To the dismay of many progressives, Obama named his centrist national security team: Hillary Clinton at State; Jim Jones at the NSC; Susan Rice at the UN; Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security; Robert Gates at the Pentagon and Eric Holder at Justice. Obama's opening gambit led with the deliberate sacrifice of credibility with the antiwar left. Are Obama's detractors right? Or, is there an underlying strategy to provoke a startling new diplomatic landscape that is driving Obama's vision of America's role in the 21st century?
The consensus in Blue State America is that US foreign policy is broken. To a great extent, President-Elect Obama's political mandate is predicated on his promises to repair, refurbish and reconfigure American foreign policy.
During the campaign, Obama repeatedly called for a new era in US diplomacy. In his clash with Hillary Clinton, Obama defined his vision as predicated on soft power diplomacy as opposed to pre-emptive unilateral neoconservative military interventions as prescribed by the now discredited Bush Doctrine. The distinction between the two Democrats on foreign policy was one of Obama's most compelling political advantages that contributed substantially to his winning the presidential nomination over the awesome popularity of his main rival.
During the campaign, both candidates were criticized for statements they made about potential military interventions. Under the fire of campaign criticism that he was a dovish neophyte, Obama said he would order a military strike against Al Qaida in Pakistan if intelligence warranted it, and Clinton said she would order the obliteration of Iran under a similar set of circumstances. While Clinton maintained her allegiance to conventional interventionist US foreign policy typical of the Bush Era, Obama tilted to the progressive side by stating that he wanted to change the 'mindset that got us into war' and launch a new era of US diplomacy and leadership in the world.
Now that Obama has appointed Clinton to his team that will implement his vision of America's role in the 21st century it is time to analyze the trajectory of his vision. In his remarks at his national security press conference, Obama said that he would value the contributions of his advisors, and he encouraged them to put forward their opinions in debate -- but he would be responsible for defining the policy they will implement. "The buck will stop with me," Obama said echoing Harry Truman, a determined and sometimes domineering president who serves as an icon for hawkish toughness inside Democratic Party circles. However, what Obama may well be telling his cabinet is that he will be a tough dove on international crises instead of a knee-jerk interventionist like so many of his predecessors in the Oval Office.
A flood of words is now gushing forth on the internet warning of the hawkish character of Obama's war cabinet. In her political career, Hillary Clinton strenuously exerted herself to polish her image into that of a hawkish politician in order to counter potential characterizations of her as a dangerously liberal dove of a woman who would be too weak and too cowardly to press the button if America were under nuclear attack -- or some such paranoid scenario circulated in the shamelessly chauvinist circles of hawks constantly circling the White House, Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon as well as many other sites inside and outside of the Beltline.
In his latest column for the Huffington Post the scholar, Robert Dreyfuss, has called attention to the surprisingly hawkish credentials of Obama's advisors and appointees including: Tony Lake, Dennis Ross, Susan Rice and Tom Daschle. According to Dreyfuss, Daschle, Lake, Rice and Ross are engaged with hawkish groups transparently interconnected with the agenda of AIPAC, an organization whose objectivity has been called into question especially since its eager support for aggressive military interventions against Iraq and Iran -- even by Vice-President-Elect Joe Biden.
Now facing a host of problems in foreign policy, Obama does have to make some tough decisions. Senior icons of the foreign policy intelligentsia, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, proffered their advice to the President-Elect in a high profile column in the Washington Post. The two gurus advised: "The Arab-Israeli peace process is one issue that requires priority attention." This sage advice to the President-Elect came two months after an astonishing statement made by Israeli President Shimon Peres to the United Nations where he called for a new era of peace negotiations predicated on the Arab Peace Initiative.
In his address to the United Nations, President Peres stated,
The Arab peace initiative states that: 'A military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties.' Israel agrees with that assumption. Further on, the initiative states that: 'A just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries.' This is Israel's strategy as well.
In virtual syncopation with Brzezinski and Scowcroft, sitting Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, published an astonishingly frank and soul-searching interview in Yedioth Aronoth calling for more stridently assertive American leadership in urging Israel to come to terms with the Arabs.
Pacification of the Middle East is clearly priority one on Obama's foreign policy agenda. Surrounding himself with hawks from Biden, Emanuel and Clinton to Rice and Ross jars with his campaign pledges to end the war in Iraq, pacify the Middle East and alter the shape of American diplomacy.
Jarring though his opening moves might seem to his base yearning for the fulfillment of his ringing promise: 'Change we can believe in,' Obama's gambit at Foggy Bottom makes a great deal of sense if his strategy is to transform hawks into doves in order to develop a stunning diplomatic offensive - the mobilization of his players like chess pieces in a grand strategy to unleash the doves of peace to make a decisive impact on the major players in the Middle East. In this play, Jim Jones who is considered to be an aggressive proponent of a peace settlement between the Arabs and Israelis is likely to be the prime focal whip at the vanguard of the attack, while Robert Gates is a protégé of Brent Scowcroft capable of playing an important role in the coordination of the strategy.
While this analysis might seem encouraging, there is no reason for progressives to relent in their constant criticism and forensic examination of developments. The new administration needs constant pressure for political support for progressive trends across the full spectrum of policies, foreign and domestic. That is the purpose of the freedom of speech, the freedom to blog and the freedom to assert opinions fundamental to an open and democratic society.