|
||
Hillary Heeds Hawks: How Obama's and Clinton's Advisors Mirror Their War Stands
In their focus on the electoral horse-race, the media have ignored a key difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- the positions of their foreign policy advisors on the Iraq war. As political scientist Stephen Zunes points out in Foreign Policy in Focus, Clinton's key advisors overwhelmingly supported it, while Obama's opposed it. The differences in their positions on whether to go to war mirror those of the two candidates. They also give a sense of how Clinton and Obama are likely to deal with the immensely difficult foreign policy challenges they'll face if elected, including dealing with Iraq.
Zunes's article, revised and shortened for HuffPo:
The president makes the decisions, but who advises the president? We know Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle insisted to Bush that American forces would be treated as liberators if we went into Iraq. McCain has surrounded himself with people likely to encourage him to follow a similar disastrous path if he becomes president. But what about Obama and Clinton?
A major difference stands out among those they are likely to appoint to key posts in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs: Almost everyone in Senator Obama's foreign policy team opposed the U.S. invasion. By contrast, most of Senator Clinton's foreign policy team, which largely comprises veterans of her husband's administration, strongly supported George W. Bush's call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
It should come as no surprise that during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Obama spoke at a Chicago anti-war rally while Clinton went as far as falsely claiming that Iraq was actively supporting al-Qaeda. And during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.
Clinton's advisors are similarly confident in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force. This is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon.
Clinton's top foreign policy advisor -- and her likely pick for Secretary of State -- Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained "a clear and present danger at all times." He rejected the broad international legal consensus against such offensive wars and insisted European governments and anti-war demonstrators who opposed a U.S. invasion of Iraq "undoubtedly encouraged" Saddam Hussein.
Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband's national security advisor, insisted that "even a contained Saddam" was "harmful to stability and to positive change in the region" and insisted on the necessity of "regime change." Other top Clinton advisors -- such as former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright -- confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq.
By contrast, during the lead-up to the war, Obama's advisors recognized as highly suspect the Bush administration's claims regarding Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" and offensive delivery systems capable of threatening U.S. national security.
Now advising Obama, former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, argued that public support for war "should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy." Brzezinski seems to have learned from mistakes like arming the Mujahideen. He warned that invading a country that was no threat to the United States would threaten America's global leadership because most of the international community would see it as an illegitimate act of aggression.
Another key Obama advisor, the Carnegie Endowment's Joseph Cirincione, argued that the goal of containing the potential threat from Iraq had been achieved as a result of sanctions, the return of inspectors, and a multinational force stationed in the region serving as a deterrent. Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors -- such as Susan Rice, Larry Korb, Samantha Power, and Richard Clarke -- raised concerns about the human and material costs of invading and occupying a large Middle Eastern country and the risks of American forces becoming embroiled in post-invasion chaos and a lengthy counter-insurgency war.
These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposing views in the lead-up to the war, with Clinton voting to let President Bush invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his choosing, while Obama was speaking out to oppose a U.S. invasion.
Hillary Clinton has a few advisors who did oppose the war, like Wesley Clark, but taken together, the kinds of key people she's surrounded herself with supports the likelihood that her administration, like Bush's, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars.
By contrast, as The Nation magazine noted, a Barack Obama administration would be more likely to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America's allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country's international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort.
In terms of Iran, for instance, Cirincione has downplayed the supposed threat, while Clinton advisor Holbrooke insists that "the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States," the country is "the most pressing problem nation," and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler. This is consistent with Clinton's vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that opened the door to a potential Bush attack on Iran, and with Obama's opposition to it.
Given the problems exemplified by the tragic legacy of the current administration, primary voters should recognize that Obama's promise of change is the most prudent course in these dangerous times.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If Obama was so opposed to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, why couldn't he be bothered to vote against it? Saying you oppose it but not voting is like giving a speech opposing the Iraq War, then staying silent once you're in the Senate and voting to fund it. Does Obama only have courage when it doesn't count?
*****A
whether sad but true -- or just sad: without question, we usually are judged by the company we keep.
Paul;
Great post. It's been challenging to find big differences between Obama and Hillary. The heated rhetoric seems over the top, especially considering the contrast with the GOP choices.
It's good to know the differences, but, keep in mind that most voters will know very few, if any of, the significant details. They will vote based upon how closely they identify with a candidate. Drew Westen's 'The Political Brain,' gives an excellent overview.
