reports have been emphasizing that Obama's vulcans are more hawkish than many of his supporters expected. Maybe so, but there is also a fair amount of ideological continuity and agreement among Obama's senior national security advisors about how to redirect American foreign policy--away from unilateral military action and aggressive posturing--and place diplomacy and cooperation at the center of our efforts.

"To succeed, we must pursue a new strategy that skillfully uses, balances, and integrates all elements of American power: our military and diplomacy; our intelligence and law enforcement; our economy and the power of our moral example," Obama said today. "The team that we have assembled here today is uniquely suited to do just that... They share my pragmatism about the use of power, and my sense of purpose about America's role as a leader in the world."

Argues Peter Beinart, himself a repentant supporter of the war in Iraq, in the latest issue of Time: "It's precisely because Obama intends to pursue a genuinely progressive foreign policy that he's surrounding himself with people who can guard his right flank at home. When George W. Bush wanted to sell the Iraq war, he trotted out Colin Powell--because Powell was nobody's idea of a hawk. Now Obama may be preparing to do the reverse. To give himself cover for a withdrawal from Iraq and a diplomatic push with Iran, he's surrounding himself with people like Gates, Clinton and Jones, who can't be lampooned as doves."

Perhaps that's overly optimistic, but Beinart points out that both Gates and Jones--though close to the Republican military establishment--will likely feel more at home among the new administration than the old one.

To grasp the logic of this strategy, start with the fact that Obama's likely national-security picks don't actually disagree very much with the foreign policy he laid out during the campaign. Jones is on record calling the Iraq war a "debacle" and urging that the detention center at Guantánamo Bay be closed "tomorrow." Gates has also reportedly pushed for closing Gitmo and for faster withdrawals from Iraq. He has called a military strike against Iran a "strategic calamity," urged diplomacy with Tehran's mullahs and denounced the "creeping militarization" of U.S. foreign policy. (You don't hear that from a Defense Secretary every day.) For her part, Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign embraced an Iraq-withdrawal position virtually identical to Obama's. And although they fought a sound-bite war over sitting down with the leaders of countries like Iran, the two candidates' actual Iran policies were pretty much the same. Both wanted intensive diplomacy; both wanted to start it at lower levels and work up from there.

On key policy issues, Jones, Gates and Clinton aren't significantly more hawkish than Obama. What they are is more hawkish symbolically. Gates is a Republican; Jones is a Marine general who once worked for John McCain; Clinton, as Senator from New York, has gained credibility with hawkish pro-Israel groups. In other words, what distinguishes Gates, Jones and Clinton isn't their desire to shift Obama's policies to the right; it's their ability to persuade the right to give Obama's policies a chance.

Despite coming from very different backgrounds, Obama has not assembled a "team of rivals" with huge policy disagreements. He has assembled a squad of big egos and outsized personalities, which is precisely what he wanted.

Said Obama:

I assembled this team because I am a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions.

I think that's how the best decisions are made. One of the dangers in a White House, based on my reading of history, is that you get wrapped up in group-think and everybody agrees with everything and there's no discussion and there are no dissenting views. So I am going to be welcoming a vigorous debate inside the White House.

But understand, I will be setting policy as president. I will be responsible for the vision that this team carries out, and I will expect them to implement that vision once decisions are made.

Whether we can expect brilliance or bluster from this unit, only time will tell.

Comments (25)

1. "To give himself cover for a withdrawal from Iraq and a diplomatic push with Iran, he's surrounding himself with people like Gates, Clinton and Jones, who can't be lampooned as doves."

   Gee, Mr Berman, why did it take you several days to figure that out...and why hasn't your boss, Ms vanden Heuvel (or John Nichols or Robert Dreyfuss) been able to figure that out????

   Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 2:22pm

2. A breath of fresh air to have dissenting views aired in a policy discussion at the WH.

   If it happens.

   Let us "hope" that Obama is good at getting the right BB's to land in the right holes after they all get tossed into sluiced around in the can.

   Why does the staff at The Nation cut and paste so much material from other press sources? Isn't that the job of us bloggers?

