Obama Surrounding Himself With Proponents Of "Soft Power"?
With Obama set to announce his national security team today, The New York Times offers a valuable corrective look at his choices, reporting that despite their hawkishness, there's also another dimension to his picks: The key players are also proponents of pumping huge resources into boosting the U.S.'s "soft power" abroad.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, for instance, has been giving speeches for a year or so now "about the limits of military power in wars in which no military victory is possible," the paper notes. Gates has also decried "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."
Meanwhile, Obama's choice for national security adviser, former NATO commander James Jones, has taken that critique even further, criticizing our strategy in Afghanistan over its failure to implement a strategy of reconstruction and aid in order to hold territory won from the Taliban.
The paper posits that the pick of Jones could signal a serious effort to use such measures in Afghanistan -- a place where Obama is promising a renewed focus -- and elsewhere, something that could fundamentally change our national security policy:
If Mr. Obama and his team can bring about that kind of shift, it could mark one of the most significant changes in national security strategy in decades and greatly enhance the powers of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state.
This view of Gates and Jones would seem to lend comfort to the camp of foreign policy thinkers (notably Steve Clemons) who think such figures could give Obama the cover he needs to pull off a fundamental shift in national security policy. On this score, Jones may prove to be at least as key a player to be watching as Hillary.
Oh please, please, please let this be the case, because a fundamental shift away from the "Bush Doctrine" would be most welcome.
And you only need look at the current mess in Afghanistan and 5 years on in Iraq to know, "In what respect, Charlie?".
December 1, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, the key here is that both these figures aggressively criticized Bush's failure to utilize soft power abroad. so there's reason for optimism
December 1, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
And that's a good thing.
December 1, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is absolutely reason for optimism, and as has been pointed out elsewhere, Obama's choice to keep SecDef Gates may well prove to be the most shrewd choice of all. The campaign has led into the transition, and both seem to be examples of leadership pointing the way toward how Obama will govern. Steady. Thoughtful. Pragmatic. Surround yourself with the best minds and the most capable individuals, set a course, and give those individuals a charge and some authority. If I didn't know any better, I would think this guy had experience as a community organizer!
December 1, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice punchline with a basis in realty and a discernible benefit; a president who can do more than just win elections.
December 1, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read this story this morning. It makes perfect sense.
If those on the left who are so angry about these appointments would stop being so reactionary and obsessed with ideological and party labels and actually follow what Gates and Jones have been advocating, they'd see that Obama is putting together a team that is (a) in agreement with his stated foreign policy and (b) capable of actually getting them done!
December 1, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't thrilled about Gates until I read the story in the Times this morning. It's very encouraging.
December 1, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
For all the nit-picking, I just want to say that given the absolute mess this country and the world is in right now, there are very few people I would trust more than Obama to deal with things wisely.
He's not going to change his philosophy on soft power now that he's in charge.
December 1, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any gains of voting for Obama have been knocked out of the water with him selecting Hillary as his SOS. She voted for the war in Iraq and continues to say she would do it again (unlike Biden).
December 1, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's an outright lie. Hillary has never said she would "do it again." She hasn't done a full mea culpa but she has said repeatedly that she would have done things differently if she knew then what she knows now.
I didn't support Hillary, primarily because of her vote for the war but making up lies to justify your fear-mongering about her at State is a bridge too far.
December 1, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why? She is there to institute Obama's policies.
Unless, of course, you think that he is such an intellectual lightweight that she can talk him into wars that he doesn't fully support or believe in ... and if that's true, why would you vote for him in the first place?
December 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The obvious question for everyone who insists that Hillary Clinton can somehow dictate the direction of the Obama Administration.
December 1, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has lost any gains of voting? I have to laugh! HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Just like he was supposed to lose the election by moving to the "center" during the general election and he was supposed to lose his base because he "caved" on FISA!
