Ike Skelton gets it.

Yesterday at an event for the “Alliance of Democrats” - basically a forum for European and American elected officials to dialog on the transatlantic alliance (and in the interest of full disclosure, it was moderated by the PPI’s Will Marshall) - House Armed Service Committee Chairman Skelton listed his top two priorities for the next congress: forming a national security strategy that uses all the tools in America’s arsenal, and reviving America’s role as a credible world leader.

Skelton railed on the Bush administration, saying that our security strategy has been “hit and miss, if there has been one at all.”  He pressed on the need to formulate a plan that is capable of mitigating threats from  potential nation-state competitors as well as insurgents.

Now to some in the foreign policy community, these points may seem obvious.  So why are Skelton’s priorities such good news?  Because they’re the exact same as Obama’s.  From his July 15 speech in DC:

“I want to use all elements of American power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America – once again – to lead.”

As the chairman of arguably the top security committee in the House, Skelton could have focused on any number of priorities — defense procurement, force rehabilitation, disengagement from Iraq, or something completely different.  But he didn’t.  Rather he took the macro-view.

An incoming administration, fraught with a to-do list of items numbering in the thousands, needs like-minded congressional allies to move the agenda forward.  And a respected chairman with political capital to burn is even better.

Since the executive and legislative priorities are aligned, the question becomes how a President Obama should formulate the new strategy.

A bit of recent history is in order:  To the surprise of all, the Bush administration actually has issued two national security strategies, in 2002 and 2006.  The problem?  The Bush administration wrote them, inserting all the politicized analysis and priorities that accompany it.

An Obama administration would do well to turn over this process to a non-partisan group outside the executive.  After the last eight years, the country should come first.

I promise we’re going to get back to foreign policy real soon, but I wrote this up so I thought I should post it:

After days of haggling and relentless badgering, I finally scored tickets for my friend Eric and me to attend Max Baucus’ “Big Sky Night” Montana party. The reason? I’m a huge fan of the Drive-By Truckers, who were somehow roped into playing. I’ve seen the Truckers at the 930 Club in DC, and watching them along with perhaps 350 people, half of whom were uninterested in watching sweaty hillbillies rip southern rock, was a treat. Even Senator Baucus’ off-key but oddly endearing rendition of “Folsom Prison Blues” with the band didn’t dampen the evening.

Weaving social commentary and story-telling with a heavy dose of southern culture, the Truckers are not a political band, per se. but politics does creep in. Witness a song called “Putting People on the Moon” about the negative effects that corporate America has brought on the south’s blue collar classes. Patterson Hood’s telling lyrics: “Gooddam Reagan’s in the White House, and no body gives a damn.”

Buffalo burger and adult beverage of choice in hand, Eric and our friend (and campaign manager for Jill Morgenthaler - D-IL6) Julie Keroauc convinced me to introduce ourselves to the band. They were gracious and engaging, particularly lead-Trucker Patterson Hood. We chatted briefly about politics in 2008. A few perhaps whiskey-laden expletives thrown in, it’s safe to say Patterson likes Barack.

But the best moment of the show came at the very end. Confusion looming about how long the band could play, Patterson took a moment to share a brief story.

His great-uncle, affectionately known as George A, is an 88 year old Alabaman who fought in Iwo Jima and was the subject of the DBT song “The Sands of Iwo Jima”. George A was born and raised in the Alabama heartland, and as Patterson judged, “he was a part of all the racism and prejudices that go along with it.” The message was clear — George A wasn’t predisposed to supporting Democrats.

“But,” Patterson concluded with a southern smile creeping across his face, “how great is it that in 2008 George A is about to vote for a black man for president?”

Don’t get me wrong — Obama isn’t going to win Alabama. But at least it’s a start.

Normally, we like to keep this blog policy-focused, but I have to throw this one up:

One of my favorite bands - the Drive-By Truckers - played at Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) “Big Sky Night” Montana party.  My good friend Eric Sundstrom and I scraped two tickets together.

It was awesome.  Short (45 min set), but awesome.

We saw them in a ~250 person room and stood about three feet from the stage. But the real trip was seeing Baucus get up on stage for an off-key but oddly endearing version of “Folsom Prison Blues.”  Suffice it to say the good Senator could use some singing and dancing lessons — the man couldn’t find the right key even if he was with a locksmith, and he never moved from the spot he was standing.

