The rumors proved true. President-elect Obama, Monday, Dec. 1, announced the top figures in his national security cabinet. Hillary Clinton will head the State Department. Jim Jones will serve as National Security Advisor. Current Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates will continue in place. Janet Napolitano will take over at the Department of Homeland Security. Eric Holder will serve as Attorney General. And, Susan Rice, the Obama campaign's leading foreign policy advisor, will be the administration's public face to the world as UN Ambassador.
A lot of commentary from right- and left-wing pundits have focused on the ties the new appointees have to the Clinton administration. Is this change?, they have wondered. Some are just perplexed at the retention of Gates at the Pentagon. Overall, there is plenty to be optimistic about, but still serious concerns that peace and democratic movements which backed Obama should hold and prepared to mobilize around.
What is usually missed is that the composition of this national security group is in itself an enormous change – both from the racial and gendered tokenism of past administration's and the more immediate and disastrous policies of the Bush administration. This is the swiftest change we need. In the end, however, educating and mobilizing the public about more fundamental and meaningful transformation of US foreign policy is now possible.
Responding to some of his critics last week, Obama told reporters where the buck stops. "Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost. It comes from me. That's my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going, and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing."
Obama's assertion of personal authority and leadership sharply contrasts with George W. Bush's disengaged and delegating style of management for which many critics see as allowing renegade elements in his White House to control or manipulate the agenda, for example, Dick Cheney.
Obama told reporters on Monday, "In this uncertain world, the time has come for a new beginning – a new dawn of American leadership to overcome the challenges of the 21st century, and to seize the opportunities embedded in those challenges."
The new Obama "national security" team "share[s] my pragmatism about the use of power, and my sense of purpose about America’s role as a leader in the world," he added.
Overall, anyone who favors finding an end to the Iraq war and pursuing renewed efforts at multilateralism and international cooperation as well as a stronger emphasis on civil liberties in the prosecution of "homeland security" over the next few years should be pleased with these choices.
The selection of Hillary Clinton is a strong one. Though much has been said about her international experience during the campaign, Clinton has met with dozens of international leaders. She has an unmatched understanding for diplomatic protocol required to improve relations. Clinton's early suggestions that she would focus on global human and women's rights are welcome. (Though many people legitimately worry about the use of human rights claims to press foreign policy advantages, such as against China.) And let's face it, her role in the final months of the general election campaign in helping Obama win this past November is something he needed to acknowledge.
More important even than the secretary of state, perhaps, is the national security advisor. Think about, for example, Condoleezza Rice's impact on Bush or Kissinger's role in the Nixon administration while they served as national security advisors. Think about the diminished roles of those administration's respective Secretaries of State. While the State Department is more high-profile and demanding, the national security advisor has longed held a stronger influence on shaping foreign policy than the secretary of state, especially in the first term of a new president.
Jim Jones, a former Marine general and NATO commander, is now in such a position. He helped shaped political opposition to Bush's permanent war strategy in Iraq. In 2007, Jones led a congressionally-mandated commission to Iraq to analyze Iraq's security apparatus and to make recommendations about the US role. His commission's conclusion that the US should "reduce the size of its footprint in Iraq" and adopt a British-style withdrawal unfortunately went unheeded by the Bush administration.
Jones' new position signals that the Obama administration's military policy in Iraq will be transformed, as he has promised. Jones' particular expertise on Europe and its military and political dynamics may suggest a renewed focus on relations with Russia. Certainly, we all hope this will not take us down the new Cold War path on which John McCain sought to aim his presidential candidacy.
Susan Rice, who served as a skilled foreign policy advisor to the Obama campaign, will bring an intellectually insightful expertise to the United Nations. As Obama's advisor, she counseled a new course in Iraq and helped present a message about the failures of the Bush administration there. Rice particular expertise on African affairs is suggestive of a renewed US interest in Africa after Bush's callously noted that he had little concern for the continent and at points indicated a severe knowledge deficit about it.
Both Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder are widely recognized as experts on the key posts they will fill. Still, political dynamics and the business of the law have left both with marred records on immigration and workers' rights that should arouse the interest and ire of progressives. The retention of Gates at the Pentagon is clearly a step toward maintaining known civilian leadership over the massive military bureaucracy and intelligence apparatus it commands. While progressive observers wonder what changes will be implemented there, the constitutional authority of the president over the military is something Obama has not shied from asserting.
So there is much positive and some negatives in the selections Obama has announced this week for his cabinet. There are three women in top positions and two African Americans again making firsts in their jobs. We will see some important positive policy changes, such as the end to the Iraq and renewed interest in Africa and the challenges it faces. We will likely see some continuation of imperialist rivalry with Russia and restrained nervousness toward China. We could see some new thinking on comprehensive immigration policy reform that prioritizes human and workers rights, but don't expect an "amnesty" bill to be signed into law soon.
So what does it boil down to? Progressives have to remember that we did not vote for perfection on Nov. 4th. We voted for a new political terrain on which to struggle for a peaceful future based on a just society. Some of us have felt the hair on our necks stand on end every time Obama talks about preserving or looking out for "our strategic interests." Resorting to sniping about a particular individual for this or that position does little more than demobilize the very forces needed to win a more advanced foreign policy stance. Unity, now more than ever, must be the goal. The struggle is not over people in power now, but rather how to define what "our strategic interests" are.
See the video here:
--Reach Joel Wendland at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.
Archives - Dates and Topics
