Tweet
As the Editors of the IntelNews wrote recently…
Obama’s National Security Nominations: Nothing to See Here
…Yet much of the commentary on the nominations of John Kerry for State, Chuck Hagel for the Pentagon, and John Brennan for the CIA, is unduly over-dramatizing what is essentially a routine story. To begin with, it is clear that, in selecting Kerry, Hagel and Brennan for the nominations, the President’s priority was to surround himself with people he knows and trusts. Knowledgeable observers point out that all three nominees come from Obama’s most trusted circle of friends and —if appointed— will allow the President to stay well “within his comfort zone” as he begins his second term in office. In this sense, Obama selected the three candidates, not with some major policy shift in mind, but in order to ensure continuity and permanence in his foreign policy…
…Even if we were to accept that Hagel is somehow “anti-Israel”, anyone who thinks that nearly seven decades of American policy on Israel are about to change because Hagel is suspicious of the Israeli lobby in the US, grossly misunderstands the institutional character of American foreign policy. The latter does not change in radical shifts; it evolves over long periods as a result of varying national or economic interests, changing conditions or the ground, or popular pressure. There is no question that Hagel, like Obama himself, is skeptical about military intervention abroad; but this fact points to continuity, not a radical shift in the administration’s policy. If Hagel’s nomination is approved by Congress, his views on Israel, or for that matter any other country or group of countries, will form but one element in a multitude of competing interests that help shape American foreign policy.
President Obama’s national security nominations are certainly noteworthy. But there is little here that is earth shattering. For the most part, the President sought individuals who will help him sustain the foreign policy of his first term in office, not radically alter it. Anyone looking for drama in these nominations will sooner or later be thoroughly disappointed.
Moar DroneZ, Bay-bee…!
Some more, McGovern… The Grilling that Brennan Deserves…
Apparently, it was a slim bench for CIA Director… Jane Harman for CIA Director? Really?
Some more on Hagel…
…Hagel will be in the wrong job to drive a fundamental recasting of the Obama administration’s Iran policy:
“I would take the president’s word that he likes and trusts former Senator Hagel, got to know him in the Senate, likes and trusts his positions and his candor on a range of issues. But I think the calculus to go ahead, and in the way that they are going ahead is that Senator Hagel, for all of the courageous positions he’s taken—on Iran, on Israel, HAMAS, lots of issues—that he will assure his fellow senators that those are positions that he held as a senator and they really will not have very much to do with his position as Secretary of Defense. Those are quintessential foreign policy issues that will be carried out by the Secretary of State and the national security adviser…
Obama now has an all-white-male [national security] cabinet. The question is how long will his national security adviser stay, Tom Donilon. And there I would put a question whether Susan Rice will be back on the scene. And she will certainly constrain Hagel’s attempts—if he has any desire to make these attempts—to change policies…[The White House]thinks that Hagel is going to a good Secretary of Defense, and do quintessentially Secretary of Defense things—not foreign policy.”
In wrapping up, Paul Pillar is right….
…So one side feels a need to crow about a victory, while the other side needs to feel that it has not been kicked in the face. To square that emotional circle, American politicians will have to get most of their triumphalist fix from what has happened already—from getting a negotiation with Iran about curtailing its nuclear program under way at all. Members of Congress can proclaim today (and when they next run for re-election) that all those votes they cast in favor of all of those sanctions were an important part of getting Iran to the negotiating table. After saying that, they should pipe down, get out of the way, and let the negotiators strike a deal.
Amen…!
*gah*
4 Comments
Hagel defies neocons? Har har. Neocons like O’Bummer. Said he had such high morality in 2008. O’Bummer believes the same sacrifices must be made.
Wonder why?
Izrael needs a little cover.
Another nicely done pull together CT … American Empire is in good hands with Barack Obama in the Oval Office overseeing it’s far flung around the planet M-I-C ( militarism,imperialism and corporatism ) interests.
Common USians meanwhile are being scolded by Obama with Austerian Theology and about having to stop hogging American Empire treasury money or thinking that paying in raised SS taxes since the 1980′s was about SS and not a stealth way to finance M-I-C.
