Obama's National Security Policy

Sen. and presidential candidate Barack Obama has an article titled "Renewing American Leadership" in Foreign Policy this month. He's outlining his national security and foreign policy positions with a broad but well-written article. Not sure what to make of it yet, since he seems to have taken the position of sounding like a moderate Republican criticizing the Bush administration. It's an interesting tactic... see if you agree. His paper has six main points:

• Moving Beyond Iraq: We need to pull out our combat brigades (careful wording there) from Iraq by March 31, 2008, and redeploy to an "over-the-horizon" region. Key regional issue remains Israel and Palestine, which Bush has frakked up. We need to engage Iran and Syria as regional partners. We need to talk to Iran about its nuclear program and not just threaten it.
• Revitalizing the Military: We must rebuild the military, and that means more boots on the ground. We must recruit the best and invest in their capability (a switch from the current plan). I will use the military, unilaterally if need be, to protect us. Ideally force is key for self-defense but the military works for supporting friends, participating in stability ops, or confronting mass atrocities. Multilateralism is better than unilateralism.
• Halting the Spread of Nuclear Weapons: As my buddies Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar have pointed out, nonproliferation is not a dirty word. We need to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of loose nukes and radioactive material. We need to update the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty and develop an international coalition to stop Iran and N. Korea from continuing nuclear weapons programs.
• Combating Global Terrorism: Terrorism is bad, but there are particular areas of emphasis we need to focus on. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the central fronts of al Qaeda, not Iraq. We need a global partnership to stay on the offensive, and that includes strengthening weak states. At home, we need to invest more in defending mass transit and upgrade port security. We need to revisit intelligence reform.
• Rebuilding Our Partnerships: Bullying other countries to accept our changes in international affairs is not acceptable. We need to convince other nations that they have a stake in effective partnerships. NATO needs to work better. We need an effective partnership in Asia to encourage China to be responsible as a global partner. The United Nations needs far-reaching reform. We need to reduce greenhouse gases by being an example to others.
• Building Just, Secure, Democratic Societies: We need to stop "extraordinary renditions" and maintaining prisons in foreign countries. We need to restore the right of habeas corpus. We need to invest in building states that can establish healthy and educated communities, develop markets, and generate wealth. Foreign assistance pays off in the long run.

This isn't a bad platform on which to run. I don't think any of these goals are unique or original, but to clearly summarize a number of important foreign policy/national security issues and not scare off the moderate Republicans is a measure of skill. I particularly like how he resisted using the boogyman of WMD terrorism and clearly identified nuclear proliferation as the main concern. He's right on target. The only drawback is, of course, his limited experience in actually executing any of these issues. But then again, that lack of experience didn't stop either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush from being elected president.

Comments

[F.Igwealor]

This is awesome most especially when compared to the position of other 08 contenders. This is just one of the numerous reasons I believe that Obama is best qualified to be our next commander-in-chief.

Obama is focusing on the important aspects of his administration while his chief rival, Hillary was going about trying to de-authorize the war in Iraq.

First Hillary authorized the war, now she wants to de-authorize it, in between this monumental lack of judgment by Hillary, Thousands of America soldiers have been sacrificed and billions of dollars wasted.

Hillary lacked the requisite judgment to be our commander-in-chief.
I strongly believe that the issue of experience is one of the important issues that must be addressed in the presidential race. Hillary Clinton does not have the experience to lead the United States at a critical time like this. She lacks the experience to make sound judgment that is required of our commander-in-chief. She failed the test with her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

Obama’s experience on the other hand gave him the foresight for sound judgment. This is the experience that we require from our commander-in-chief; the experience that helps a leader in making the right judgment, like standing up against the Iraqi invasion in 2002, and outlining most of the possible consequences and unfortunately came true.

Obama is the most experienced of the Democratic bunch. He has the experience that leads to sound judgment. I bet Obama would have been able to persuade Congress in 2002 to stop George Bush from invading Iraq had he been in the Senate then.

Hillary is like George Bush, who was a two-term Governor of huge Texas but lack the foresight and wisdom of the possible impact of send our troops to invade Iraq. George Bush became president because of his father and Hillary now wants to be president because of Bill.

Hillary has 15 years in Washington, but just like George Bush, lacked the foresight to make the right judgment when it mattered most. Her and George Bush’s type of experience is actually bad for America; it has cost us thousands in lives and billions of dollars.

