Obama's foreign policy

We don't have an Obama Doctrine yet. But I'm confident that the Bush Doctrine of preventive war is on the way out.

Obama's plans to escalate the war in Afghanistan is the biggest concern I have about his foreign policy right now. That's not to say it's the most important: nuclear nonproliferation is the most important. But escalating the Afghanistan War is inviting a new disaster. And whether Bob Gates maintains any credibility with Republicans or not, they will be happy to hang every problem that arises in Afghanistan on Obama's.

That's one of the problems in escalating the war. Once Obama outlines an escalation strategy, in a real sense that one becomes "Obama's War". The exception would be if there is a clearly temporary escalation in the number of troops as a part of a clear exit strategy.

But, it being a time of hope and all, I'm hoping his statement today announcing his foreign policy team means something good in this part:

As I said throughout the campaign, I will be giving Secretary Gates and our military a new mission as soon as I take office: responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control. We will also ensure that we have the strategy - and resources - to succeed against al Qaeda and the Taliban. As Bob said not too long ago, Afghanistan is where the war on terror began, and it is where it must end. And going forward, we will continue to make the investments necessary to strengthen our military and increase our ground forces to defeat the threats of the 21st century. [my emphasis]

The most obvious meaning on the bolded passage in the context is that Obama wants to shift emphasis politically, financially and militarily away from Iraq into Afghanistan.

But there's another reading that jumped out at me. He's talking about an end to the "war on terror". And not just a generations-from-now, after the end of a Long War to purge evil from the Earth, which is the only way the Bush administration and their cheerleaders ever described their GWOT (global war on terror). On the face of it, he's saying that satisfactorily resolving the war in Afghanistan would end the GWOT.

That's a good sign to me. The "war on terror" framework has turned out in practice to be a warped framework for dealing with the real existing terrorism threats. And the Cheney-Bush administration both conceived and implemented it as a continuation of the Cold War. Complete with Cold War levels of military expenditures.

It's also a good signal that Obama is upgrading the UN Ambassador's position back to Cabinet-level status. Bush had downgraded it to lower than Cabinet-level. That signals a return toward a normal relationship with the world.

I'm happy to see Clinton as Secretary of State. Since mainstream press coverage of her is consistently loopy (when it's not totally insane) it's probably worth taking special note of what Obama actually said about her:

I have known Hillary Clinton as a friend, a colleague, a source of counsel, and as a campaign opponent. She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and toughness, and a remarkable work ethic. I am proud that she will be our next Secretary of State. She is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence; who knows many of the world's leaders; who will command respect in every capitol; and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world.

Hillary's appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances. There is much to do - from preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea, to seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, to strengthening international institutions. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our State Department, and to work with me in tackling this ambitious foreign policy agenda.

Even Sam Stein at the Huffington Post (Obama's National Security Team: Questions All About Clinton 12/01/08) seems more interested in hitting various favorite press corps script points than dealing with the substance of what Clinton's appointment is likely to mean. Again with the caveat that I know I'm reading some of my own hopes into Obama's statement, I think it's odd that Stein characterized the following as Obama making "a rightful poke at the press". From Stein's report:

During the course of the question and answer session, the President-elect was asked repeatedly to address how individuals who once criticized his gravitas (Peter Baker of the New York Times was the first to point specifically at Clinton) could now be relied upon to implement his agenda.

"This is fun for the press to try and stir up quotes that were generated from the campaign," replied Obama. "I understand, you are having fun and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not faulting it. But if you look at the statements Hillary Clinton and I have made outside the heat of the campaign, we share a view that America has to be safe and secure and in order to do that we have to combine military power with strength and diplomacy. And we have to build and enforce stronger alliances around the world so we're not carrying the burdens and these challenges by ourselves." [my emphasis]

Stein goes on with the Hillary gossip.

But at least in (digital) print, Obama's comment reads more like a direct insult of their lack of professionalism, complete with the backhanded disclaimer, "there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not faulting it". And that's a sign to me that Obama knows the Establishment press for the most part aren't his friends or allies, despite the fact that Obama has never set out to overturn the political or social Establishment (in any meaningful sense of the word).

The press covering the announcement of Obama's national security team should be asking about Afghanistan, Iraq, nuclear proliferation, etc. Not trying to generate more brain-dead Clinton gossip to entertain themselves. But what Obama said was literally true. They're focused on having fun, not on reporting substantive news.

Bob Somerby says repeatedly that democracy can't survive with a press corps like this. James Galbraith makes a similar point in a more ironic way. He says that when dirty blogging hippie types criticize the political press for not being substantive, we're applying a standard that the national press doesn't observe or consider important. We're criticizing them for not doing a good job on reporting news. But what they focus on is providing entertainment.

And, yes, I believe the President-elect just said something like that at a major press conference.

(Because it recently came up in one of my posts, I'll also note that Stein uses a stylistic construction that neocons apparently think is a signature Commie phrase, "It did not seem coincidental that ...". And, no, I don't agree with the neocon interpretation. Although apparently it was at one time a favorite literary device of American Marxists, for whatever reason.)

I'm not happy to see Bob Gates retained as Defense Secretary. He's like to try to impede withdrawal from Iraq and he's notorious for tailoring intelligence to political demands. And since he's a Republican, the political demands to which he responds may not be only Obama's. Most seriously, if torture and illegal kidnappings or other crimes took place under his authority, he could wind up being a major target of criminal investigations. And his judgment in going along with questionable attacks inside Pakistan and even more questionable ones inside Syria and Somalia isn't a good sign.

There may be some upsides to the Gates appointment. The San Francisco Chronicle's Zachary Coile writes that "having a Bush appointee preside over the withdrawal of U.S. troops could give Obama political cover from critics who derided his Iraq policy as "cut and run." (Obama likely to face foreign policy tests soon 11/30/08)

FlyOnTheWall provides some details on ways in which Gates has also worked on cutting down some of the waste in military procurement in Keeping Gates Signals Change 11/24/08. Joe Conason references that post with approval.

It hasn't received very prominent attention among our ever-vigilant puditocracy. But one very dramatic change that Obama can and hopefully will bring about is an improvement in US direct relations with Latin America. See on that topic:

U.S.-Latin America Relations: A New Direction for a New Reality by Shannon O'Neil CFR.org 11/25/08

Latin Americanists Urge Obama to Revamp Policies by Cynthia McClintock, Foreign Policy In Focus 11/13/08. Without giving specifics, McClintock writes that, in Bolivia, "the Bush administration has allied with government opponents, many of whom have not been committed to the democratic rules of the game."

Mexico's Spreading Drug Violence by Stephanie Hanson CFR.org 11/21/08

Obama has reached out early to Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero and Argentine President Cristina Fernández, signalling a desire to improve relations. One of Spain's pitches to the US for better relations is that Spain can help the US in Latin America.

Tags: barack obama, hillary clinton, military budget, robert gates