Who can ignore the dire “fiscal cliffs” if Obama is not going to?
Of course there is always that old political chestnut about how D Party POTUS is burdened with having to be and stay tough on Empire topics or risk being painted as a big nancy on imperial defense,militarism and Darth Cheney death dealing.
Clearly Barack Obama is no American Empire nancy. ( As a side note Woodrow Wilson (WW1),FDR(WW2),Harry Truman(Korea) and LBJ(Vietnam) were all D’s — the claim about D’s being “weak” on Empire seems to more about running some good kabuki theatre and less about the facts and truths )
Brennan,Hagel and Kerry clearly are no nancys ( tho Kerry may have a glass patricians jaw — John Bolton would have rounded out this Fearsome Threesome in more fun to watch derail ways ))and that is the optic Barack Obama surely is seeking and with Obama’s lurking murky CIA backstory in the shadows the Pentagon and CIA clearly are in no danger of any nancy conived WH coup(s)from this Barack Obama ( Eisenhower-Reagan-Bush D ) run WH.
Barack Obama is emulating his hero Ronald Reagan in ways that B movie actor never got around to doing.
It is going to be four more good years for Wall St.,American Empire and the 1%/10%. Barack Obama appears to as Untouchable as G.W.Bush regarding imperial war mongering and war crimes not ever going to become a political/legal “cliff” for B.H.Obama.
And remember … Barack Obama is the LO2E POTUS. That is why it was so important to re-elect Obama. Whew — what a relief Obama won.
ObamaReagan and ObamaBush likes ruling and doing American Empire plain to see.
AmericanImperialDeathDrones are flying and killing and Obama is flashing big photo op grins — Obama is not worried about Legal Affairs Crashing In On His Doing Empire Party.
Common Not 1%/10% USians? Stop whining …take less … like it … pay your SS taxes!!
The sun is not setting on a Obama ruled American Empire.
Well done, CTuttle. Rec’d.
Loved Ray McGovern’s characterization of the drone kill list interaction because that’s the way that “decision-makers” work.
There is a division about US foreign policy. You can call it neo-con vs. non neo-con or you can call it Neo-Con1 vs. Neo-Con2. But it has to do with the use of the military in projecting power.
What is emerging as the Obama policy is a “no boots on the ground” approach. The use of drones and intelligence are key parts of this approach. The zero-troop option in Afghanistan works only if you allow for widespread use of intelligence assets and drones. Pakistan has made violation of sovereignty in use of drones Obama’s extension of the Bush doctrine on “terrorism” and “those who support terrorists”. But even if you accept the argument of self-defense, this approach works only if there is restraint. And the political pressure in US foreign policy for the past 71 years has always been to opposed restraint. If, like us, you don’t accept the logic of violating sovereignty and creating people who hate you being a form of national security, it is still a stupid policy. But it does allow for reduction of military expenditures without reducing the US ability to meddle.
The other debate is about nuclear modernization and writing off the nonproliferation treaty because the number of nuclear armed states has increased. Obama and Hagel are going to walk right down the middle on this. They will devote funds to modernizing the nuclear stockpile to technological par with other nations. But they will continue to push for further reductions in nuclear weapons with Russia and for restricting the number of nuclear weapons nations. And no, that does not mean they will push Israel to go public with it program and join the NPT.
There are three positive accomplishments possible without a whole lot of political risk: namely the normalizing of relations with Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. From the perspective of a “no boots on the ground” approach, normalization makes intelligence gathering in these countries easier. The most obvious way is that for a lot of issues just asking the government officials provides candid response on a whole lot of issues.
The funny thing about the “no boot on the ground” projection of power. To most Americans it will look like “peace” in spite of the bloated state of the Department of Defense.
The folks celebrating Hagel are looking nostalgically back to the days of Mel Laird.
I think that relic of the Vietnam War died with bin Laden. Obama can no longer hide behind that one. It’s Bush’s failure to get bin Laden–even to the point of saying he was no longer interested in him–that looks nancy these days.