Who needs scores of years in Washington or Texas experience that could not make the right judgments in the White House for another 8 years? I don’t, how about you?

"But I believed then, and I still believe, that being a leader means that you'd better do what's right and leave the politics aside, because there are no do-overs on an issue as important as war," Obama said.

"The single most important judgment that a president or member of Congress can make is the decision to send our troops into harms way," he said. "There are no good options in Iraq. There are bad options and worse options. That's why you make good decisions on the front end." (Chicago Tribune - July 10, 2007.)

[Sock Puppet of the Great Satan]

Also of note is that he'd shoot the RRW program in the head: probably makes strategic sense, although it'd mean finding something else for a lot of DoE PhDs to do.

Surprised that he doesn't go into more expansive material on WMDs in general, as well as nukes: like a new initiative on the BW convention. But his emphasis on nonproliferation is welcome, and not that surprising given his previous interest, shown in his trips to Russia.

[Robot Economist]

Eh, I wasn't particularly impressed. With the exception of the bit on nonproliferation, most of his essay feels a bit directionless. It reads more like a feel-good laundry list and less like a coherent vision.

[NVH]

"Who needs scores of years in Washington or Texas experience that could not make the right judgments in the White House for another 8 years? I don’t, how about you?"
--Especially when all your supporters call experience 2 years of elected office...come on, he doesn't have the experience, and he'll get bullied around by the party too much to get anything worthwhile done in the first 4 years. RRW, who cares? As for the PhDs, either they stay relevant or they get unemployed, half the problem with our entire country is this NEED we have to keep people working where there isn't any work or funding. Whoever invented gov't hiring and firing procedures should be drug into the street and have their head cut off.

[ry]

Since NVH isn't doing conservativism any favors over here.....
I point out a flaw I see in Obama's plan: it isn't just a war against al-Queda. YOu go to the NCTC and look up who have been the biggest killers of Americans and you'll see that just going after aQ is only like going after Dillinger but not Capone and all the other gansters/Mafiosi/professional criminals.
That's a failing. I'm supposed to trust him if he can't ID the threat properly? Sorry. He'll need to try harder to earn my vote.

If his rebuild is along the Barnettian Leviaathan/SysAdmin concept I'll take him seriously on it---it'll show me he's actually done some real ruminating. If he's just talking about increasing size...well, we've heard that before. It sounds like a talking point. Plus, I really don't see Dems sticking to that much. Not when you have Dems railing about how much healthcare they could buy if we weren't spending it stupidly on our military on the floors of Congress Wed. It sounds like a talking point, kinda like Guiliani cloaking himself in 9/11 to win points. Tought talk. Let's see the actual plan and not just the talking points.

And the 'as opposed to now' bit? Oh come on, how many times are we going to have to live with this bromide. Steal that material from Maher there Senator? What, you going to start drafting kids who attend Yale and Harvard, forcibly make them go? We went that route once, and it didn't work all that well(I'm talking about the changes made after the Doolittle Board, which gave us such a well prepared Army for Korea).

But, I'll give Obama credit. He's not just talking about a totally nebulous plan. He's at least built a scaffold to build the bigger bits with. That's more than most other candidates to this point. Good on him for that.

[NVH]

All I know is there is a difference between talking about what you would do as leader and then doing it. Obama has only done the former, not the latter, and it's big god damn step up the ladder to ordering people to do this, and he can talk about it all he wants, until he's in the position, no one will ever know, and frankly he should sit on his hands and keep his mouth shut a couple more years. At least Bush had some leadership opportunity in the Guard and as Governor, giving orders, etc...what's Obama been, a deputy on a committee? You know what a committee is? A group of men who individually can do nothing but as a group decide that nothing can be done. There's his experience so far.
"Barnettian Leviathan/SysAdmin " Are you serious? If he says this publicly, people will look at him like an alien, don't drag us down in the weeds here, we're low enough as it is, It's bad enough we have vision 2021 or whatever, that'll change in 2010, w/o an ounce of review or resistance to the previous plan.

[NVH]

Ok, I'll take back the Barnett dart a little, reviewed some stuff on this website blog
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/03/15/a-strategic-thinker
It's seems pretty interesting, and it's good people are talking about the ways in which we can RE-ORG the situation, since inevitably it'll happen, and his view takes in to account a large portion of what needs to be considered to encompass all the issues. Still, he's a slick willy with his PPT rangering right now, gotta get the big wigs to listen to it now, and I just don't know what the hell goes thru those guys heads at that level, so from the bottom up boys....drive on.

