3
Dec

Obama’s War Cabinet

   Posted by: Pat   in Uncategorized

President-elect Barack Obama presented his national security cabinet yesterday and the group seems to be overall an experienced and pragmatic group.  Some of the members are extremely well-known, Hillary and Bob Gates, with others having experience in Washington’s biggest stage, but still relatively unknown, General James Jones, National Security Advisor, Eric Holder, the new Attorney General, Janet Napolitano, the new Secretary of Homeland Security, and Susan Rice, the presumed future UN Ambassador.  Reviews of the group have been relatively positive in the media, with most commenting that the group is quite centric, pragmatic, and realist leaning.  The main criticism of the group as a whole is from those who were hoping for a greater imprudence or ‘change’ from an Obama administration.  The New York Times raved and raved about the selections, and one has to wonder if they will ever see a critical comment about this president in the paper (This is a brash transition, as I’m used to reading in the Times only of a US President who can’t do anything right).  

Like most of you, I am learning more and more about these officials day by day and will declare right now that my views of them and their work will be fluid, as they in due time show how effective/ineffective, realist/liberal internationalist they can each be in their assigned position.  That being said, let the judging begin!  Well, I’ll at least give a quick take on a few of the bigger names.  

I couldn't resist.

Hillary Clinton - Sec of State - Hillary, she goes by her first name, is obviously a capable politician and government official who will not be shy in the face of foreign adversaries or challenges, nevertheless her choice brings caveats.  First off, I was surprised at the move, as I thought Obama had many other fine choices, and would not wan to bring the Clinton baggage.  Hillary brings with her Bill and they both bring with them a huge media following that could prove distracting and make policy making and implementing that much harder.  It’s almost like bringing Barry Bonds on your baseball team, sure he’s a great hitter and would help the team, but man, it would suck to deal with all the extra press and attention, a lot of it negative.  Another issue about Hillary is her lack of foreign policy experience.  Obama and his team, including Susan Rice, criticized Hillary’s claim of FP experience as First Lady during the election and for good reason.  Hillary has also been an active member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she voiced her disapproval of the Iraq surge policy, and during her presidential campaign showed that she can handle stressful and difficult situations, but we should expect much from our leader of diplomats and foreign policy.  Of course, Condi Rice has a Phd in International Relations and she was involved in some questionable decision making.

Bob Gates - Sec of Defense - I love me some more Bobby Gates in the Defense Department!  Gates has proven to be a strong, pragmatic, and thoughtful manager of US defenses and of the Afghan and Iraq wars. It is this type of pick that gets me excited about a moderate and wise Obama administration.  Even Gates is only around for a year or two he’ll bring stability in a time of great turmoil in America’s foreign wars and global position.  The internal word in the defense department is very positive about this move.  What will be interesting to see is how Gates deals with the likely dismissal of most of his subordinates.  

James Jones - National Security Advisor - To be honest, I have not heard much about the General since before Obama mentioned him in one of the debates, but the more I learn, the more I like.  He has a strong non-partisan past of patriotic service to the US and has been the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and served as an envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the Bush administration.  He lived for most of his childhood in France, but I won’t hold that against him.  Seriously, this combined with his NATO experience should definitely help future EU-US relations, especially during times of disagreements, say over Afghan troop levels.

Eric Holder Jr. - Attorney General - Holder was a hold over from the Clinton administration and is said to be a capable man for the job.  The one caveat is his role in the Clinton pardon of Marc Rich, a tax fraud convict, and there are some who think this alone should disqualify him.  Though what I know about the Rich case is not pleasant, I do not think it enough for a Senate denial.  The challenges facing Holder will be immense.  He will attempt to close Guantanamo Bay while figuring what to do with all of the enemy combatants who may pose a real threat to the US, but lack verifiable material evidence for a conviction. This modern day warfare brings with it a tremendous challenge to our legal and individual rights, one that will be with use for the foreseeable future.  

Susan Rice - UN Ambassador - Rice apparently is a real go-getter, finishing her Phd in International Relations at a young age and serving in President Clinton’s National Security Council.  She is considered the most liberal of all of Obama’s team and was a close advisor to him on the campaign trail.  The relationship between Rice and Clinton will be something to watch as there were some animosities between the two during the campaign.  Regarding Rice’s possible FP leanings, she is an avowed humanitarian intervention supporter, who is for the use of force in situations such as the Rwandan genocide of the 1994.  Here is a quote:

“I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again {Rwanda}, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required,” she told The Atlantic Monthly in 2001

Now if a Bush administration official stated this it would be quite the uproar.  Obama seems to be rather measured in the foreign policy realm, in other words more realistic than idealistic, and it will be interesting to see how these two views connect or disconnect.  

