Obama's Foreign Policy Team Does Not Represent Change

Obama is the candidate of change, new beginnings, new blood. Except where it matters most: foreign policy. Obama has sought advice from a council of graying experts, whose best years are behind them -- dullards like Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright. This is change we can believe in?

The Obama campaign needs an infusion of young talent and new ideas, not moldy policy proposals from folks whose pension plans have kicked in and whose idea of a rollicking Saturday night is sipping wine at the Council on Foreign Relations. At a time when Defense Secretary Robert Gates is seeking counsel from young academicians in our university's anthropology and social sciences departments, Obama is relying on old standbys whose out-of-date philosophies were shaped by the Vietnam and Cold War era.

Is he really that unconfident in his own grasp of foreign affairs that he needs heavyweights like Lee Hamilton or Sam Nunn to hold his hand? What kind of fresh, bold ideas will these graybeards really bring to his campaign? Take Albright, a Washington insider if there ever was one, a woman who once dressed down Colin Powell and said, "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Scary stuff.

I wanna believe in Obama, I really do, but I'm dumbfounded. How is it that the same guy who fist-bumps his wife on a national stage goes and trots out over-the-hill Carter-era wonks who wouldn't know a new idea if it bit them in the ass? His presumed secretary of state, Anthony Lake, is 69, which is almost John McCain's age. Lee Hamilton is in his late 70s. As Jim Wooten writes in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, "Obama's a new soundbox affixed to an old agenda."

That is not to say that Obama does not need a steady hand on the tiller. The inclusion of stalwarts like Susan Rice and William Perry, I would argue, is necessary (I'd also get Samantha Power back into the fold). Moreover, his decision to leave off the list old hands with out-sized egos and skeleton-packed closets like Richard Holbrooke and Bill Richardson is also a positive sign.

That said, I'm not convinced that under Obama, U.S. foreign policy will look much different from the Carter or Clinton administrations, much less -- gasp! -- the Bush administration.

Comments

[GoldDigger]

No Jimmy Carter. No Zbigniew Brzezinski, his National Security Advisor. Because American Jews complained. Obama ought to change his slogan to "The More Things Change, The More Things Stay The Same." Obama opposed the war on Iraq. But based on advisers, McCain and Obama will wage war on Iran. If elected -- big if. Obama is the senator from Illinois. Polish Americans are numerous there and Catholics hence social conservatives. Obama disowned Brzezinski, the most famous Polish American alive after Martha Stewart, on purpose. Obama risks losing his state in the presidential election and his seat in the Senate.

His ex-adviser Samantha Power made me laugh when I read her analysis in Time Magazine on NATO and Canada. ("Woe, Canada! (Keeping Canada in Afghanistan)", TIME, Apr. 28, 2008) Canada is an Iceland in NATO, a country that has no capability to defend itself. No country benefits more from NATO than Canada, the second biggest country in the world in territory. She argued that Canada would leave NATO. Continental European armies except the Dutch refuse to serve with the Canadian Army in Afghanistan. But the joke was her demand that Croatia, a military superpower per capita, serve with Canada when Croatia joins NATO. Canada has a long history of killing Croats. She is clueless. -- Shirley Jackson aka GoldDigger

[BushBites]

Don't be silly.

A team comprised of foreign policy experts from the "realist" school will be much different from the "neocons' who have been running our foreign policy for the past 7.5 years.

[rubyrubyruby]

Obama does not represent change...that's just his campaign spiel...its a slogan...its not real...its form (change we can believe in) without substance (defined policy)...without the benefit of hard-earned experience what do Obama supporters expect Obama to do...wing it? Let's all follow Obama with his whim and his prayer for a better tommorrow?...that's so 20 something...Obama is against drilling for oil...is that change we can believe in? I'm in love with my car...I don't want to ride the Obama bus...I want a better future...not a backward future...The only person who can really help Obama is Bill Clinton...Bill Clinton doesn't like Obama and doesn't need him...what goes around comes around and from what I have seen Bill Clinton always gets the last laugh...

