Real Change Is Afoot: Obama Shifts Political Center with National Security Selections

CHICAGO--As the season's first snow hit, Barack Obama on Monday took a shovel to the chilliest element of Bush administration national security policy: moral certitude. Rather than look to the heavens, a skillful president-elect seemed distinctly focused on the ground for inspiration.

With Sen. Hillary Clinton and six other new colleagues aligned in front of their very own American flags, Obama left little doubt that we're shifting the political center of gravity. For all Monday's talk of power, and successfully ending the "war on terror" in Afghanistan, the significance was less the obvious signals of being "muscular" than of an attempt to be flexible and, yes, multilateralist.

Historian Richard Norton Smith was perusing records of the late President Gerald Ford's administration out in California when I tracked him down. He agreed that Obama's talk about bipartisanship is a predictable, quadrennial ritual (there was speculation about a Democrat landing in the first Bush cabinet eight years ago) but also that Obama is exploiting an aura of being non-ideological as he also provides "a contrast with the portrait painted of an administration of cowboys."

And perhaps we should put aside the unceasing "team of rivals" gibberish and whether Obama and Clinton can get along (history shows that rivals were picked long before and after Honest Abe's presidency and, most of the time, it doesn't really work too well). As far at that goes, a superfluous press release from Bill Clinton, informing us that he fully supports Obama's choice for Secretary of State, suggested that it might be Madame Secretary's spouse, not her, that's ultimately the nettlesome one.

Just imagine if the new rules of the road, which bring significant financial disclosures by him, also mean diminished globetrotting. Will he succumb to the early symptoms of Persistent Oratorical Withdrawal, namely nightmares in which ballrooms are empty, your spokesman's cell phone rarely rings, or you're never called by Charlie Rose to discuss global challenges?

Bill's potential specter of irrelevance is at least better than the reality of Bush's actual irrelevance to many. Smith, the historian, also agreed that while Bush has shown signs of born-again pragmatism in recent years (a deal with North Korea, regrets over the stupid "Axis of Evil" line), few are listening. He's a tree falling in the forest with not a soul within miles. It's perhaps why they were probably breaking out their stockpile of airline liquor at the State Department as Obama talked about renewing American diplomacy.

Is it possible that with Obama, Hillary Clinton and holdover Defense Secretary Robert Gates, we may actually wind up with more Foreign Service personnel than active members of U.S. military bands?!

And was former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, the skunk at the UN's (many) dinner parties, listening when Susan Rice, Obama's selection for his old job, talked about a need for "more effective international institutions" and the need to "rededicate ourselves to the United Nations"?

"Rice is the un-Bolton," said Smith.

But, our obsession with Hillary Clinton aside, the most telling pick may be Gates. Don't forget that our budget for the military is about 4 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. His operation is a whole lot bigger than hers.

So does the world know that Gates has recently said the following:

Over the long term, we cannot kill or capture our way to victory. Non-military efforts -- tools of persuasion and inspiration -- were indispensable to the outcome of the defining struggle of the 20th century. They are just as indispensable in the 21st century -- and perhaps even more so.

Pulling off successful non-military efforts is arduous. It's about a lot more than cultivating a nice image and having people like us. It's dealing, in a constructive way, with real threats, as the Bush administration itself is trying to do now in Djibouti. There, our military is actually building clinics, digging wells, inoculating cattle and offering seemingly helpful services to a population of horrendously poor rural Muslims in Africa -- the very same folks who are handy recruits for Al Qaeda.

James Glassman, a former journalist now serving as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy (the job previously held by Bush chum Karen Hughes), recently gave a speech a few blocks away from Obama's Monday personnel announcements. He talked about the need to show other societies, like Pakistan, why it's just not in their interest to harbor bad guys, or why it's not bright for their citizens to view violence as a prime means to achieve political, social and other aims.

Glassman cited figures from a Pew Global Attitude Survey in which 25 percent of Jordanians think that suicide bombing is sometimes justified. There were other statistics of that sort. More importantly, the Obama once again heard Monday would surely concur with the call for "soft" power in the speech by Glassman, whose area of the State Department is an underfunded backwater.

At the end Monday, Obama was once again asked a few questions, including a sharp one by ABC News' Jake Tapper about policy toward India and Pakistan in the wake of the Mumbai horror. No surprise, Obama punted since he must walk a line between exuding competence and not coming off as precipitous since Bush is still boss.