I hope everyone posting here realizes that we're speculating on future outcomes based upon the past. Whoever is our next president (assuming the current administration doesn't pull some 11th hour stunts - and actually departs) will be changed by circumstances, as have previous administrations.
I for one would like to have more details on how we move out of Iraq and what foreign policy changes would be pursued. And, how do we deal with the American public in the case withdrawal becomes a nightmare. In the heat of an election's furious sound bites it's unlikely we'll hear much more.
Let's hope for some reality checks - laying out our options in the Middle East to the American people. I believe they can handle it, but only if there's an honest discussion before election day.
The last thing I want is for that discussion to be just commencing, and at full fury, on January 20th.
You'll be happy to know that the real discussion about how to proceed in Iraq and move toward a political solution has been led by Senator Biden and has been going on for a few years now but, of course, the media has not been covering it.
Senator Biden, the leader among Democrats on foreign policy and national security, was the only presidential candidate - the only person, period! - who was offering a comprehensive and viable strategy to promote and facilitate a sustainable political settlement in Iraq.
In fact, Senator Biden's Iraq strategy has already received the overwhelming and unprecedented support of a majority of Republicans and Democrats in Congress, passing the Senate by a remarkable vote margin of 75 - 23, as an amendment to the last Defense Authorization bill...which the President had threatened to veto, ostensibly for unrelated and very spurious reasons.
His plan has also been unofficially endorsed by the permanent members of the UN Security Council and, most importantly, by Iraq's sectarian leaders.
If you are not familiar with this, you should check out www.planforiraq.com and Biden's senate website, www.biden.senate.gov
If you want an honest discussion about US foreign policy and the challenges that lie ahead in restoring US credibility in the world and regaining America's global leadership role, then keep an eye on Senator Biden!
Obama has pledged to swiftly and honorably withdraw all our combat troops from Iraq. He has said he will abandon all our military bases in Iraq.
He seeks to change the mindset that planned and supported the preemptive strike, invasion/occupation of Iraq and attempted theft of its oil resources.
Clinton's promise to reduce troop levels is far too vague. She has not agreed to abandon our military bases on Iraqi soil.
The war will not end unless we abandon the military bases.
Clinton's neocon, AIPAC support makes her a very poor risk for ending our criminal, near-genocidal military adventure in Iraq.
Let her pledge to abandon the bases.
Hillary has already stated, on numerous occasions, that there will be no PERMANENT bases in Iraq. She has also indicated that the withdrawal of combat troops will begin apace within 60 days of the start of her presidency.
Obama has stated that, as POTUS, he "reserves the right to assess the situation" in Iraq. Talk about vague! That means he can promise ANYTHING and change his mind upon taking office. This sounds awfully similar to McCain's position to me.
Don't hope for the best, vote for the best!
Hillary '08
And if the war truly matters to you and you want no related baggage about botched votes or vague assurances, there's always Ron Paul.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/iraq/
Roshi:
Surely you jest. No permanent bases could mean five, ten, twenty years. Begin troop withdrawal within 60 days does not imply all or even a large number of combat troops will be withdrawn.
It is exactly these ambiguous, weasel-worded pronouncements that inspire little trust from those unversed in triangulationspeak.
Good news, thanks. Obama's words have always been anti-war, but 2 of his actions belie that:
He supported Iraq war initiator Lieberman against anti-war Lemont.
The disastrous Kyl-Lieberman votes with obama's excuse for not voting:
Obama COSPONSORED a bill to label the IRG terrorists!
Obama wants us to believe he was against provoking Iran, but just months earlier he offered to do the same.
The "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which Obama cosponsored on April 24, 2007.
Obama backed Lamont in the general election and Lamont has been campaigning for Obama.
I wish Obama hadn't supported the earlier Iran bill, but it wasn't as reckless as Kyl-Lieberman
Obama gave only token support to Lamont.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/03/new_hampshire_dem_senate_candidate_who_backed_lieberman_indy_bid_falsely_claims_obama_did_too.php
While on his book tour, he was in NYC one day, had a scheduled day off, and appeared in Massachusetts the following day. Yet he couldn't make time to stop in the state between the two on his day off. We made it explicitly clear he was the single senator we wanted in the state above all others.
He declined.
