Obama Foreign Policy Heavyweights Emerge

Hillary Clinton was flanked today by two former Foggy Bottom stars in her husband's administration. George Mitchell was instrumental in helping to put "the troubles" in Northern Ireland to rest since being named U.S. Special Envoy, while Richard Holbrooke made his fame with the Dayton Peace Accords that settled warring factions in Bosnia.

George Mitchell was named special envoy to the Middle East, a gigantic task so daunting that the former Mickey Mouse chairman may wish he'd never left the Pirates of the Caribbean ride in Anaheim.

These 1990s foreign policy heavyweights are coming on board as two bookends to the Madam Secretary. Holbrooke is a "quadruple threat" Washington insider, Wall Street financier (having been most recently on the board of the discredited American International Group) US Ambassador to Germany and UN Ambassador, while George Mitchell more recently oversaw the steroids investigation in major league baseball and headed the Walt Disney Company from 2004-2007.

They are are now tasked with trying to, yet again, resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict (Mitchell) and oversee construction of peace over chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan (Holbrooke). To paraphrase baseball legend Yogi Berra, this is like deja vu all over again.

Just three months ago Holbrooke was blogging on HuffPost about why the nation and the world needed Barack Obama for president. I doubt he was seeking a job at the time but he was clearly laying out his philosophy of a foreign policy imperative for his preferred choice:

Obama offers a different approach to foreign policy. By starting the drawdown of combat troops from Iraq, he would change the image and policies of America immediately. By engaging Iran in talks that would cover not only the nuclear issue but other aspects of Iran's destabilizing role in the region, he would either reach agreements that lowered the dangers from Iran, or he would mobilize a stronger international coalition to isolate Iran. Either way, engaging Iran is the right policy, and it is hard to understand why Bush and McCain have continued to hold out against such an obvious policy change, which, if carried out with firmness, will not compromise America or Israel's national security.

Holbrooke's policy of engagement or what Hillary Clinton is calling a "robust" foreign policy agenda suggests that Foggy Bottom will figure prominently in the early days of the First 100.

Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo in a year and he's pledged to bring troops home from Iraq by 2011. Waterboarding may now become the preserve of the beaches and not the interrogation chambers.

These are all positive and hopeful signs in the direction of restoring America's moral compass.

The devil is yet to come -- that is, the details of what will happen to those still in Gitmo, how they will be tried, what countries, if any, will accept them, whether or not they will be transported to jails or military bases in the U.S. As Iraq draws down, Afghanistan will be drawn up with more troops. And a ceasefire in Gaza is not peace in the Middle East.

Comments

[cougar gal06]

03:43 PM on 01/26/2009

There are many things that America needs to do in order to change our public image. Global poverty is a big issue that if addressed would improve our image with the world and even make America a safer place to live in. The cost of eliminating global poverty is $19 billion, while the U.S. government spent $522 billion on the defense budget alone. The borgen project (www.borgenproject.org) has some good information regarding global poverty and ways to reduce it.

[Gunga-Din]

01:04 PM on 01/23/2009

Welcome Maxwell Smart Power.

[jmad]

11:39 AM on 01/23/2009

Remember as Pres. Elect, Obama remarked when questioned about his cabinet selections, exclaimed that he was responsible for policy and his appointees job is to implement his directive.

[PlaceboStudman]

11:04 AM on 01/23/2009

I always found it amusing that people believe that foreign policy, or any form of governing is a one person job. SOS Clinton is going to need all the help she can get, from as many well educated, informed people she or President Obama can find. And, in the end, we ALL agree that peace in The Middle East is good, and we should all work toward it. The issue has become HOW we do that, and if Clinton and her associates happen to disagree on how we get there, then it will be better for all parties involved because we have a better hope that all parties and all beliefs, wants needs and desires will be looked at and hopefully respected in this LONG and arduous process that will take generations more to resolve

[000Jade000]

07:45 AM on 01/23/2009

For a Palestinian perspective on special envoy Mitchell, check out what a Palestinian-American scholar has to say about the whole thing here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11966

I fully agree with him, and I'm just an ordinary American.

