Everyone with an opinion, seemingly, has publicly rendered it concerning President-elect Barack Obama’s cabinet choices. Especially when it comes to national security. The range is across the political spectrum.
Many on the left, especially Obama true believers, feel disappointed, if not betrayed, by the national security troika of Sen. Hillary Clinton, secretary of state; incumbent Robert Gates, secretary of defense; and retired Marine Gen. James Jones, national security adviser. All were to Obama’s right on the Iraqi invasion, the president-elect’s seminal issue when he began his presidential journey nearly two years ago.
They wonder if Vice President-elect Joe Biden, the one with the acknowledged foreign policy chops, hasn’t already been marginalized. Their worst-cast fear is that Obama turns out to be more changeling than change agent.
Many on the right, of course, wouldn’t trust the inexperienced, black “socialist” with Hussein for a middle name if he had named Sean Hannity, Donald Rumsfeld and Rush Limbaugh to man the foreign-policy ramparts.
Many in the middle acknowledge pragmatic, political choices – but speculate about Clinton subplots. While they understand continuity, they also wonder whatever happened to “no drama Obama”.
The most optimistic — and, hopefully, realistic — take is a variation on a familiar foreign-policy tenet. If you’re going to make a significant tilt in one ideological direction, you’re best advised to line up salespeople who at least list, including symbolically, the other way.
It’s why Colin Powell, hardly a hawk, was the one who made the “case” for the Iraqi war at the United Nations. Rumsfeld, a pre-emptive-war advocate, would not have been credible.
It’s why Richard Nixon, the consummate Communist archenemy, was the one to make realpolitik history by visiting China and chatting up Mao. It’s why a peacenik “President McGovern” wouldn’t have been able – domestically – to pull off what Nixon, the old Red antagonist, managed to accomplish.
Having Clinton, Gates and James – none of whom regard diplomacy as a character flaw or a synonym for appeasement – on board arguably gives Obama enough cover to start altering – and ultimately – reversing some of our worst, most counter-productive geopolitical policies. From those impacting our Cuban “adversaries” to those affecting our Middle East “allies.”
And don’t forget the hybrid portfolio given to Secretary of Commerce designatee Bill Richardson. Trade agreements are a major extension of foreign policy and national security. Richardson’s bona fides include considerable international trouble-shooting experience. He’s the polar opposite of the man he would replace, the ideological hardliner Carlos Gutierrez. Richardson’s potential impact on long neglected Latin America, in particular, cannot be underestimated.
If, indeed, Obama is playing the cover card to facilitate meaningful — not token or incremental — foreign-policy change, we’ll soon know.
The world is watching. Much of it hopeful — yet skeptical. Obama won’t have much time to disprove the skeptics. Here and abroad.