Eventually, we asked Senator Obama to send out an email for the campaign to his Connecticut list. We created a culture in which emails became news (much like we did with the blogs in the primary). They made it entirely clear that he would basically not even mention Joe Lieberman's name in the email, let alone take him to task for his unfortunate position on the war in Iraq. This was disappointing, but I wasn't going to be spiteful. They sent the email, and as I hoped, the press came calling. Our Press Secretary, Eddie Vale, was asked how many people the email went to. He looked on the back-end of the website and saw the number of click-throughs to the landing page I created. He answered "about 5,000." Within minutes of the Associated Press piece going on the wire, I received several phone calls from Obama staff. They were none to pleased about the 5,000 number. Essentially, Obama could be seen as helping, but not helping THAT much. His staff apparently made it clear that the email only went out to 225 people in Connecticut. That's it. The next day we were subject to a correction in the papers and ridicule from Lieberman's campaign and corners of the right-wing blogosphere.
...Everyone should also know that Robert Gibbs, part of the group that ran the infamous Dean/Osama ad during Iowa 2004, is now Barack Obama's Communications Director.
still, I prefer Obama to Hillary.
First,
NOTHING in that bill, refers to the revolutionary guard. Nothing.
Heres a link, read for yourself.
www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s970/show
He DID NOT support Lieberman over Lamont. Here is an excerpt from CBS news:
(AP) Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, a vocal defender of Sen. Joe Lieberman earlier this year, is urging Connecticut voters to rally behind his rival, Ned Lamont.
The Illinois senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate sent an e-mail message Thursday praising Lamont.
"Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grass-roots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election," Obama wrote. "Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the..."
Your a liar.
I may be mistaken, but I sincerely try to get the facts correct.
You link did not work.
The biggest difference in the two teams is at the top: Obama v. Clinton.
The problem with Clinton is that she doesn't really understand what her aides are doing. Her advisers view foreign relations as a continuation of the cold war with US as the unipolar superpower. They do so because that approach yields prospective results for the particular agendas they represent as agents in the corridors of power.
America's interests would be better served by using its strength in the wake of the cold war to forge alliances and institutions which promote the longer term interests of peace and prosperity.
Where were the Clinton's when India went nuclear in 98 thereby paving the way for Pakistan to go Islamo-nuclear shortly thereafter? They were brokering arms deals between Israel and India. Bill took his big tour to India to adoring crowds strewing rose petals in his path in lieu of red carpet. Now Iran is going nuclear. Now we act? Now we threaten bombings and boycotts? Thanks Clinton. Great job by your foreign policy advisers whom you now want to put back in office with you. What disaster will they forge next? 8 more years of strife in Palestine?
I'm getting tired, quite frankly, and from the looks of it so are a lot of other people who are flocking to the Obama banner.
The Clinton/Bushes made a gigantic whopper of a mistake in their approach to the end of the Cold War, a thesis which would require a thick volume. The question remains, what was the alternative and how much of it, if any, is still viable? I hope Obama's people have some response to that question because Clinton's people don't even care.
I've always wondered what was really going through the minds of the Congress when they voted to unleash Bush/Cheney. It was justified to the people in the 2003 state of the union with allsorts of frightening (and false) claims of WMD and terrorism. And I suspect most in Congress knew it was all bunk.
Fact is that our economy and way of life runs on cheap energy, and that now means foreign oil. Some of those sources seem shakey at the present given Saudi Arabia's swelling population of discontented youth, Venezuela's attitude toward the US of late, etc... . Then there sits Saddam Hussein, thumbing his nose at the rest of the world, defying the UN and sitting on about 1/3 of the untapped oil reserves of the middle east. Talk about the proverbial low hanging fruit!
Of course we conquered Iraq for the oil. Flynn put it well...
"The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilize savage and senile and paranoidal peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells or metal mines." - John T. Flynn, As We Go Marching
What do you think a history book that won't be writen for another 100 years will say? We invaded Iraq because we were afraid of being attacked? Or because we needed the oil.
Back to Congress...
I suspect the majority voted for the war hoping it would bring cheap oil to the US. But the more idealistic Obama saw it for what it was and spoke his mind.
great article....takes right direction of contrast...and this is why I would vote for Obama but NOT vote for Billary
Ooops! I meant "brightest" and -"forget"
We know McCain will continue the war in Iraq - he thinks we are winning it.