December 1, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
On a more general note, this is an absolute necessity for the future of the US. We simply cannot continue to sink the vast resources into our military dominance as we have always done in the past. Times are changing and with the rise of China, reemergence of an antagonistic Russia and more and more nations gaining atomic weaponry, the military option simply cannot sustain us. We need to pursue a new line of foreign policy that does not rely on us scaring everyone into cooperating.
I liken the current US situation to the end of the British empire. They had to transition from their complete dominance of the globe using their navy and armed forces into a more economic & diplomatic approach. We need to retool our economy and come up with more diplomatic tools to accomplish things. All imho.
December 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sort of agree, but this weekend, I was thinking about the British Empire and what a mess it left in the East. From the Far to the Middle to the Near east, what we are engaged in is largely cleaning up after them.
India and Pakistan - the British Empire
Israel and Palestine - the British Empire
Iraq - the British Empire
Opium in the east - the British Empire
and so on and so on and so on.
December 1, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
And don't forget about Africa.
December 1, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, that's true, but most of western Europe had a hand in ruining Africa.
It's the same basic problem, however. Countries formed with no regard to who lives where or why; no attention paid to tribal claims of land or old and ongoing feuds, just arbitrary decisions by the colonial powers on dividing up territory.
December 1, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary really overinflated their differences in order to make campaign issues. Her willingness to do that is part of why she would have made a terrible president. I see no reason why she would not do an excellent job as SOS.
I really don't understand where the upset and worrying left is coming from on this. Obama is proving to be exactly what he said he would be. All that rhetoric about there not being a blue America and red America but the United States of America wouldn't make a whole lot of sense unless he actually did include people who didn't always agree with him. He always presented himself as somebody who could draw consensus from disparate factions and that's what he's trying to do.
He's put together a team that is more pragmatic than idealogical. That's what he always said he would be. I guess the left is upset that they are missing their own idealogical warriors but I think that after the last eight years most of us just want idealogical warriors out of the picture altogether.
And ,of course, in purely red team/blue team competition terms this is a team that pretty much knocks the red team back to the minor leagues. He has pulled in their competent realist foreign policy wing as well as Hillary whom actually inspires their confidence. The neo-cons and "more rubble less trouble" crew are totally out of power and have no immediate path back to relevance of any sort.
December 1, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the Israelis and their American "friends", Jim Jones is a cause for concern because of the "harsh" and "critical" report he was not allowed to write on the situation in the WB.
Evidently, Americans are not allowed to present an independent picture of the IDF actions there or offer any suggestions that differ from the Israeli version of their security demands in regards to a future Palestinian "state". Jones' proposal that Nato troops be stationed in the WB until the Palestinians are able to establish their own professional security infrastructure has also met with resistance.
The neocon types are seeing/hoping for conflict between Hillary and Jones on the I/P issues. They're also banking on her superhawk reputation when it comes to FP issues involving Israel. Whether or not Hillary will continue to be so beholden to the Lobby remains to be seen. (Obama has his own history of pandering to the same bunch)
The fact that Hillary will have direct access to Obama w/out going through Jones cheers the usual suspects, but the fact that Jones has his own direct access worries them.
December 1, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Woodward's State of Denial sketches a picture of James L. Jones as activist against Rumsfeld groupthink in the Pentagon. Seems to me that this would be appealing to an Obama who has consistently and strongly stated in one way or another that he doesn't want a cabinet of yes men and women, that he prefers, even perhaps needs, challengers to groupthink in order to operate well.
Before everyone yells hallelujah, I would like to point out a common contrarian view. Despite the Bush administration single and simple minded misuse of loyalty and everyone being on message and on team, resulting in failure, many on the left also like the idea of everyone being on team in pursuit of a goal, focusing like a laser beam, rah rah and all that. It's not what I prefer, it's a military precision model of governance (as well as bringing up team sports,) but some argue quite vitriolically (netroots especially) that that's the way you have to do it to accomplish things.
December 1, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink