Behind Obama and Clinton (Foreign policy advisors)

[Extend a Hand]

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940

Contrasting Issues

While some of Obama’s key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton’s advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.

While Obama advisors Susan Rice and Samantha Power have stressed the importance of U.S. multilateral engagement, Albright allies herself with the jingoism of the Bush administration, taking the attitude that “If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future.”

While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.

Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, 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.

more at link
by Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.

[babylonsister]

1. Wow! Rec'd. Stark differences here. nt

[Extend a Hand]

3. Thanks babylonsister, I'm glad somebody enjoyed it

I get so frustrated around here sometimes. People are always bitching about fluffy posts and then when I post something that I think is really and truly substantive no one will discuss it and it just sinks like a rock.

I'm flouncing to the lounge in a snit.


:grr:

[Bread and Circus]

4. Thanks. I've read a few of the articles over at fpif.org and have linked them often

here.

A lot of people, and when I say a lot I mean pretty much everyone, do not understand how hawkish Clinton has been and that's not even counting IWR and Kyl Lieberman.

[babylonsister]

5. Hey! I feel your pain!

Trust me, I know what you mean. :hug:

[unc70]

25. You realize this is damning with faint praise

If you can get past the passive convoluted writing style, you/we have little to brag about wrt to either Obama or Clinton (or most of the rest of our candidates) from the linked article and the related articles it links. I supported Edwards (and not without issues with foreign policy), and have not been able to be comfortable with either Obama or Clinton.

These articles have some good things to say about some of Obama's advisors, they are less flattering of others, and they are way too lenient in their assessments of certain of Obama's advisors such as Brzezinski who is still proud to have begun arming the Afghanis. No regrets.

In the areas where I know enough to have an opinion such as PK, Obama is way too aggressive and prone to public posturing and statements when keeping his counsel private would be much more prudent and more effective. I have seen nothing in his statements and positions that would lead me to believe he has any clue about the complexity of Pakistan and the interconnect of all the players there. This is a country with some of the same the kinds of tribal, regional, and religious issues we find in Iraq but with 6-8 times as many people and complexity and with nuclear weapons.

This is just to put some balance in this love-in thread for Obama. I am no happier with Clinton.

[JimGinPA]

2. Very Interesting Article

I would really like to hear what the Clinton supporters have to say about it.

[Extend a Hand]

6. I would to

I think the reign of the chimp has really highlighted how important foreign policy is to the well being of our county.

I am glad Hillary has Wesley Clark on her team hopefully he will be a moderating influence if she wins.

But I really really like Samanatha Power on Obama's team.

[calteacherguy]

7. Love these informative posts.

From the article:

On balance, it appears likely that a Hillary Clinton 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, a Barack Obama administration would be more prone 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.

Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama’s foreign policy agenda. At the same time, as The Nation magazine noted, members of Obama’s foreign policy team are “more likely to stress ’soft power’ issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states.” As a result, “Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.”

And new approaches are definitely needed.

[bicentennial_baby]

8. I am SO glad that he has Samantha Power on his team!

She is simply fantastic. :D

[madrchsod]

14. the woman that wrote the truth about bill clinton`s role in rawanda

i think i can say that under president obama the united states will not turn it`s back on another genocide like bill clinton did in rawanda..

[KittyWampus]

23. I wonder. Rwanda was France protecting it's uranium source. I mean controlling not protecting.

sort of like the US 'protecting' Iraq.

[riverwalker]

9. Susan Rice is impressive

I did some Googling and was very impressed, she's not a lightweight.

[babylonsister]

12. She's also been Obama's spokesperson; she is terrific! nt

[Olney Blue]

16. I agree. She is a wonderful spokesperson-

she stays calm and focused in every interview I've ever seen.

[blm]

10. I'm glad you posted this in its own thread.

Thanks.

[Bongo Prophet]

11. More on Clinton's foreign policy team (from The Nation)

Hillary's campaign portrays its foreign policy team as a big tent. At the top are the troika of Albright, Holbrooke and former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Albright is very close to Hillary and a key confidante and surrogate. Berger is a skilled behind-the-scenes operative who keeps the troops in line. More on Holbrooke in a moment. Close behind are policy figures who also play a political role, like retired Gen. Wesley Clark and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who are popular with the party's antiwar base and appear on the campaign trail; Clark appears in the campaign's TV ads. (Clinton supporters who backed Bush's recent "surge" of troops in Iraq, like Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, are now kept at arm's length, although Clinton does consult with Gen. Jack Keane, an architect of the troop increase.) Following the old guard are a younger crop of less hawkish experts, like Steven Simon of the Council on Foreign Relations, who co-chairs an advisory group on terrorism, and Iran specialists Ray Takeyh and Vali Nasr, who favor broad US engagement with Iran. At the center is Lee Feinstein, a former State Department official whom Clinton plucked from CFR in July and made the campaign's national security director. Feinstein wrote a controversial Foreign Affairs essay in 2004 with Princeton professor Anne-Marie Slaughter arguing that in cases of humanitarian catastrophe, "the biggest problem with the Bush preemption strategy may be that it does not go far enough." Today Feinstein says, "Unilateral action that involves force ought to be avoided at all costs," and "a clear reading of my piece is a strong rebuttal of the Bush doctrine."

Of the top Clinton Administration staffers, Albright, who's 70 and has already served in the upper echelon of government, and Berger, who became a controversial figure after smuggling classified documents from the National Archives, are unlikely to return in a Hillary Clinton administration. That leaves Holbrooke, other than Bill himself, as the most commanding member of Hillary's foreign policy cabinet-in-exile. "He's the heaviest of the heavyweights," says Peter Galbraith, Bill Clinton's former ambassador to Croatia. Galbraith worked closely with Holbrooke in the Balkans and remains a close friend as well as a Hillary supporter. Holbrooke personifies the strong feelings those in the Democratic foreign policy community harbor toward the Clintons: they respect Holbrooke's experience, accomplishments and intelligence but are dismayed at his arrogance, political opportunism and hawkish posturing. Clinton insiders speculate that if Hillary assumes the presidency, Holbrooke could very well land the Secretary of State position he's always coveted.

Like Clinton, Holbrooke seems to have been groomed for higher office. He's been described by pundits as "the raging bull of US diplomacy," "the closest thing the party has to a Kissinger," "a man driven to be a central protagonist in the shaping of the American empire." Just look at his résumé: a young foreign service officer in Vietnam under the tutelage of JFK's best and brightest; Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia in the Carter Administration (where he controversially cultivated Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos and supported Indonesia during its brutal occupation of East Timor); a successful Wall Street banker in the 1980s; the architect of the Dayton Accords, which ended the fighting in Bosnia; UN ambassador; the list goes on.

Well, Wes Clark isn't so bad...but Holbrooke? The democratic Kissinger? Not so much.
While small minds argue over hair and shrillness and cults, the real world issues loom large, like a shadow.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080121/berman

[gateley]

17. A member of the CFR is considered less hawkish? nt

[Bongo Prophet]

22. That is up to each of us to decide, is it not? Unlike many, I am not a black/white thinker.

Here, I will highlight some bad about Obama's side, so you can hear it.
I am not a fan of McPeak, for instance.

Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton’s administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor - and her likely choice for Secretary of State - is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband’s administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter’s assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto’s repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.

[Extend a Hand]

24. I'll just have to hope

that McPeak isn't a primary influence. Wonder why he's there? He sure doesn't seem to fit with the rest.

[gateley]

26. You're right - nothing is black and white. nt

[OzarkDem]

20. Holbrooke was the architecht of the Dayton Accords

Where the US took an aggressive diplomatic approach to force resolution of the conflicts in the Balkans. It worked, without major military intervention by the US. Its still working today, but IIRC, Putin is still trying to undermine the peace agreements. No wonder he doesn't like Hillary.

[Bongo Prophet]

21. Dayton accords,Marcos, Timor are all true. All in both articles. I can handle pros and cons. n/t

[housewolf]

13. Very interesting & useful article

Thanks for posting this, it's the kind of information we need.

Very informative.

[gateley]

15. K&R - Thanks! nt

[OzarkDem]

18. Clinton's view on international allies

"Make international institutions work, and work through them when possible. Contrary to what many in the current administration appear to believe, international institutions are tools rather than traps. The United States must be prepared to act on its own to defend its vital interests, but effective international institutions make it much less likely that we will have to do so. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have understood this for decades. When such institutions work well, they enhance our influence. When they do not work, their procedures serve as pretexts for endless delays, as in the case of Darfur, or descend into farce, as in the case of Sudan's election to the UN Commission on Human Rights. But instead of disparaging these institutions for their failures, we should bring them in line with the power realities of the twenty-first century and the basic values embodied in such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

....

"As we leave Iraq militarily, I will replace our military force with an intensive diplomatic initiative in the region. The Bush administration has belatedly begun to engage Iran and Syria in talks about the future of Iraq. This is a step in the right direction, but much more must be done. As president, I will convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all the states bordering Iraq. Working with the newly appointed UN special representative for Iraq, the group will be charged with developing and implementing a strategy for achieving a stable Iraq that provides incentives for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey to stay out of the civil war."

Foreign Affairs Dec 2007
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p0/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html

[Olney Blue]

19. Fantastic article- thanks!

[livvy]

27. Late to the party as usual, but this is a really informative piece...

and important enough to kick back up to the top for more exposure.
As we've learned, advisers can have a huge impact on policies, so we need to look beyond the candidate. I guess the old saying about you are who your friends are, is relevant.

Note: I have not committed to either candidate, though to be perfectly honest, I'm leaning a bit toward Obama. I will vote for the Dem candidate in the general regardless of who wins the nomination, and will support and work for that candidate as well.

[Coexist]

28. that was fascinating - thank you so much for posting this

the closing paragraph sums it up well...

"On balance, it appears likely that a Hillary Clinton 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, a Barack Obama administration would be more prone 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.

Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama’s foreign policy agenda. At the same time, as The Nation magazine noted, members of Obama’s foreign policy team are “more likely to stress ’soft power’ issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states.” As a result, “Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.”

And new approaches are definitely needed."