AOM is shutting down until post-turkey bliss is beyond us.

I’m off to fight traffic up to grandma’s in Connecticut.  According to NPR, there will be 400,000 less cars on the road.  If all of them were taken off the I-95 NE corridor, that’d be okay with me.

So Happy Thanksgiving, and thank you for reading what I write.  I’ll leave you with this:

My colleague Ed Kilgore over at the Democratic Strategist has a smart post on Gates’ reappointment and its implication on “bipartisanship”:

Obama could, of course, try to reduce the sting by limiting Gates to a short tenure, giving way in six months or so perhaps to a deputy close to the new administration and its thinking (e.g., Richard Danzig). But making the appointment strictly transitional would also reduce its utility as a symbolic gesture of continuity and bipartisanship. And in any event, Gates is reportedly balking at any deal that would deny him the right to retain his own circle of high-level staff, which definitely includes people antagonistic to significant change in the Pentagon.

Moreover, on a broader front, if Obama demurs on a reappointment of Gates, he’ll need to find another way to redeem his frequent campaign pledge to get beyond partisan gridlock in Washington and govern in a bipartisan, or at least post-partisan, manner.

Some Obama supporters never took this talk seriously, and would just as soon see him forget about including any Republicans in his Cabinet.

Assuming Richard Danzig gets the nod as deputy, this should assuage concerns among those worried that there’s too much “continuity” and not enough “change.”  Danzig is a contextual thinker who has been close to Obama since the Iowa caucuses, and would be an excellent ying to Gates’ yang.  And if you’re wondering how important Danzig might be as a deputy, consider this:  he’d essentially be taking Paul Wolfowitz’s place. 

[photo - powerlineblog.com]

There seems to be some agnst float around out there that Obama’s potential national security team isn’t “rivalrous” enough.  Or that he hasn’t included enough lefties.  Or that there are too many Clintonites. 

Frida Berrigan works herfself into a fit over at Mother Jones:

The Obama national security “team”—part of that much-hailed “team of rivals”—does not yet exist, but it does seem to be heaving into view. And so far, its views seem anything but rivalrous. Mainstream reporters and pundits lovingly refer to them as “centrist,” but, in a Democratic context, they are distinctly right of center.

Berrigan proceeds to complain that the likes of Hillary, retired General James Jones, John Brennan, and Robert Gates would be rounding out the team.  Then we get his thoughts on the military side:

Add in the military line-up—Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen, Centcom Commander David Petraeus, Generals Raymond Odierno and David McKiernan, the U.S. commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan—all second term Bush picks, all reportedly ready to push for a major “surge” in Afghanistan, all evidently against Obama’s timeline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq. 

Berrigan seems to discount the fact that Obama will be the Commander-In-Chief, and he - not Hillary, not Gen Jones, not Mike Mullen - gets to make the final choice.  Obama is, if you will, the Decider.  He campaigned on a platform to end the war in Iraq, and he will force his cadre to work towards that end.

In building a “team of rivals,” it’s more imporant that Obama calls on a group of individuals who are HIS rivals, not necessarily EACH OTHERS’ rivals.  Hillary ran against Obama in the primary, Gen Jones is reported to be a friend of McCain’s, and Gates is a Bush appointee.  That sounds like a team of rivals to me. 

Doubt that he’s up for overriding his advisers?  Consider this exchange during his summer trip to the Middle East:

“My job as a candidate for president and a potential commander in chief extends beyond Iraq,” Mr. Obama said, speaking to reporters here after finishing a three-day tour of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama, who is on a weeklong trip through the Middle East and Western Europe, lauded the efforts of the U.S. military to reduce violence in Iraq. He conceded that top American commanders conveyed to him that they are resistant to a timetable for withdrawing troops, saying they want to “retain as much flexibility as possible.”

So asked whether he intended to ignore their advice, he declared: “No, I’m factoring in their advice, but placing it in this broader strategic framework that’s required. OK?”