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/01/2008 @ 2:40pm

3. "It's precisely because Obama intends to pursue a genuinely progressive foreign policy that he's surrounding himself with people who can guard his right flank at home."

   ahh, that remains to be seen, don't you think? So far he has surrounded himself with centrists and close-to-the-right-ists, both with this "security team" and his "economic team". I have yet to see much of his Marxist Progressive Agenda reveal itself.

   As a matter of fiction, I just received my ticket for the Annual Progressives/ Marxist/America Haters/librool scientists Take Over The World Vegan Supper and Salon, but I do not see Obama's name either on the Speaker list or the Attendees list.

   I do see that Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus is going to put his name up for the Pol Pot Humanitarian Award. It looks like some guy named Pontificus al-Tikriti is going to Second the motion.

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/01/2008 @ 2:53pm

4. Posted by crabwalk at 12/01/2008 @ 2:53pm

   That is rather humorous, isn't it?

   The local Right kept telling us before the election..."Don't you know? Obama will be the most radical, socialist, terrorist-appeasing President in history!"

   Then when he wasn't, they say "Haha, you stupid liberals! You believed Obama was going to be some kind of peacenik lefty! You were so gullible!"

   Uh...huh?!?!??!?

   Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 3:34pm

5. Mr. Berman, you're still dreaming. Wake up, sir. A man who surrounds himself with Hawks who all agree with one another is not dissenting viewpoints, just more of the same pro-war viewpoint we've had for the last eight years and counting. Can't exactly say Bill Clinton was a pacifist either, can we?

   War, war, and more war... we can't afford it anymore, that's the bottom line, and we're going to be driven so far down into the bottom, we'll be begging for foreign aid at the UN.

   Let me know when The Exalted Leader-elect starts appointing REAL progressives to his team... we'll wait... suggest you hold your breath while we're waiting... you'll be such a lovely shade of blue...

   Posted by CitizenPain at 12/01/2008 @ 4:02pm

6. It will be interesting (probably deadly) to see how "intensive diplomacy" will persuade Iran to give up on the nuclear weapon, or how "intensive diplomacy" will persuade the Palestians to give up their dream of no Israel.

   Of course, from the Palestinian viewpoint the "intensive diplomacy" may indeed work, because once Iran nukes Israel into oblivion, then the Palestinian desire would not be a dream anymore.

   And, oh boy, we had better get out of Iraq fast!!

   Then what?

   Mask is yukking it up above, thinking that the "local Right" has egg on their (our) face because Obama is not now going to be a "peacenik lefty".

   You are assuming too much too quick, Mask. "Diplomacy", and "Intensive Diplomacy" are tools used by the peacenik lefties, instead of stopping those who want to kill you. So the jury is out on Obama, and will be for a long time.

   Now, the author (Mr. Berman) says Obama has "assembled a squad of big egos and outsized personalities, which is precisely what he wanted. "

   At least in one case, Obama could wind up regretting he got what he wanted. That could come if he wakes up one day and finds Hill (and Bill) think they are co-presidents, with Obama having only a minor role.

   How will Obama deal with that? He had an opportunity to be free of that, why did he give it up?

   Posted by sjchermak at 12/01/2008 @ 4:39pm

7. Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 2:22pm

   "Gee, Mr Berman, why did it take you several days to figure that out...and why hasn't your boss, Ms vanden Heuvel (or John Nichols or Robert Dreyfuss) been able to figure that out????"

   Duh, gee, Mr. Berman ...

   Just once so even credulous idiots like you and Berman can grasp it: There's to be no authentic withdrawal from Iraq, merely a redeployment to Afghanistan where the war is already lost. Nobody's coming home. Further, Gates and Jones aren't there simply as tools to provide political cover for Obama. Do you really believe they're that dumb? They're there because they share his essentially confrontational views on Iran, Afghanistan and Russia. He was going to do "everything, everything" to insure that Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons, remember. And one day, just like his predecessor - who fortunately has had the good sense to back away - Mr. Bigmouth is going to have his bluff called on this question. Obama has absolutely no intention of leaving the Middle East. Au contraire, he purposes to stay there until AIPAC is done with him. And that smells suspiciously of war.