[Christopher Bitner Hayes (CBH)]

"Ideally force is key for self-defense but the military works for supporting friends, participating in stability ops, or confronting mass atrocities."
"We need a global partnership to stay on the offensive, and that includes strengthening weak states."
"We need to invest in building states ... Foreign assistance pays off in the long run."

Sorry fellas, but this interventionist thinking hasn't worked and won't work. That's why it's not constitutional. Never has been.
Ron Paul's got my vote - he was against Iraq from the beginning, and he's no AIPAC monkey, like EVERY DAMN ONE of the other '08 contenders. You can bicker about who's the more sucky (suckier?) candidate, but they all do the same little dance. Our blind/bought/coerced allegiance to Israel hurts us and Israel. The more we get into the mix, the worse it gets for both of us.

[Grandjester]

CBH,

I suggest you look a little deeper at Ron Paul and his agenda (and that of the Libertarians in general). While the non-interventionist bent seems great, it really is just stepping back into isolationism. IRS gone, but along with it things like the Dept of Education, FDA and CDC.

[J.]

Like ry, I agree that this isn't the magical document that will bring Democratic national security policy to any fame. It's not original, and it's sketchy, but it looks like a good platform upon which one could develop good policy.

[Christopher Bitner Hayes (CBH)]

I know where Paul wants to go. I can't see us being where he'd like us to be, because we'd never survive the transition. But I think a term or two of somebody fighting in that direction would do more good than a thousand years of the talking heads he's running against could ever muster. With our current hyper-consumerist status quo, the "Market Approach" would be a disaster if it happened in one shot, because the consumers have been too isolated from the negative consequences of their actions, or at least those negative consequences have been delayed, sloughed off onto others where possible, or patched up with temporary fixes that are yet to be paid for.

That said, I do believe that removing the need to compete and remain viable and necessary has caused much of the bloat in our current governmental system. If we moved towards the tax system Paul is suggesting, it would cause us to look seriously at what we're doing, with a forced prioritization. This would certainly diminish the influence of those who sway legislation for their own ends, because if there's not enough money to get everything done, the public will notice. If you can point me out one other Senator or Congressman with as clean a track record as Paul's, I'd be shocked (by clean, I'm referring to the issues of being influenced by lobbyists and flip-flopping to win votes).

I'd like the pleasure of being shocked and surprised by seeing an elected official do their job without succumbing to the normal and enormous temptations they are routinely subjected to (and many of them see what I call temptations as perks).

[NVH]

A libertarian? Seriously? The guy won't get anything done. Pick the mainstream guy who doesn't have the experience (OBAMA, Romney)or the taste of Congress in his mouth and he changes it slowly. That way we don't have wholesale chaos but someone who makes the tough decisions of what to cut, how much, and where it goes to better the gov't, and slowly we get rid of the fat and streamline this thing.

[Christopher Bitner Hayes (CBH)]

NVH - Yeah, that's been working so far.

If I voted in my neighbors dog, at least it wouldn't screw things up any worse. In my mind, it would be a vast improvement. Apply that to the Senate and House too. Yes, it Paul will deadlock some things. I think that's a corner we need to be backed into, because the normal flow all goes the wrong way. Only way to reverse direction in close quarters is to stop and turn around. This whole thing is slight of hand - so long as they can keep the public looking at the waving hand, they deal the deck any way they like.

[NVH]

Yeah, a chaos and anarchy, and LIBERTY would do us so much better....FIDO in '08
What? It resets every time a new guy comes in...changing direction is the easy part, it's the f'ing time it takes to do so when transitioning that gets us vulnerable b/c people won't have their shit together for up to a year in this era we have. It's not THAT tight to warrant full stop...seriously am I in the minority here? ARe all of you so diverse that you have been affected in some way that has been detrimental to your way of life? I doubt it...and I doubt seriously if we continue the way we are with the TWEAKS necessary along the way that we will get to where we need to be with most everyone intact, probably pull a few more in with us too, as for the rest, survival of the fittest, you can't save everybody, so you better be able to keep up.
Oh, and this Bullshit about a GAP that WEBB talked about at his little SOTU rebuttal, that's like I side, bullshit, people are better off now than they ever have been, there's extremes everywhere, but it's easier to take at the upper end b/c of money, they're still robbing them blind, and those at the bottom, well, if we make a few more tax cuts, they'd probably be a lot better off too.