But it shouldn't be a surprise that real change is afoot. The nattering to Obama's political left aside, it's probably wrong to assume too much tactical and strategic continuity, even given all the serious and experienced Washington veterans being picked by him.

Peel back the onion and one finds substantive differences with the guy whom nobody seems to be listening to. It's why John Bolton may be cringing, knock on wood.

Comments

[jhamm1]

So, by the definitions of this article, "far off to the right" is the new "center."

Why wasn't I notified?

[UncleDave]

I am amazed,exa­sperated,a­nd almost on the verge of anger at the avelanche of critisim of Obama's picks for his team.Nattering nabobs indeed! The man hasn't been sworn in and the 'predictions' of doom continue to roll.The very reason the world is in the mess it's in is the result of NeoCon ideology over good sense.'There's no Librils!' is the howl from every mountain. Yeah,and....? Obama is showing his strengths with every pick.Intel­ligent,pat­ient,a willingness to listen,taking experience over ideology,keeping the public informed,respecting the people who put him in power,and trusting that Americans will trust him to do the right thing,not the popular thing.

[LiberalBuzz]

Show me one liberal Obama has picked for his cabinet.

Just one honest to God Liberal. Not any centrists or center right or center left but real life liberals. I am sorry but when the GOP is acting like that couldn't be happier with his picks and those of us who put him in office are left scratching our heads and suddenly realize we were pushed out into the rain so the appeasement of the right could begin.....well like I said I will give him a year...but right now all of his picks look like they are designed to keep the status quo and keep republicans happy and s crew democratic liberals.

[smag]

As a conservative I like his picks thus far. But as to your question of liberal picks; that would be Rice and Richardson. And I do not fault him for those picks. He won and has the right to choose his team to serve the country. I just pray they serve the country well not just the Libs or Consrrvs.

[jazzdrummerb]

My thoughts exactly, UncleDave. Frankly I'm OK that the ideologues aren't happy with all of Obama's choices. He has gone for experience over ideology. The last person we need in the presidency now is another "with us or against us" ideologue, from either side.

[NeoPoliticus]

I'm going to enjoy watching this ship of fools sail in circles.

[canucklivinginUSA]

You might have a long wait.

[smag]

I think you are wrong to enjoy watching our President "sail in circles". That means the US will be on that ship. I didn't like Obama, didn't vote for him and am concerned how far left he may take the country. However, thus far for reasons you probably don't like his choices, I am cautiously optimistic.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Obama's Afghanistan First Policy

No one could be more delightened with the incoming administration than the terror masters of Tehran. Moving from an Iraq first strategy to an Afghanistan first strategy falls happily into their evolving plans of replacing the United States as the nuclear armed hegemon of the Middle East.

Ahmadenijad must have been jumping for joy when he heard the President elect say that the war against terrorism (Islamic extremism) which began in Afghanistan must end there. It would seem that the President elect completely forgot that this war began on November 4, 1979 when the Khomeine regime seized the US embassy in Tehran holding our diplomats hostage for 444 days.

The mullahs were, are and remain global enemy number one, our most deadly and lethal adversaries on the world stage; and everything that Obama is planning in the Middle East seems unintentionally calculated to continue the inane policies of George Bush and five past administrations in enabling the dangerous growth of Iranian power.

[zaz33]

Apollo speaks the typical beltway propaganda.

There is still no evidence that Iran has EVER pursued a nuclear weapons program.

Iran's defense budget for 2005 was 6.2 Billion.

US "defense" budget - 600 Billion (plus plus plus)

Iran is seen as an obstacle to US and Israeli dominance in the Middle East and a threat to our obscene military spending.

Tell it like it is.

[ApolloSpeaks]

By "beltway propaganda" do you include Barack Obama who agrees with the United Nations, the EU, Israel and the Persian Gulf States that Iran is vigorously pursuing the bomb to achieve their foreign policy goals of restoring Islam as a great world political and militray power?

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

Apollo, you're so nice to always invite me to draw comparisons with Nietzsche's favorite characters. Now you're offering Zarathustra on a silver tray.

November 4, 1979 is a funny day to refer to when you speak of the animosities between the Persians and the West. Try the fall of Athens or the victory of Alexander the Great (my student, by the way.)