This last point is important.  For it seems that Obama has put together a team of realists, those who will let US national interests lead their policy prescriptions and implementation.  Obama does not talk about the ‘worldwide growth’ or ‘greatness’ of democracy.  He seems to be more of a Jeffersonian American, a person who desires to protect US democracy here at home rather than find tyrants to defeat abroad.  Interestingly, George W. Bush entered the White House 8 years ago with a similar world outlook, but we all say how that drastically changed.  Obama, his national security team, and America’s exceptionalism will all bear watching during these next, what are sure to be exciting, four years.

Tags: , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008 at 12:02 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

11 comments so far

Charlie
 1 

Would you please clarify this passage:

” ‘I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again {Rwanda}, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required’ Now if a Bush administration official stated this it would be quite the uproar”

Why do you think this would cause a controversy if it were stated by a right wing foreign policy expert? When talking about intervention for the sake of intervention, vague national interest, or Democratization I would agree that people might make an uproar, but in reference to prevention of genocide? Though it is an extremely bold statement, I don’t think it’s that outrageous when referring to halting genocide no matter which side of the ideological aisle the speaker is from. Not to mention many evangelical Christians, who align themselves with the right, harbor very strong feelings about Dafur and could conceivably agree with Ms. Rice’s statement. I would enjoy reading your response.

December 3rd, 2008 at 7:47 am
Charlie
 2 

P.S. I forgot to mention I love the Hillary pic!

December 3rd, 2008 at 7:48 am
 3 

It is in the context of the current domestic and international American situation. Our military is stretched in thin and our domestic politics seems to be leaning toward less foreign military manuevers, not more, a greater concentration on the economy. Not to mention the fact that it seems not a day goes by when there is not some piece discrediting Bush’s democracy promotion policies, which have a strong connection to Rice’s humanitarian intervention views. About the Hillary picture, it could have been a lot worse!

December 3rd, 2008 at 8:09 am
Charlie
 4 

Thank you for your clarification, and I do agree with all of your points. It was reported recently that the current Secretary of State Rice was asked by President Bush what his intervention options were as far as Sudan was concerned, and she was clear that even if we found the strategic capacity to intervene invading another country, let alone a Muslim one, was not a possibility. However I think incoming Ambassador Rice will have plenty of humanitarian work on her hands without having to intervene anywhere new. There is a long lasting a perpetually decaying situation with sever humanitarian implication looming in Afghanistan.

December 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 am
micraig
 5 

And the Hillary picture could have been a lot better as well. Is this a sign of an unconscious bias against the new secretary of state? Or a conscious bias? Would you post an unflattering picture of president Bush? lol

December 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
 6 

Charile, your right, Rice will have much to handle in Afghanistan/Pakistan alone. Mike, how about this Bush photo, http://www.bloggerheads.com/images/bush_hero_flight_suit.jpg? Hillary just has too many funny photos for me not to choose one.

December 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
micraig
 7 

As much as I’m not a Bush fan, and you know that to be true, I wouldn’t post that one either. He is still my president and deserves a modicum of respect. Those things may be appropriate for emails to friends (and family), but I think that respecting and valuing diverse opinions is important. Hmmm, sounds like I lost my sense of humor somewhere. Oh well, I’m old, what do you expect. lol

December 4th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
 8 

I linked to that picture strictly with a sense of humor and in no way want to insult anyone, especially 9/11 victims. I just felt the tone and picture of Bush to be quite hilarious. No doubt, in such a serious and troubled world, a sense of humor is vital, and I definitely want lighthardedness to be an integral part of GPP.

December 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
micraig
 9 

lol, if you really want to be lighthearted — post a picture of yourself. I’m sure there are plenty of absolutely incredible ones! (this was said with utmost respect, really!!)

December 5th, 2008 at 8:49 am
 10 

A picture of myself would frighten you all away. Just kidding, when you think of me, just picture George Clooney, except young and without the physical flaws.

December 5th, 2008 at 10:59 am
micraig
 11 

Ahh, and I thought you envisioned yourself as more the Brad Pitt type! or maybe Robert Redford in 3 days of the Condor.

December 7th, 2008 at 2:45 pm