In the “rivals” paradigm, the goal is to listen to different points of view from individuals with differing primary concerns.  In Iraq, for example, generals want to keep violence down as long as possible, and perhaps aren’t as concerned with the ramifications for the wider military or national security frame.  That’s where Obama takes in their opinions, and weighs them against his other advisers.

But I think this is Berrigan’s chief complaint:

In that, it seems typical of the coalescing national security team, almost none of whom, so far, opposed the invasion of Iraq (other than the president-elect). Having been anti-war is evidently a sign of inexperience and so a negative.

First, by putting ”other than the president-elect” in parenthesis, Englehart again discounts the Commander-in-Chief’s importance.  Furthermore, I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that Obama considers an anti-war stance to represent inexperience.  Certainly Obama didn’t successfully argue his way through a hotly-contested primary and a general election against a decorated veteran by calling his own anti-war stance a sign of “valued” inexperience. 

With his national security team, Obama is selecting people with experience, judgement, and differing points of views.  With two wars and threats like transnational terrorism, nuclear proliferation, humanitarian crises, and energy security hanging in the balance, I think that those qualities trump a single vote.

UPDATE:  Whoops - guess I should figure out who’s really upset over at Mother Jones… It appears the post I’ve been referencing was written by Frida Berrigan.  Tom Engelhart only wrote the introduction to that post.  My appologies.  This has been corrected in the text above.

From the AP, via the International Herald Tribune:

John Brennan, President-elect Barack Obama’s top adviser on intelligence, took his name out of the running Tuesday for any intelligence position in the new administration.

Brennan wrote in a Nov. 25 letter to Obama that he did not want to be a distraction. His potential appointment has raised a firestorm in liberal blogs that associate him with the Bush administration’s interrogation, detention and rendition policies. …

Obama’s advisers had grown increasingly concerned in recent days over online blogs that accused Brennan of condoning harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects, including waterboarding, which critics consider torture.

Conventional wisdom is that Brennan got a raw deal on his involvement in the torture issue.  Here’s his own defense, from his withdrawl letter:

“It has been immaterial to the critics that I have been a strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush Administration, such as the preemptive war in Iraq and coercive interrogation tactics, to include waterboarding.”

Brennan also apparently told the Washington Times Editorial board that an Obama White House would not permit waterboarding.

Spencer Ackerman has a good synopsis of the entire furor here, including a letter written by a group of psychiatrists opposed to torture.  Read the rest of this entry »

An editorial in the WaPo yesterday urges the Obama administration to continue promoting democracy, despite Bush’s ardent attempts to give that enterprise a bad name. 

But abandoning the promotion and support of democracy as core American goals would be a terrible mistake. Mr. Bush was right to see freedom as integral to all other foreign policy objectives. …

The need is especially urgent when global recession could undermine democracy and stoke bellicose nationalism. It’s urgent, too, because in the past decade, dictators and authoritarian ruling parties have learned to fight back. When Vladimir Putinseeks to extend Russia’s influence, he doesn’t just want more people watching Russian movies or buying Russian MiGs. He wants to replicate among his neighbors the kind of one-party rule he has imposed on his own country. His efforts will continue whether or not the Obama administration chooses to push back on behalf of the budding democracies Mr. Putin would target.

For starters, I do think promoting democractic values is a core value in American foreign policy.  But - and to state the obvious - we shouldn’t be doing it with the business end of a gun; that’s where I take issue with Bush’s approach.  Rather, promoting democracy is a slow, steady process which will damn the impatient to low approval ratings and failed presidencies.  Indeed, just because the Obama administration may not see the fruits of its labor doesn’t mean it should take a pass.  The good news is that I think the President-elect is on board.

Let’s also consider the competitive angle with Putin - the WaPo makes it sound like we’re headed back to dividing up Europe on the back of a napkin! We aren’t. 