And of course you know that there's a fight about the copyright on the dual view on good and evil?
And the afterworld, in which all accounts are settled once and for all? Abrahamic religions cannot be entirely sure how much of this they took from Zarathustra. But who cares?

Let me ask you a question: are you beyond 40 in terms of age? Did you spend your time in the desert? Or are you really just some random greek God who couldn't find a better playing ground for his excess force than ideology?

More to the point: how about Israel as the nuclear armed hegemon of the Middle East? Don't get me wrong. I am not doing you the favor of objecting to this. I am merely pointing it out. Just to remind you that some things are actually as they should be, rather than everything being the fault of democrats. It really seems to me that you're struggling with the notion that democrats cannot be blamed for everything. You even invent flaws and problems just to blame more on Obama.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Animosities between the Persians and the West had very little to do with the events of November 4, 1979. The Ayatollah Khomeine considered himself a Moslem above all things, an agent of the one true God and religion, a revolutionary with a "divinely inspired" and perpostrous plan to Islamize the world and replace America and the Soviet Union as the world's great superpower. As for his nationality and ethnic identity Khomeine reagarded them as meaningless paganism and idolatry, earthly things with no Islamic value.

Your comment about Israel is just as senseless: Israel is a peaceloving nuclear armed state with no hegemonic ambitions. It's arsenal of nuclear weapons is used only for deterence and not aggression.

If you took the time to carefully read my post I blamed both Republican and Democratic administrations for the evolution of Iran into a regional, nuclear armed power and see Obama as continuing this very dangerous trend with his shift in priorities from Iraq to Afghanistan. If he carries out his plan it will have huge and costly consequences as Ahmadenijad warned in August of 2007.

[bayside]

I want our constitution and bill of rights restored..I want america to lead by example with good morals , honesty and intergrity in our govt. and media again, and most of all I want to be proud of a america that doesnt torture or invade other countries just to steal their oil.. Sadly they have to be exposed for what they did, but its necessary to show the world, we do not condone this.. We have to clean up our own house.. We let the cons. do this to us..

[LiberalBuzz]

I'll wait about a year, but to be honest I am feeling discouraged that Obama is NOT picking the best people but rather picking people from the last few administrations in an attempt to appease everyone.

I've read reports, news articles and magazine reporting and almost all them had better choices YET Obama seems determined to keep it all within the beltway.

Wasn't that what we were going to get away from?

I realize the excuse is that these people know their way around, BUT these same people are all in one way or another the same ones responsible for all that has gone wrong.

I'll wait a year before I get jazzed or pizzed but right now....

[Carolab]

This may make you feel better:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=12&year=2008&base_name=thoughts_on_campaign_promises

[LiberalBuzz]

That's why I said I would give him a year but like I also said, right now he looks more and more like he took us for a ride. So far all I've seen is suddenly "slowtracking" everything to the point where who knows what the real outcome will be?

I expect policy decisions to be made the first six months and then if it take a while to implement I'll be fine but if we get baloney about we just need to wait another year or two or three before he makes any policy decisions then I will know we were bulldozed.

[knerd]

He's picking his crew to appease himself. Be honest--this Obama guy doesn't know where the White House pencils are kept. He needs help, he knows it and he is asking for it. You can't very well transition to hope and change without building a bridge there first.

There are some familiar faces, yes. But they can still serve the Executive.

[watereddown]

"Real chang afoot?" More like real change is under the foot! If Mc Cain had picked these same individuals from Geithner, Summers, to Gates, and even HRC- the left would be screaming bloody outrage. But because people think BO can do no wrong this same data is filtered as a positive rather than a negative. I've always thought BO would govern from center left domestically to center right internationally (dems generally do that) so where is the change? The problem is he is going to get bogged down in Afghanistan a place that is unwinnable. He is naive if he thinks he can alter the atmosphere of that place. The Afghans have been 'playing' western interests for hundreds of years. We don't stand a chance.

[repearwo]

The apparatus is like a car and the President is the driver. Two different drivers will take the same car in different places. I am absolutely certain that BHO can do wrong, and I think he is certain of that, too, that is why he is cautious. It is that caution that has kept him with good footing so far.

