 Gen. James L. Jones, Robert M. Gates |
On Monday President-elect Barack Obama announced the makeup of the core of his incoming administrations foreign affairs team with what Jeremy Scahill, Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute, yesterday called “Barack Obama’s Kettle of Hawks“:
The absence of a solid anti-war voice on Obama’s national security team means that US foreign policy isn’t going to change.
…
[T]he real rivalry that will play out goes virtually unmentioned. The main battles will not be between Obama’s staff, but rather against those who actually want a change in US foreign policy, not just a staff change in the war room.When announcing his foreign policy team on Monday, Obama said: “I didn’t go around checking their voter registration.” That is a bit hard to believe, given the 63-question application to work in his White House. But Obama clearly did check their credentials, and the disturbing truth is that he liked what he saw.
The assembly of Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Susan Rice and Joe Biden is a kettle of hawks with a proven track record of support for the Iraq war, militaristic interventionism, neoliberal economic policies and a worldview consistent with the foreign policy arch that stretches from George HW Bush’s time in office to the present.
Obama has dismissed suggestions that the public records of his appointees bear much relevance to future policy. “Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost,” Obama said. “It comes from me. That’s my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing.” It is a line the president-elect’s defenders echo often. The reality, though, is that their records do matter.
Hillary Clinton was confirmed as Obama’s Secretary of State, and three other appointments were confirmed as well: his closest foreign affairs adviser Susan Rice becoming UN ambassador with a seat at the cabinet table, former NATO commander General James L. Jones as national security adviser, and current Secretary of Defense Bush appointee Robert M. Gates to remain in that role.
What is the symbolism and what is the actuality of Obama’s appointments?
On the flip The Real News CEO Paul Jay talks to Lawrence J. Korb and Phyllis Bennis to analyze the overall message about ongoing US foreign policy that is sent out to the world by Obama’s choices.
Lawrence J. Korb is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a Senior Adviser to the Center for Defense Information. He served as Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations and Logistics) under President Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1985. In that position, he administered about seventy percent of the Defense budget.
Phyllis Bennis is a Senior Analyst at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. She is the author of Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis , Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power, and her newest book Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer.
He confirmed the selection of Hilary Clinton for the Secretary of State, Eric Holder for Attorney General, Gen. James Jones for National Security Adviser, Susan Rice as the Ambassador to the UN, and Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security.
In perhaps the most shocking of the appointments, Obama confirmed that Bush appointee Robert Gates will stay on as Obama’s Secretary of Defense for a to-be-determined period of time. The appointments have drawn great praise from established Washington voices, including most members of the GOP, but have been highly criticized by others as lacking the ‘change’ that Obama’s campaign preached.
Senior Editor Paul Jay talks to Lawrence Korb, an adviser to Obama during the campaign, and Phyllis Bennis to get their opinions on Obama’s selections and what they signify.
Real News: December 2, 2008
Pragmatism trumps change
Lawrence Korb and Phyllis Bennis discuss the significance of Obama’s foreign policy appointments
13 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
My only critique would be that what I saw from Obama during the campaign when it comes to foreign policy was a Scowcroft-type realist. Scowcroft was actually to the left of Hillary when it came to the Iraq invasion and by all accounts is the one behind getting Bush II to appoint Gates. So while I agree with most all of what Bennis says about where we need to go, I’m not seeing any surprises from Obama yet. Most of my disagreements with him have always been in the area of foreign policy.
And I especially appreciated the discussion at the end of this about US hegemony. There I agree with Korb that its on the wane regardless of what the neocons want and, to a great extent, because of their actions. Even our ability to use military power has been brought into question by the fiasco in Iraq.
about Iraq, and these mainstream politicians and technocrats were wrong.
Could it be that they–“pragmatists” all–may be in sufficient touch with reality to respect and defer to Obama’s demonstrated superior strategic judgment? Might they now feel that they owe him their fealty because he showed the magnanimity to appoint them despite their demonstrated lapses in judgment over Iraq?
When the arguments on any issue have been made among agency deputies and ultimately by the principal players themselves, will these pragmatic appointees not be likely to respond honestly to Obama’s probing questions, rather than argue for an ideological agenda regardless of facts?
And, once the arguments are laid out and if no consensus can be reached, will such appointees not be inclined to accept Obama’s ultimate judgment in the realization that he can comprehend the likely direction of multiple simultaneously moving pieces better than they can?
We’ll see. Maybe Obama and his team, despite their best efforts, will simply be overwhelmed by the complexity and enormity of the challenges. Maybe these pragmatists will construct an unimaginative, pedestrian, tradition-bound bubble that will hamper Obama’s pursuit of bold initiatives.
I would like to hear less jingoism from Obama and his team concerning Iran. And how long will it take them to comprehend that a primarily military approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan is doomed to fail? The terrain and the people with their culture of Pakhtunwali are essentially immune to long-term occupation and permanent suppression.
…in his blog on Antiwardotcom on 12/1/08:
I’m open to changing my mind, but as of now Obama has shown me that his change is bogus.