   Posted by john lowell at 12/01/2008 @ 4:43pm

8. Posted by sjchermak at 12/01/2008 @ 4:39pm

   Well, SJCHER, what IS Rush telling you now?

   Is it the pre-election "Obama is going to be a radical socialist"? Or "Haha! Stupid left thought Obama was going to be a radical socialist and he's not, he's taking in the old DLC/Third Way'er Clintonites! They were so hopeful...I mean, gullible. Now a word from Ruth's Chris...."?

   Both? How are you (and the Great One) going to pull THAT off? Can't mock the "naive Left" for thinking Obama was going to be a revolutionary, when he's just a centrist...

   AND say that he's "the most radical left-winger in history" and say the Left shouldn't be disappointed.

   Ooops, wait...forgot...it's "truthiness"...ic CAN be both!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 4:49pm

9. Posted by john lowell at 12/01/2008 @ 4:43pm

   Titus 3:2

   Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 4:50pm

10. Mask,

    I do now have to give you credit.

    You said above "Now a word from Ruth's Chris...."

    You actually DO listen to Rush!!!

    There is hope yet. I see the potential there, that someday you may be a Dittohead!

    Welcome aboard! It may take a while, but when you come around, it will be good having you on our team! It will be fun to watch you drive libs nuts!

    Posted by sjchermak at 12/01/2008 @ 5:09pm

11. Ditto heads.

    What is the kool-aid flavor of the week?

    That you actually seem to take pride in listening to that fathead info-mercial speaks volumes about you SJ. Henceforth I will grant you the credence that deserves.

    November in Baghdad, post Surge success:

    108 bombings

    148 dead from bombings.

    Not one associated with a "weapon of mass destruction".

    Tell me SJ, after 54% of the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution calling for all US forces to be out by Dec 31, 2011, a resolution backed by Chimpy McFlightsuit, do you still think it is giving in to terrorists to set a timetable for withdrawal?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/01/2008 @ 5:53pm

12. Nice article A.B....

    I knew a new approach where a new world grew...

    and took another look through a book or two...

    found it by the pound in surround sound true...

    He said that instead "we're neither red nor blue".

    Posted by ttr at 12/01/2008 @ 6:38pm

13. And now a word from Dr. Seuss......

    Doh! Looks like he's already spoken above.

    By the way, ttr, Ted Geisel --aka Seuss-- was a propagandist in the post-WW II period.

    Check out "Your Job in Germany" directed by Frank Capra and written by Seuss:

    tinyurl.com/56gn84

    You're a good guy, ttr, but also at least a trifle too naive in my opinion.

    In any case, progressives aren't doing Obama any favors by letting him off the hook when he caves in to the DC establishment --which appears to be his trademark already, sadly.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2008 @ 7:34pm

14. Posted by sjchermak at 12/01/2008 @ 5:09pm

    SJCHER, how long have you been listening to Rush?

    Bet I can beat it....see, it works the OTHER way too.

    Eventually (if you're smart) you figure out that Rush is pulling a con on you...he tells you something, then tells you "Don't read or listen to anything contradictory...that's just the Liberal Media! If you need to substaniate what I say as fact, go to National Review or Drudge!"...

    and..."amazingly" "Rush is right!!!!"

    Then one day you accidentially see how he's just totally b.s.'ing on an actual proven fact...and you start to think "Hmmmm? Maybe Oceania has NOT always been at war with EastAsia?!??!?!"

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 7:57pm

15. BTW, SJCHER, there are two possible outcomes from that moment of epiphany...

    1. You realize what you've believed for so long and spouted back (pretending its your own thoughts)...was crapola.

    or 2. You deny the facts, tell them 2 + 2 still equals 5 (as you've been taught) and to put the rats on Julia, and remain loyal to Big Rusher.

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 8:01pm

16. by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2008 @ 7:34pm ...

