The Obama foreign policy era officially began last week in Geneva. William Burns, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, met face-to-face with Iranian counterparts, enacting the president's inaugural promise of engaging with strategic adversaries. Such diplomatic endeavors are only one part of a two-pronged strategy, however, as Washington also pursues military options to defend against an Iranian attack. Not long before diplomats met in Switzerland, Obama decided to abandon the Bush administration's plan to station a long-range missile defense system in Eastern Europe, instead planning to place sea and land-based missile interceptor sites closer to Iran, in the Balkans and Turkey.
But in focusing on what these actions say about Obama's still-emerging non-proliferation strategy, we risk missing their true significance. The decisions to sit across the table from Iran and to pull the plug the Bush version of European missile defense signal the end of the Bush-Obama foreign policy transition.
Pundits are fond of using the "first one hundred days" as the standard benchmark of presidential transitions. This practice dates back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who came into office on March 4, 1933 and confronted the Great Depression head-on by immediately introducing a record-breaking amount of legislation to Congress. By June 16--one hundred days later--FDR had laid the groundwork for the New Deal.
For contemporary observers of the presidency, however, the one hundred days metric has little utility. In foreign policy in particular, the transition is a three-step process.
First, the new administration must learn about the substance and history of the policies in place on January 20. Though some familiarization occurs during the pre-inaugural transition, a president-elect's under-strengthened foreign policy team does not have full access to the intelligence underlying past foreign policy decisions until Inauguration Day.
The Kennedy administration and the Bay of Pigs invasion is the classic example of this process. Prior to Kennedy's inauguration, only JFK and his vice president, Lyndon Johnson, knew that the CIA was planning a covert operation to overthrow Fidel Castro's Cuban regime. It was not until January 22, 1961 that key players such as Kennedy's Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and National Security Advisor learned of a major foreign policy that had already been set in motion.
In the Obama case, it is too soon to tell what his advisers knew and when they knew it. We can be sure, however, that Obama's foreign policy team only gained unhindered access to intelligence about Iraq, AfPak, and covert operations once they took charge in January.
Second, the incoming administration must assimilate the new information, and use it to further develop a strategic vision that is only sketched out on the campaign trail.
Take, for example, the Reagan administration's "rollback" strategy. When Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency, he inherited the Carter administration's program providing secret aid to mujahedeen fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Examining the success of the Afghanistan effort, once in office, Reagan decided to step up the operation, providing even more aid to the anti-communist fighters. Before long, covert assistance to global anti-communist resistance movements became a centerpiece of the Reagan Doctrine.
True, we are still waiting for Obama's National Security Strategy and Quadrennial Defense Review. But anyone who has been paying attention could describe the guiding tenets of the Obama foreign policy.
Finally, the transition ends when the new administration decides which of its predecessor's policies--not values--to keep and which to dismantle. Changes of tone and rhetoric are easily accomplished, but wholesale changes of policy are much more complicated.
This September, on the eve of President Obama's historic chairmanship of the UN Security Council, the transition ended with two major policy shifts. First, on missile defense. After learning the details of the Eastern European program and conducting an extensive review--50 internal meetings and nearly 100 meetings with allies, according to the Washington Post--the president decided that the policy did not align with the strategic objectives of his administration.
Second, following through on talks with Iran. Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons was a major concern of the Bush administration, one shared by the Obama administration. But Obama has taken the opposite approach in addressing the Iranian issue: whereas Bush insisted that his government would not negotiate with its enemies, Obama has welcomed engagement. The Obama administration completed the policy turnabout on October 1, when direct talks began.
After 250-plus days in office, President Obama is prepared to confront the foreign policy challenges of his presidency. On the campaign trail and during the transition, Obama promised a great deal to the American people, and to the world. Now that the transition is over, the international community will find out whether President Obama can deliver on his commitment to bring a fresh, effective approach to American foreign policy.
Impeach Obama. Stop the War
Obama=Bush
Democrats in the congress, the american people gave you both the house and senate, and all you "Airheads " have done is squander that authority to no end. Your shame is also your ignorance, and stupidity, try and forget the clones on your right and do what you were put in power to do, and that is to "Represent the American People . Writing legislation with the people at the forefront of the bills and only the people first.
The People don't need your double talk, slithering lies, forked tongue nonsense. Do your jobs or step down, represent the people and not the republican jackals.
Any President who tries to work as a statesman and with other countries, respecting their views, and trying to move the US and the world to a safer and better place is a good thing and certainly better than the alternative we all had to accept the from the last Administration.
But ... is anybody else concerned about the Repubs that have been going to other countries and speaking against the US, such as the one that went to China and told them not to trust the US with regard to our debt, Or the ones who are going to Honduras, a country the US currently does not acknowlege? First, who is paying for this and second, what is their authority to be there representing the US? What is the purpose of the visit officially? Next, if they are speaking against the US to foreign leaders, isn't that at the very least ,a national security issue?
Rachel Maddow did a good segment on this tonight. I wonder if any of these guys are part of that "C" Street cult.
we need to stay and secure Afgan, build up its people and security forces. give them a chance a freefom...
And why exactly is the "whole world" laughing at him?
Although Joe Kennedy would make a good frontman, he was not asked first.
That is some hubris!
Joe Kennedy did not accept. I like to believe because he did not wish to waste the political capital of the Kennedy name on cap and trade schemes.
If the Obama foreign policy era began with Iran, it should begin with his numerous unanswered invitations to talks before the election, or the time he said Mousavi was no different than Ahmadinejad, which "the world" forced him to change his position, and calibrate with Europe and the Gulf Arabs.
"deer in headlights"
The reason Iranian regime seemed to do something different is that they were caught with the secret cave near Qom. They got a leak, maybe from the UN?