Barrie Dunsmore: Economy, security top Obama's list
Toolbox
This Just In - Published: November 16, 2008
Economy, security top Obama’s list
A
As the cascade of bad economic news continues, American foreign policy and national security may seem less urgent than the need to head off a deep and long lasting global economic depression.
But President-elect Barack Obama doesn’t have the luxury of setting aside security matters while he deals with the economy. There is a big, sometimes nasty and threatening world out there that simply cannot be ignored.
And just as Obama is expected to designate a new treasury secretary and top economics advisers to address the economic crisis — probably this coming week — so must he very soon announce his secretaries of state and defense and other senior members of his national security team.
Let me dispense with listing those being mentioned for these jobs. I have no inside track or confidential information but these would be my choices:
Secretary of state
Al Gore, former congressman, senator, vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner for his efforts to warn of the approaching catastrophe of global warming. Nothing would be a clearer message to the entire world that change has come to Washington and that the Obama administration wants to lead rather than impede international efforts to prevent this calamity. Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and early Obama supporter was in Europe this past week. When I e-mailed him to ask what he thought of the idea of Gore for secretary of state, this was his response: “I think he would be given high regard here (in Europe) and would be seen as more than just a presidential nominee. He would be easily confirmed and I would vote for him.”
Secretary of defense
Robert Gates, the current secretary of defense. Since replacing Donald Rumsfeld two years ago, Gates has earned high marks from nearly everyone with knowledge of his work as the civilian Pentagon chief. He is a realist, not an ideologue and he has been a competent manager of a sprawling, mega-billion dollar bureaucracy. Although Gates opposes an explicit timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, he wants to draw down combat forces sooner rather than later. His views on Afghanistan are very similar to Obama’s, namely: The United States has to have more troops there but ultimately America can’t shoot its way to victory either. (More on Afghanistan to follow.) Gates also agrees with Obama that war with Iran would be a disaster. As a Republican he would help to fulfill Obama’s promise to make his cabinet bipartisan. He also happens to be available. The Wall Street Journal reported this past week that if asked to stay on, he would.
National security adviser
There are several candidates for national security adviser and I don’t have a strong preference. However it must be someone who brings to the president, a wide range of views and options from his top cabinet and intelligence officials and even occasionally from outside experts – someone in the mold of Brent Scowcroft who had the job under both Gerald Ford and George Bush the father. What you most certainly do not want is someone who protects the president from those who might disagree with him, as Condoleezza Rice most regrettably did for George Bush the son.
Top intelligence positions
What to do about the top intelligence jobs in the government? The current director of national intelligence Mike McConnell and the CIA Director Michael Hayden are reported to be expecting to be replaced, although such changes are not automatic. Each has served about two years and neither is responsible for the intelligence failures that led to 9/11 and the false conclusions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Some Democrats and many intelligence experts think they deserve credit for restoring stability to the intelligence community after years of numerous scandals. But other Democrats fault them for their public support of controversial Bush policies on interrogation and electronic surveillance. My guess is they will be replaced. However given the major changes in the national security apparatus at the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department, and the fact that the country is currently fighting two wars, I see merit in the argument that keeping McConnell and/or Hayden for another year or so might be the prudent thing to do.
Finally, there are two uniquely talented Americans I would hope a president Obama would be willing and even eager to call upon — Bill Clinton and Colin Powell. Both have extraordinary knowledge of the world and enjoy great respect in the international community. I can visualize Clinton being given a kind of super Middle East negotiator portfolio. That too would send the signal that the United States was finally serious about helping the Israelis and Palestinians make peace with each other, under a two-state formula.
Powell, I believe could become the ideal high-level presidential envoy in the event of a sudden international crisis. His military expertise and his diplomatic experience would gave him great credibility and his own views about going to war only as an absolute last resort would be much more compatible with Obama’s philosophy than they were with the last president Powell worked for.
Regardless of which big-name players are ultimately chosen, there is one major, extraordinarily complex issue that they and the new president are going to have to tackle almost the minute Barack Obama is sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009.
Call it the Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/al-Qaida/Iran problem.
While each of the above is an issue unto itself, they are also inextricably linked.
Obama wants to send at least three more combat brigades into Afghanistan – but the Iraq war continues to use up the lion’s share of America’s combat capabilities. If Obama proceeds to withdraw one or two brigades from Iraq over the next year and a half that would free up more American troops, but if Iraq should suddenly blow up again that could significantly change his options.
The Afghan/Pakistani border area known as Waziristan is a kind of safe haven for both the Taliban insurgents fighting the United States, NATO and the Afghan government – and the al-Qaida leadership including probably Osama bin Laden himself. A pair of lengthy reports in the New York Times this past week outlined the major difficulties both American and Pakistani troops are facing in that region.
U.S. forces are attempting to disrupt the movement of Taliban and foreign insurgents through mountain passes that lead into Afghanistan from the Pakistani tribal areas. For its part, the Pakistani Army is now using 500-pound bombs to literally blast the Taliban out of its vast network of tunnels dug into those mountains. The tunnels are where the insurgents, and probably al-Qaida leaders, store their arms and move about virtually undetected.
Meantime towns are being reduced to rubble in the fighting and the civilian population is being brutalized by all the combatants — including sometimes when American bombs are dropped on suspected insurgent targets. Some in the Pakistani military are most unhappy with this situation, which in turn is troubling for Pakistan’s new, somewhat shaky democratic government. The bottom line in all of this is the imperative that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons cannot be allowed to fall into the hands of terrorists.
Against this gloomy background it was somewhat encouraging to read the following in the Washington Post last week, “The incoming Obama administration plans to explore a more regional strategy to the war in Afghanistan – including possible talks with Iran – and looks favorably on the nascent dialogue between the Afghan government and ‘reconcilable’ elements of the Taliban.” The Post goes on to report that a new strategy will be welcomed by senior American military officials who want a more creative approach to deal with this deteriorating conflict.
According to this report, incoming Obama officials and senior military strategists believe, “The Afghan effort under the Bush administration has been hampered by ideological and diplomatic constraints and an unrealistic commitment to the goal of building a modern democracy – rather than a stable nation that rejects al-Qaida and Islamic extremism and does not threaten U.S. interests.”
Iran fits into all of these problems and it could be a helper or a spoiler – not just in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq – but also in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute where it has great influence over Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
However, the most pressing issue with Iran is its continued processing of enriched uranium from which the U.N. and most of the world assumes Iran wants to build its own nuclear weapons. That day may be no more than a year away. But it is just possible that Iran may be willing to engage in bilateral talks with the new Obama administration on all of these interlocking issues. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent an unprecedented letter of congratulations to Obama following his election. One should not read too much into that, but it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand either.
In addition to Obama’s election, there are two important things happening in Iran right now that could be reshaping Iranian calculations. First, Ahmadinejad is himself running for re-election and is facing some serious competition from hard-line and more moderate candidates.
The other more significant development is that with the world price of oil now substantially less than half of what it was last July, Iran is suffering its own deep economic woes that go substantially beyond the crisis in the global economy.
It is too early to predict what diplomacy can accomplish, but serious high-level negotiations with Iran that might or might not end with an actual summit, now appear to be more likely than at any time in the 30 years since the Iranian Revolution. That event, by the way, will be celebrated by Iranians about the same time President-elect Obama is inaugurated.
Barrie Dunsmore is a veteran diplomatic and foreign correspondent for ABC News now living in Charlotte.
14