Hillary keeps voting for funding of the war and voted to invade in the first place.
The only candidate left who has any credibility for getting us out is Obama.
great qoutes therma
That is great info. Hey, Sany Berger was busted for stealing classified documents. It is just like Hillary to hire him anyway. She probably concluded the case against Berger was part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
Obama is Kennedyesque in that - he surrounds himself with the best and the brighest; who can ever gorget Sandy Berger's pants moment?
Some of you need some serious deprogramming.
A destructive cult appears to be innovative and exclusive. The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel, and instituting the ONLY viable system for change that will solve life's problems or the world's ills. But these claims are empty and only used to recruit members who are then surreptitiously subjected to mind control to inhibit their ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.
A destructive cult has only two basic purposes: recruiting new members and fund-raising. Altruistic movements, established religions, and other honorable groups also recruit and raise funds. However, these actions are incidental to an honorable group's main purpose of improving the lives of its members and of humankind in general. Destructive cults may claim to make social contributions, but in actuality such claims are superficial and only serve as gestures or fronts for recruiting and fund-raising. A cult's real goal is to increase the prestige and often the wealth of the leader...
or to make him a president.
If you actually read the piece above you saw the mention on Ziggy Brzezinski, Obama advisor and Former National Security Advisor for Jimmy Carter during the Iranian Hostage situation. Both Carter and Brzezinski were both totally weak and ineffectual and brought about the humiliation of America by Iran. If these two weak sisters would have taken a much harder line at the time I'm sure our position in the Middle East would be much different. Those two showed that part of the world that they could kick sand in the face of America without fear. Now the Internationalists, led by Brzezinski and teaming up with George Soros, David Rockerfeller and the ultra-rich elite eastern liberals are trying to bring America Jimmy Carter part Two and his name is Barck Obama. The very same people that put Jimmy Carter on an unsuspecting America in 1976 ARE BACK and now trying to put a weak and ineffectual Obama in the White House so they can hold sway over him and to advance their agenda. They are the Internationalists and they desire to remove borders, tariffs and anything else that impedes the flow of capital and goods. Please look back to 1976, did you ever wonder how an unknown peanut farmer from Georgia could come from nowhere to the White House in such a short period of time? His rise was like the rise of Obama and the very same powerful interests are the people responsible for it. You can see their work in Europe, with the creation of the E.U. and the EURO and the elimination of all tariffs and borders within the Union. Now their desire is to turn NORTH AMERICA into a country so the flow of capital, goods and servicers will not be slowed. If you think this is all a bunch of B.S. please GOOGLE any of the names I've mentioned and read about Z. Brzezinski and Grorge Soros.
All this came together for me when I read a piece in the NEW YORK MAG. (nymag.com) April 16,2007 called "Money Chooses Sides". I knew for quite some time about Ziggy Bezezinski being an advivor to Obama , as is Ziggy's son. You know his daughter from the Morning Joe show on MSNBC, Mika. But when I saw the Photo of George Soros sitting in the front row at an Obama fundraiser that came with the piece in NY MAG it all came together in my mind and I remembered all of these interconnected people. Obama is weak and and will be led by all these long time insiders. He doesn't even have the TESTICLES to vote on tough Bills, like skipping the vote on Kly-Liberman even though he was in the building or claiming to have hit the WRONG BUTTON 6 TIMES in the State House. Obama doesn't have the strength to be the DECIDER, all he would be doing is wringing his hands in tough situations instead of making the tough choices needed as the PRESIDENT
Book TV on CSPAN ran a very interesting talk by John Dean. Dean talks about the authoratative personality, those people who blindly follow a strong leader (or in this case George Bush).
How once convinced, they become fixed in their opinions and intolerant of other views.
Deans claims that as much as 25 percent of the American public fit this profile.
This fixed base will continue to believe that we are helping a democracy combat AlQaeda, that we are keeping America safer by trying to referee a civil war, and any other fantasy concieved by their "leader", the President.
The candidates, ALL the candidates, to some extent have to cater to this message, all evidence to the contrary, and walk a very fine line between speaking the truth, and being crucified by the far right.
Political discussion has become so embroiled in dogma, that intelligent discouse has for the most part gone out the window.
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8783&SectionName=&PlayMedia=Yes
Loading comments…
Related Blog Posts
|
||
Posted February 9, 2008 | 10:31 PM (EST)