I actually think that the global recession will dampen Russian “expansionism.” Considering all the long-term trends going against successful Russian assertion, like:

- the falling price of oil,
- a single-source Russian tax base (oil),
- a shakey invasion of Georgia that casts doubts on Russian military capabilities,
- European/NATO coddling of a receptive Eastern Europe,
- and emptying Russian currency reserves,

I think there are serious doubts whether Russia will lash out again any time soon.  The recession may drive Putin and Medvedev to fan the flames of nationalism to quell and distract domestic opposition, but the ailing global economy will could severely cripple Russia.  If Russia’s military can’t perform and other countries can buy cheap energy from elsewhere, I’d be Russia hunkers down over the short-to-medium term.

Shadi Hamid has an insightful post over at Democracy Arsenal on the idiocy of using left/right divides on national security philosophy:

It’s never really made sense to me to use a left-right spectrum when talking about foreign policy. What does it mean to have a “leftist” foreign policy approach? I assume that people use “leftist” as a proxy for “weak.” But, even the “weak/dove” – “strong/hawk” spectrum is a weird one. I think the last 8 years would indicate that hawks have made us weaker, while doves would have made us stronger. Is a willingness to coddle dictators a sign of weakness or strength? And if it’s the former, then why do so a significant number of “neo-cons” have, contrary to what their ideology would suggest, a particular fondness for “moderate” Arab dictators? If we’re talking about the left’s foreign policy tradition, then a “moralist” concern with supporting human rights and democracy abroad is, I would say, distinctly “leftist.” But then we run into a problem: democracy promotion > leftist foreign policy approach > weak.

Good points, all.  I think the Bush’s second term and the presidential election may have begun a major realignment in terms of these competing foreign policy philosophies.  Can anyone find a serious defense policy wonk out there - on either side of the aisle - who would still default to our military to solve our problems? 

Even though the McCain camp hammered away at Obama for wanting to negotiate with Iran, I’d be hard-pressed to imagine that they’d seriously consider a tactical military strikes against an Iranian nuclear facility.  Now, I realize that McCain famously said, “the only thing worse than bombing Iran is a nuclear armed Iran,” but when push-comes-to-shove, cool-headed rationale would carry the day.  Just think - we bomb Iran, then Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz, launches a volley at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and works over-time to destabilize Iraq.  Those are all head-aches we don’t want, need, or could effectively deal with given our currently-stretched military. 

But I digress.  The point is that most security strategists have seen the folly of the last eight years, and no matter the rhetoric of the campaign trail, realize that talking tough and acting smart are two distinctly different things.  No matter who’s in the Oval Office for the foreseable future, I think we’re ending the left/right divide and putting a premium on smart pragmatism.

Retired Army Lt. General Russel Honore - the leader of Hurricane Katrina’s military relief efforts - thinks the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or FEMA) should be split off from the Department of Homeland Security.

“I just think we’ve had some experience that demonstrates that the best thing to do is separate it and make it a separate agency,” Honore told Politico. …

[D]ebate has raged about whether FEMA should remain in the sprawling Homeland Security Department, which includes the Coast Guard, Secret Service and Border Patrol, among other agencies. …

But Honore and others are confident that FEMA needs to be removed so its director can report directly to the ­president. Making FEMA a stand-alone agency, he said, would allow the two organizations to have different roles. The department could concentrate on preventing disasters and emergencies, and FEMA could focus on preparing emergency responses.

“The storms come every year,” Honore said. “Why do we play that game every year?”

The PPI has been calling for this since last year.  From a PPI paper by Harvard Professor Elaine Kamarck:

It is important to understand that the mistake was not in creating a Department of Homeland Security in the first place, but in saddling the new department with too many constituent parts, and too many disparate missions. The department is not fatally flawed. …

Prior to 2003, FEMA had been a free-standing agency whose top executive reported to the president. During the Clinton administration it was a model bureau, performing well after the Northridge earthquake in California and held up by Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review as a “turnaround” agency whose example other government entities should follow. FEMA ran the federal recovery mission in New York City and Washington after the 9/11 attacks, as well as the response to the powerful hurricanes that struck Florida in 2004—and handled these complex, high-profile undertakings well.

The inclusion of FEMA and related smaller agencies in DHS has seriously weakened what was once a high-performing agency and has also distracted from the urgent mission at the border. FEMA can be a star again—if we separate it from DHS and let it stand once again as an independent agency.