Here’s a setlist:

Homefront - Ghost to Most - Righteous Path - I’m Sorry Houston - Marry Me - Folsom Prison Blues (featuring Senator Max Baucus and unnamed June Carter Cash impersonator on vox) - The Living Bubba - Carl Perkins’ Cadillac.

I’ve just come from an “Alliance of Democrats” foreign policy event — basically a transatlantic forum for center-left European elected officials to dialogue with American counterparts.

From the US side, Reps Ike Skelton (D-MO, chairman of House Armed Services Committee), Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), and Rick Larken (D-WA) were in attendance. Gianni Vernotti (MP) and the long-winded, slow-speaking Francesco Rutelli (MP) of the Italian Democrats were joined by Sir Menzies (pronounced “Mingus”, obviously) Campbell (MP) of the British Liberal Dems.

The most jaw-dropping comment of the panel came when Rutelli suggested that the Europeans form a single European army… wait for it… UNDER NATO. He didn’t elaborate much, but it sounded like he was talking about the whole kit-and-kabutle - one chain of command for all of Europe’s defenses.

Out of the two questions I wanted to ask, this was the passed on. It would have been: “Senator Rutelli, in suggesting this singular European army, have you completely forgotten that individual European countries will never abandon their own national interests? Do you really think that the UK would subvert their armed forces to a command run by the French?”

But instead, I asked Chairman Skelton about the future of NATO. I said that there has been a lot of general discussion about redefining NATO’s mission, but very little concrete proposals. I asked if it should be a mutual defense pact, a military alliance, a nation-building partnership, or a special forces/quick-strike force, or something else?

His response? “All of the above.”

I think it should be more refined than that, but at least it’s the start of a serious discussion.

I was at a luncheon hosted by the Truman National Security Project today.  I’ll write more on the policy discussion in a bit, but I thought I’d relate an anecdote that noted author/journalist Joe Klein shared.

Klein says that he was talking with McCain several years ago about the Cuban missile crisis.  As the crisis rumbled on, the Soviets sent two messages to the Kennedy brothers - a bellicose one sent through official diplomatic channels, and an offer of cooperation sent via backchannel.

Kennedy chose to respond to the diplomatic opening, which lead to the crisis’ eventual resolution.

Klein claims that he said to McCain, “you probably would have responded to the bellicose message.”

McCain apparently responded, “I probably would have.”

Who says judgment isn’t important?

I attended a breakfast this morning at the Denver Press Club with Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell. I was surprised how much of an engaging and magnanimous speaker he was. And though he was absolute in his support for Obama, you could tell he wasn’t quite over Hillary’s loss, saying that Obama’s campaign got a free pass from the media.

During the Q&A, I asked him a question about McCain’s foreign policy. During his remarks, Rendell touched on the necessity in political campaigns to define your opponent. Sensing that he thought Obama had failed to define McCain, I asked how - despite both the well-known differences on Iraq and Afghanistan and Obama’s general attempts to define McCain as Bush III - Rendell would advise Obama to frame McCain’s view of foreign policy?

The first part of his answer was the standard (and correct) litany of charges against the Republicans’ view of the world. But from a political tactics standpoint, I disagree with his second part: Namely, that the Iraq war cost too much. Rendell pointed out that when his constituents hear that the Iraqi government just hauled in some $80billion in oil revenue while we’re spending $144billion there this year, that’s what really upsets them. Obama should, according to the governor, sharpen his criticism accordingly.

Of course the war costs too much. We could have been spending the money on a slew of other things. That goes without question. But, this argument will leave the Dems politically exposed.

To most American voters, security is the one good they are willing to pay for, no matter what the cost. And if Democrats start advocating an Iraq withdrawal based on saving money alone, the Republican spin machine will use it as the latest charge against those weak-kneed progressives who aren’t willing to spend money to keep America safe.

Let’s fight this fight on American security interests, not finances.  There alone, Obama has a great case to make.

Iran is apparently launching a domestic line of submarines. Apparently, they are intended to block the Strait of Hormuz, and they are set to compliment Iran’s existing fleet.

The experts say Iran’s navy has three Russian Kilo class submarines and other smaller submersibles, including the Qadir. Press TV said Iran also operated a submersible called the Nahang, a word meaning whale.

It’s not like the Iranians didn’t know of the Hormuz’s strategic importance, so how is it possible that subs haven’t been a strategic priorities for decades?