[InjunTrouble]

If he chooses some fresh, young people, your friends in the MSM will crucify him.

The best thing is to select boring, non-controversial people until after the electiion.

[AlexVonHussein]

I thought the same when I saw them on TV. He needs them as talking heads to appear on TV and bring the Old vote out. Counter Mccain .Can you imagine leading to the elections , having new talking heads doing the TV rounds late at night. These old guards will keep the MSM at bay and buy him time. It will give a chance for young for younger foreign affairs guys to appear along them during discussion on TV watch Albright toting a young assistants along

[mom2sons]

Just be patient...He knows whose advice he can trust.

[LordKelvin]

Indeed, be patient.

He will eventually find a dedicated Foreign Policy Babysitter among the Washington Graybeards.

COGITO, ERGO SUM.

[PixelMarx]

I think a lot of the comments and you both miss the point. This is a panel on National Security. Isn't it better to keep them on a panel you set up, then to have these old policy wonks out spouting off outside the campaign, ideas that go against your overall plan. You know the say, "Keep your friends close, you enemies closer."

[sxm342]

Young talent and fresh ides led us into the Iraq debacle as well. You can't throw out the old just for the new. Obama should get a wide variety of opinions, some old, some new, some borrowed, some blue. The biggest mistake Obama can make is surrounding himself with a tight knit group of yes men. If Obama seeks guidance from outside his inner circle no matter who it is from will make his foreign policy stronger.

[tdpubs]

I don't think you can count Samantha Power out just yet. This man is no softie or peace-nick. He will be careful and deliberate in his decisions and as any true leader, will take useful information from all sources before making a foreign policy decision.

[KeysDan]

"Young talent and fresh ideas led us into the Iraq debacle.." Do you mean Rumsfeld (Sec of Def in Ford's Administration and again in W's), or Cheney (Ford's Chief of Staff, Daddy Bush's Sec.of Def), or Elliot Abrams (Daddy Bush's pardoned felon), Douglas Feith (long time hangers-on), or Colin Powell, Iran-Contra experience and Aide to Reagan's Sec of Def, Caspar Weinberger--pardoned by Daddy Bush on his way out of office? Although, Condi Rice might qualify in the young department but she seems to be known for a lack of management talent and a dearth of ideas, fresh or stale.

[blaqntelligence]

Agree 100%.

[JimR]

Agree 100%.

[klimtone]

This is precisely the issue which has lessened my enthusiasm and I am so glad that you wrote this. From Israel to Afghanistan it seems to be the same old sh*t and the world cannot afford the same old sh*t.

What is a bold, new idea that he has come up with regarding a problem in the world? His speech about Israel alarmed me. His new take on Cuba sounds so much like pandering now when he has admitted years ago that US policy of "Cuba? I don't see any Cuba" is a failure and does not benefit us in any way.

Perhaps someone who knows more than I, can point out some position or speech that reflects a new vision and I shall feel better. Please do.

[olephart]

On May 12, 1996, US Ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright was asked on CBS"s 60 Minutes, "More than 500,000 Iraqi children are already dead as a direct result of the UN sanctions. Do you think the price is worth paying?" Albright replied: "It is a difficult question. But, yes, we think the price is worth it". Six months later she was appointed US Secretary of State.


The treatment of Iraqi citizens by the United States was one of the reasons cited by bin Laden for the attacks of 9/11. Unless Ms. Albright is used only as an inverse barometer for Foreign Policy decisions her presence as an advisor will only continue the policies of failed Empire and dominance of the Military/Industrial Complex over the United States.

[babylonandon]

Why is it we always get blamed for the suffering of the Iraqi people back during the sanctions?

Billions of dollars in oil revenue was going into Iraq under the oil for food programs.

Saddamn was spending billions building palaces and mega-mosques - effigies to himself. He and his cronies were spiriting boatloads of cash to other countries. He was giving billions away to UN officials and European leaders to bribe them to help him out with weapons and luxuries.