    Yo! b_kool

    Funny that... where I come from, many people think I'm an 'over the top' paranoid scenariologist from the lunatic fringe... ;^) ...isn't relativity grand?

    Call me 'old fashioned'... but I think the Obama administration is going to be superb governance... and that the hew and cry on the 'progressive' band -width is a of of 'scary talk' without clear purpose.

    We'll see, now... won't we.

    Stay cool dude!;^)

    Posted by ttr at 12/01/2008 @ 9:16pm

17. Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 4:50pm

    Ah yes, our very own Maskedca-ca, but at the moment transmogrified from DNC shill into peoples' theologian. Bend over and crack a smile for us might you, Reverend. :-)

    Posted by john lowell at 12/01/2008 @ 10:46pm

18. Dittos Mask,

    Actually, as you are becoming aware, it works this way:

    1. You see something on The Nation that a lib says.

    2. You go to www.rushlimbaugh.com and see what Rush says about libs, and then you say "Rush is right".

    Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2008 @ 04:15am

19. Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2008 @ 04:15am

    No, here's how it works-

    Go to Media Matters, Search "Limbaugh", and then either-

    1. Figure out how you've been duped.

    2. Say "This is just Liberal Emmanuel Goldstein propaganda!!!"

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 07:25am

20. Dittos Mask,

    Media Matters is a lib web site. Why are you citing Media Matters? It would not be impartial and thus it would have no credibility. It would only reinforce the biased viewpoint you currently have.

    I say currently have because I know that over time you will see the light. Your voice or your typing on these posts may say No, but your mind will say Yes as the light of truth begins to sink in.

    Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2008 @ 08:30am

21. Dittos again Mask,

    I do enjoy razzing you.

    Since you mentioned Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, if you live in an area where they are you ought to give them a try.

    Rush Limbaugh recommends it.

    I don't live near one, so I have never been there, so if you go let me know how the dinner was.

    Although, I don't need you to tell me that, because Rush says they are good, and that is good enough for me!

    Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2008 @ 08:34am

22. baaa

    baaa

    Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2008 @ 08:34am

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 10:03am

23. crabwalk,

    baaa?

    I must have missed you at the sheep barn at the State Fair? Were you located with the goats instead?

    Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2008 @ 10:34am

24. So after the Obama/Biden dem ticket prove to be successful across the board year after year for the next 8, will the righties become 'even more' deluded about the dem successes and the repub new con miserable failures?

    Looks like the USA citizenry for the most part, aren't buying the repub new con BS anymore:

    "GOP Takes Another Image Hit Post-Election

    Republicans favor tacking right; independents offer mixed guidance

    PRINCETON, NJ -- The Republican Party's image has gone from bad to worse over the past month, as only 34% of Americans in a Nov. 13-16 Gallup Poll say they have a favorable view of the party, down from 40% in mid-October. The 61% now holding an unfavorable view of the GOP is the highest Gallup has recorded for that party since the measure was established in 1992.

    ******

    By contrast, the public's views of the Democratic Party remain as positive after the election as they were just prior to it. More than half of Americans, 55%, currently hold a favorable view of the Democratic Party and only 39% an unfavorable view, highly typical of views toward the Democrats all year."

    http://tinyurl.com/5wgouw

    "CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. 11/6-9/08

    The Democratic Party

    Favorable - 62%

    Unfavorable - 31%

    The Republican Party

    Favorable - 38%

    Unfavorable - 54%"

    http://www.pollingreport.com/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/02/2008 @ 6:03pm

25. I truly hope this article is correct. I am, however, hearing the rhetoric of the testosterone charged right. If we disagree with these choices we are the fringe, cooks, ideologues, dead enders, etc... We have an economic team who engineered the present economic crisis and a defense team who essentially believed in preemptive force. We are being told to wait and see, not good enough, there are people dying on the street. 700,000 kids went hungry this year. Sorry, no time for patience. January twentieth better show results fast, not 100 days two weeks.

    Posted by julien38 at 12/02/2008 @ 10:28pm