[LizM]

08:59 AM on 01/23/2009

This is why I had hoped that the new administration might include someone like a Chuck Hagel, who has spoken out on the floor of the US Senate for a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and warned about supporting allies like Israel AT THE EXPENSE of our Arab friends.

Chuck Hagel understands what is at the heart of a breakthrough in Middle East peace. I'm not sure President Obama's foreign policy team does.

[oxi]

03:40 AM on 01/23/2009

George Mitchell is fine.

Holbrook is a closet war criminal by supporting NATO's illegal (German requests) to bomb Serbia out of step with the NATO Treaty and the UN Charter! A diplomat that supports such moves that violate international laws and treaties should be fired immedietly.

Clinton also supported the bombings of Christian Serbia, allies to the U.S. during both world wars and should aslo be rejected by accepting flagarent violations of international laws and treaties.

C'mon folks, if these people cannot read or understand the very rules and laws in place then why should they be called diplomats? They are scam artists circumventing the laws and treaties that govern us all to make profits and greed for their campaign sponsors!

[LizM]

08:50 AM on 01/23/2009

Often times a selective memory can tend to distort the truth of the matter. For example, how would you describe the behavior of the Serbian leader, Milosevic?

[oxi]

06:04 AM on 01/24/2009

I was not talking about the late Milosevich, I am talking about the behavior of the West during this conflict.

Violating the NATO Treaty, UN Charter, committing war crimes, bombing mostly civilian targets hence why the Serb 3rd Army left Kosovo intact and support for the KLA terrorists.

The ICTY (funded and staffed mostly by NATO governments)never even bothered to investigate NATO or even KLA atrocities. Now how fair and just is that?

Remember Serbia NEVER attacked nor threatened a single NATO state, so where was their justifications?

[BADRALDUJA]

02:48 AM on 01/23/2009

Then what exactly is hillary clintons role..please someone help me out here.
has president obama just realised that a woman like hillary who declared illiminate iran would not be welcomed in iran and many middle-eastern countries??

[jhamm1]

11:47 PM on 01/22/2009

If Hillary Clinton remains in her position merely as a symbolic gesture, whereas Mitchell and Holbrooke assume the actual process of diplomacy, perhaps I can forgive Obama's decision to appoint a sabre rattler into a position which she was never qualified for to begin with.

[jomira]

09:05 AM on 01/23/2009

Your comments reek of sexism. Did you ever hear of team players? A term that is obvious not in your vocabulary.

[bookriver]

11:39 PM on 01/22/2009

Unfortunately, all American diplomatic "heavyweights" who have entered the ring of middle east peacemaking have either been reduced to lightweight status for not trying to do anything Israel opposes (Ross), reduced to pulp by an Israeli lobby that fights without gloves when an envoy actually believes in the effort (Powell, Zinni) or simply drops in the first round due to the lack of support from their corner help (name the rest), or in this instance, their particular president. Many times the effort was a fraud to begin with: a simple gesture meant to exhibit US concern over the latest IDF atrocity. In any event, Obama's early middle east efforts will define him in the eyes of the rest of the world quite quickly. Will he back his envoys or cut off their legs at the first sign of domestic opposition from the Israeli lobby, or Congress, one and the same? After the slaughter in Gaza by the IDF, one can only hope Obama commences his strategy wisely. Another fraudulent and empty effort at "peacemaking" by a "heavyweight" envoy will not satisfy a world appalled at the latest IDF war crime. This will have to be a sincere effort, not an effort at cover up and waiting for the attention to blow over.

[LizM]

11:26 PM on 01/22/2009

President Obama has put together an excellent foreign policy team that, frankly, has almost made me forget all about the last crack foreign policy team...ahem...

But, you forgot to mention the other presence up there flanking Madam Secretary and the President...you know, the leader among Democrats on foreign policy and national security and still the only one on the planet who has developed and honed a viable and comprehensive strategy to promote and facilitate a sustainable political settlement in Iraq...which will be needed if US troops are to be withdrawn, by the way.