Saddamn could have easily used these billions to completely remove the suffering of his people but he didn't care and found it more useful to show their misery and blame it on us while sitting on his golden thrones.

After seeing all of these palaces we entered after we invaded how can anyone be so completely stupid as to believe that we had anything to do with the suffering of the Iraqi people then?

Wake up! It was all Saddamn and all the people who helped him. No one else.

[olephart]

The point is that she accepted our role, be it what it may, in contributing to the deaths of half a million children as a viable Foreign Policy. She accepted the premises that the same Saddam who we helped kill a million Iranians 10 years earlier was now a Boogeyman that had to be contained at all costs. She accepted that after the fall of the Soviet Union that our Military's next foe was our own Middle Eastern junk yard dog. She accepted our Military's continuing presence in the Middle East even as Bush envisions it.

[SEQUOIABISON]

The most important and significant element of policy making is who is sitting at the head of the table?

It is ridiculous to judge the potential and future policies of Obama by who his advisers will be. These people are very good at following orders and basically do what their boss requests them to do.

In other words Rumsfeld did not initiate a policy of going to war with Iraq he was just following the orders of his boss.

A different commander in chief might still have Rumsfeld as his defense secretary but request that his underling make plans for peace instead of war. It all depends on the leader not the hired help.

[6louis9]

Read Ted Sorensen's book Counselor and you will understand why Obama is pulling in some of the old guard. You do not have to read the whole book. Just the last chapter or two.

[southernfried]

sometimes retired officers, are the best bet, some of them learned from there mistakes

and their experiences are much more mature to make an independent judgement, (base) on facts

[brighterside]

I don't care what Obama does so long that he sticks with his principles and be a president for the people by the people. I would also welcome Sen. Chuck Hagel into his administration. Although his a republican he would make a great security advisor and someone that will give an Obama administration a lot of teeth internationally.

I really think that bipartisanship is a great idea towards healing our nation. Because if we stand united on many fronts through tough difficulties, our country can do great things. The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. Obama I believe knows what his doing. Selecting someone who is new and unproven is not the way to go. He will do what's right for the country.

[LordKelvin]

Indeed, I do not care what the Great Man does so long as when the day of Reckoning (or is it Ascension) comes he appears in the Firmament with the Kool Aid to relieve our final disbelief.

COGITO, ERGO SUM.

[klimtone]

Have you read the interview of Chuck Hagel in the German "Der Spiegel"?
'We Have Done Terrible Damage'

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,557514,00.html

Very refreshing man who says it like it is.

[LucyDog]

Looks to me like this candidate is running to follow in the footsteps of Bill Clinton. And to think we could of had Hillary. Believe me he needs all this help because it shows he knows nothing. He's running his general like he's already the President (Clinton).

[shep1900]

Sadly, the Democratic Party settled for second best.

[JimR]

Nope. America dodged a bullet when Clinton lost.

[egal]

You can't be serious.

The best leaders talk with and listen to experts in numerous fields, regardless of how expert the leaders are themselves. It's not for purposes of gaining guidance or following their ideas, but simply because it is necessary to know what the various experts believe and why in order to make an informed decision.

It would be foolish beyond mention to ignore the advice of somebody who is extremely knowledgeable about a subject just because you hold a different viewpoint. No, you don't have to agree with them or use their ideas, but unless you make certain to get several sides, rationales, and historical comparisons from multiple people with extensive experience or education, you simply cannot make the best-informed decision.

Even if listening to these people merely cements his own intentions, at least it will make those more fleshed out, confident, and supported.

[BARRISTER]

Well said Egal. The article takes a virtue - a willingness to listen to ALL opinions before making a decision - and attempts to turn it into a vice. Did the Author write a similar artcle about Bush and his Neanderthals/ Anout Neanderthal McCain?? What is less "Change" than McCain??

Le Plus Ca Change, La plus c'est la meme chose!

[wako1]

I completely agree with Mr. Beehner overall arguments, I am also dumbfounded. I urge people to read an article called The Audacity of Insiders by editors of the nation magazine published june 19, 2008.