Yes. The confirmation hearings for both Hagel and Brennan will, I hope, be interesting.
In particular, I'm hoping that some Senators will press Brennan in open session about the Human Rights Watch/Washington Post push to get the CIA out of drone strikes, which some press reports have suggested that Brennan is sympathetic to. On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > ... considering its source. > > New York TIMES / January 12, 2013 / op-ed > > The Obama Synthesis > > By ROSS DOUTHAT > > AS both his critics and admirers argue, the nomination of Chuck Hagel > as secretary of defense last week tells us something important about > Barack Obama’s approach to foreign policy. But so does the man who was > nominated alongside Hagel, to far less controversy and attention: John > Brennan, now head of the White House’s counterterrorism efforts, and > soon to be the director of the C.I.A. > > Both men were intimately involved in foreign policy debates during > George W. Bush’s administration, but had very different public > profiles. As a C.I.A. official, Brennan publicly defended some of > Bush’s most controversial counterterrorism policies, including the > “rendition” of terror suspects for interrogation in foreign countries. > As a senator, Hagel was one of the few prominent Republicans to > (eventually) turn against the war in Iraq. Now it’s fitting that Obama > has nominated them together, because his foreign policy has basically > synthesized their respective Bush-era perspectives. > > Like the once-hawkish Hagel, Obama has largely rejected Bush’s > strategic vision of America as the agent of a sweeping transformation > of the Middle East, and retreated from the military commitments that > this revolutionary vision required. And with this retreat has come a > willingness to make substantial cuts in the Pentagon’s budget — cuts > that Hagel will be expected to oversee. > > But the Brennan nomination crystallizes the ways in which Obama has > also cemented and expanded the Bush approach to counterterrorism. Yes, > waterboarding is no longer with us, but in its place we have a > far-flung drone campaign — overseen and defended by Brennan — that > deals death, even to American citizens, on the say-so of the president > and a secret administration “nominations” process. > > Meanwhile, the imprimatur of a liberal president means that other > controversial Bush-era counterterror policies are more secure than > ever. Just last month, for instance, while Congress was embroiled in > furious partisan arguments over the fiscal cliff, the practice of > warrantless wiretapping was reaffirmed with broad bipartisan support. > > To the extent that it’s possible to define an “Obama Doctrine,” then, > it’s basically the Hagel-Brennan two-step. Fewer boots on the ground, > but lots of drones in the air. Assassination, yes; nation-building, > no. An imperial presidency with a less-imperial global footprint. > > This is a popular combination in a country that’s tired of war but > still remembers 9/11 vividly. Indeed, Obama’s foreign policy has been > an immense political success: he’s co-opted foreign policy realists, > neutralized antiwar Democrats and isolated Republican hawks. > > This success, in turn, has given him a freer hand to choose appointees > who embody his worldview. The left objected, successfully, when > Brennan was floated as a possibility for C.I.A. director after Obama’s > 2008 victory, but the opposition is likely to be weaker this time > around. Hagel’s hawkish opponents have a slightly better chance, > mostly because his views on Iran and Israel are more dovish than the > White House’s own stated positions. But the campaign against his > nomination has often been more desperate than effective, offering > tissue-thin charges of anti-Semitism and embarrassingly opportunistic > criticisms of Hagel’s record on gay rights. > > If Hagel does get through, it will be the clearest sign yet that Obama > enjoys more trust — and with it, more latitude — on foreign policy > than any Democrat since Harry Truman. And in many ways he’s earned it: > his mix of caution and aggression has thus far avoided major military > disasters (an underrated virtue in presidents), prevented major terror > attacks and put an end to America’s most infamous foe. > > But that’s a provisional judgment, contingent on events to come. The > Obama way of statecraft has offered a plausible course correction > after the debacles of the Bush era, but the ripples from many of his > biggest choices — to leave Iraq outright, to surge and then withdraw > in Afghanistan, to intervene more forcefully in Libya than in Syria — > are still spreading, and the ultimate success of those policies is > still very much in doubt. Likewise with his looming defense cuts, > whose wisdom depends entirely on what actually is trimmed. > > Foreign policy is always a balancing act, in which no ideological > system can guarantee success, and no effective action is without cost. > The recent careers of the two nominees illustrate this point. Hagel > was absolutely right to decide that the Iraq war was a blunder, but he > was dead wrong (as was Obama) to then assume that the 2007 surge — a > salvage job, but a brave and necessary one — would only make the > situation worse. The drone campaign that Brennan has overseen has > undoubtedly weakened Al Qaeda. But it’s also killed innocents, fed > anti-American sentiment and eroded the constraints on executive power > in troubling ways. > > These are not reasons to deny them the chance to serve this president > in his second term. But they are reasons to ask them hard questions, > and to look carefully for places where Obama’s post-Bush course > correction may need to be corrected in its turn. > > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your > own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected]
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