If we go into Afghanistan as the Russians, or Bush did in Iraq, your assessment will be correct, but that is not what I see BHO as doing. I see him as more a nation builder that treats the insurgents as criminals. As long as we call them terrorists we give them power. The neo-cons needed a boogie man to scare not Al Quida but the US citizenry. Just deflating the boogie man will be a huge step toward a more sane Foreign Policy

[BillShea]

If "real change were afoot" there wouldn't be so many people having to explain why "real change is afoot." Real change is obvious. With Obama one has to dig below the surface to come up with explanations as to why things aren't what they seem to be. He's not even sworn in yet and I'm feeling discouraged. Instead of looking to the future he's looking to the 1990s for answers (and people). Sad. Sad. Sad.

[justjojo]

Well, aren't all of you who are discouraged now, putting the cart before the horse? Why don't we all just wait, and I know that is hard to do after 8 years of blunders, and let him take office and do a thing or two before we all pass judgment. Isn't that the American way? Innocent until proven guilty?

[rubinoff]

Say it. :)....This Man, Obama has done more in 3 weeks than any other PE that I've seen in my adult years. Previous PE's would have been on vacation or taking an extended rest after their election. All of these questions and nit-picking is a waste of time....relax, and let the man do what he was voted to do. I like the way he is keeping we the people informed, so unlike the present administration, where so much secrecy was/is involved.

[rubinoff]

So, have you been 'sad' for the last 8 years?...If Not, why Not.

[WritusMaximus]

Obama sets foreign policy, it is the duty of the secretary of state and her staff to carry it out.
However, me thinks Bill Clinton will always remain part of the equation, with his connections inside, outside of government, ties to foreign governments, relationship with dometic and foreign entities in general....

[leftLibertarian]

Sorry. Sounds like the same old Military Industrial Complex in full effect.

[canucklivinginUSA]

So lets get rid of the Military complex and become like Switzerland! Oh wait, they too have an army, D'Oh

[lentinelia]

Ending the war on a tactic.
Interesting.

[appleknocker]

Among Clinton and her six new colleagues, is there anyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq? Anyone not committed to the perpetuation and expansion of the American Empire?

Or does asking such questions constitute "nattering"? (It's curious how popular that word has become among Obama-adulators.)

[leftLibertarian]

Quote - "is there anyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq? "

NO.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[cheforacle]

Yes. If you did your homework instead of take vacuous shots at Obama, you would know that his new national security advisor, General Jones, opposed it. But I apologize for interrupting your smoke bombs with actual facts. Y'all are as allergic to fact-based argumentation as the Bush administration was. I love the Who but if I read that line from "Won't Get Fooled Again, one more time...

[rubinoff]

Are you trying to convince us or 'yourself?'

[ManyColored]

You don't mean "nettlesome"; you mean "meddlesome".

[IndyReader]

Nope, he meant "nettlesome", a thorn in the President's side. Altho it could be said that his meddling may be nettlesome. I hope Obama will be ready to smack hands if that's the case.

[billybenzy]

Sarah Palin.....­..........­........an­y news media that gives her mention doesn't get it. This girl is a lost cause.
She will NEVER end up as a leader in the Republican party. There are too many smart people still around. How they let John McCain get away with picking her will be a question for the ages.
Zip it up press. She belongs in AK. If you don't write for a paper there, mind your own business in your own back yard.

[rubinoff]

Agree.

[billybenzy]

I sure hope the new President puts being a "nice guy" on the back burner for a while. The negative has already started from the Reps. Don't they know we have NO time for a bunch of little squeaks in the Congress, WHO LOST THE ELECTION, to try and tear down the one chance we've all got to get this country back on track. This is gonna be hard. It's gonna be a long process, and we don't need judges on the sideline, when all they have to do is wag their tails and bark.
The President needs to say it. "Shut up boys and girls. I've got work to do and you're either with me or keep your damn mouths shut."
Jan 20th can't come soon enough!!!!!!!!!11
Take notes people. The Republicians who cause trouble. Vote them out.

[rubinoff]

Hear, hear...People with so much negativity, have no clue what it does to their whole body.

[GregJL]

"The President needs to say it. "Shut up boys and girls. I've got work to do and you're either with me or keep your damn mouths shut.""


Ahh, so the President is the one in charge of everything? I'm sorry, when did we become a dictatorship?