[Christopher Bitner Hayes (CBH)]

I'll agree that tax cuts will help everybody. As for everything changing direction with every president, I guess you're right in that entropy is certainly change.

You guys like the whole Dems/GOP debate - take a look at the '08 contenders. Are they really that much different? I can't see how.

Just look at how they talk about Iran. The whole bunch want us in there. There is NO REASON we should even be considering going to war with Iran. How would it turn into anything but an enormous magnification of what we're already dealing with in Iraq. If we go into Iran, the whole planet will turn into what we're currently calling "Insurgency" in Iraq.

Want to bring the fight home? Vote in any of these psychos who will put us in Iran. We'll have the fight here and there, all day, every day. Ask Jonathan Baum what it's like living in a country where grocery markets get bombed. If we go to Iran, we'll be right where Israel is today - screwed.

[Jonathan Baum]

Hey, don't drag me into this, a mainly political argument. Anyhow, I disagree with your assessment of us here. While life in Israel isn't like California or Switzerland, it isn't that bad. If you discount the war last summer, life here can be pretty good. And we haven't had a major terrorist attack in years.

I also disagree with your views on what has to be done about Iran. Sorry Chris but you're not the one who will be their target once they finish developing their nukes. I'm with McCain on this one.

[NVH]

I'll stand with JB on this one. Israel's quality of life is blown out of proportion. He's right, and I have friends that go every year. It is NOT that bad. IRAN is that bad, but the right thing to do there would be to send SEAL TEAM 6 in to cut off ahmanwhathisface's head and be done with it, the student revolutionaries will take care of from there. That being said we could just wait for them to come to power, though I think we'll have a problem not hurrying that along, and we ALL know what happens when the CIA gets involved, everyone else wants in on the party and f's it all up.

[Christopher Bitner Hayes (CBH)]

Jonathan & NVH - you got me there. I honestly know nothing about day to day Israeli life except for the media's presentation of it. I'm generally not a sucker for their take, but I just hadn't thought about it. Thanks for calling me on it.

Now here's a question about Israel - is it really good for the Jewish people to be all in one place with the killing capacity of WMD being what they are? Wouldn't it be better at this point to be in various places? I do understand the desire to be in their Promised Land, but if Iran doesn't get them, won't somebody at some point? A one-shot Holocaust seems like an irresistible temptation for those who are truly Anti-Semitic.

Also, is a frontal assault on Iran, like we're headed for, really going to improve security for Israel? Iran has some allies right now, but they're sure to have more when they get invaded, and those allies are going to step it up a notch. Can Israel handle the attacks they'll be getting? Because we'll have our hands full with other fights.

And the students in Iran? They are getting help from the CIA right now I'd imagine, and when we've trained them well they'll be our next threat in some way.

Jonathan - I'll try to remember not to drag you into political debates. No need to put you in awkward positions.

[Kyle Atwell]

Thanks for putting this up. Particularly interested in the nuclear weapons positions of the candidates... would be interested if you get more info on the candidates in the future.

[NVH]

Look I'm not going to front like I'm Israeli, I'm a 6'2" Irish red head, never been to Israel, but I read things other than this blog to know what it's really like. But after that, the whole history of why Israeli's got the parts of Israel they got and why Palestinians are pissed about it, and the Lebanese can't seem to get along, I have no idea why all that started ( I'm sure Bush has something to do with it though ) but it is what it is right now. Iran is the threat b/c of the nukes, and the have BMs that'll reach Israel easy. Iran's "friends" CBH, will NOT come to their aid. The machinations that go on behind the scenes with US / Saudi / Egypt relations alone is just ridiculous, so suffice to say Iran will be on their own, which is our only hope that Amanwhathisface will probably over step his bounds just a little more and the Imams will crucify his ass. Cross your fingers, otherwise Seal Six is going in and lasing the target. Iran is not Afghanistan of the 80s, its not 3rd world, and plenty of Iranians want democracy, as I recall they were almost there before this last election, at least as close as they wanted to be. So let the CIA train them, it'll be ok.