G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Hillary's Hawks: How Obama's and Clinton's Advisors Mirror Their Stands on
the War
By Paul Rogat Loeb
Created Feb 11 2008 - 7:56am
Introducing a Steven Zunes piece
In their focus on the electoral horse-race, the media have ignored a key
difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- the positions of
their foreign policy advisors on the Iraq war. As political scientist
Stephen Zunes points out in Foreign Policy in Focus [1], Clinton's key
advisors overwhelmingly supported it, while Obama's opposed it. The
differences in their positions on whether to go to war mirror those of the
two candidates. They also give a sense of how Clinton and Obama are likely
to deal with the immensely difficult foreign policy challenges they'll face
if elected, including dealing with Iraq.
From Zunes's revised version of his article [2]:
The president makes the decisions, but who advises the president? We know
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle insisted to Bush that
American forces would be treated as liberators if we went into Iraq. McCain
has surrounded himself with people likely to encourage him to follow a
similar disastrous path if he becomes president. But what about Obama and
Clinton?
A major difference stands out among those they are likely to appoint to
key posts in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs: Almost
everyone in Senator Obama's foreign policy team opposed the U.S. invasion.
By contrast, most of Senator Clinton's foreign policy team, which largely
comprises veterans of her husband's administration, strongly supported
George W. Bush's call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
It should come as no surprise that during the run-up to the Iraq invasion,
Obama spoke at a Chicago anti-war rally [3] while Clinton went as far as
falsely claiming [4] that Iraq was actively supporting al-Qaeda. And during
the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi
surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and
silent.
Clinton's advisors are similarly confident in the ability of the United
States to impose its will through force. This is reflected to this day in
the strong support for President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton
advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack
and Michael O'Hanlon.
Clinton's top foreign policy advisor -- and her likely pick for Secretary
of State -- Richard Holbrooke, insisted that [5] Iraq remained "a clear and
present danger at all times." He rejected the broad international legal
consensus against such offensive wars and insisted European governments and
anti-war demonstrators who opposed a U.S. invasion of Iraq "undoubtedly
encouraged" Saddam Hussein.
Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband's national
security advisor, insisted that [6] "even a contained Saddam" was "harmful
to stability and to positive change in the region" and insisted on the
necessity of "regime change." Other top Clinton advisors -- such as former
Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright -- confidently predicted that
American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S.
takeover of Iraq.
By contrast, during the lead-up to the war, Obama's advisors recognized as
highly suspect the Bush administration's claims regarding Iraq's "weapons of
mass destruction" and offensive delivery systems capable of threatening U.S.
national security.
Now advising Obama, former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski, for example, argued that public support for war [7] "should not
be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy." Brzezinski seems to have
learned from mistakes like arming the Mujahideen. He warned that invading a
country that was no threat to the United States would threaten America's
global leadership because most of the international community would see it
as an illegitimate act of aggression.
Another key Obama advisor, the Carnegie Endowment's Joseph Cirincione,
argued that the goal [8] of containing the potential threat from Iraq had
been achieved as a result of sanctions, the return of inspectors, and a
multinational force stationed in the region serving as a deterrent.
Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors -- such as Susan Rice, Larry Korb,
Samantha Power, and Richard Clarke -- raised concerns about the human and
material costs of invading and occupying a large Middle Eastern country and
the risks of American forces becoming embroiled in post-invasion chaos and a
lengthy counter-insurgency war.
These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists
surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically
opposing views in the lead-up to the war, with Clinton voting to let
President Bush invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of
his choosing, while Obama was speaking out to oppose a U.S. invasion.
Hillary Clinton has a few advisors who did oppose the war, like Wesley
Clark, but taken together, the kinds of key people she's surrounded herself
with supports the likelihood that her administration, like Bush's, would be
more likely to embrace exaggerated [9] and alarmist reports regarding
potential national security threats, to ignore international law [10] and
the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars.
By contrast, as The Nation magazine noted [11], a Barack Obama
administration would be more likely to examine the actual evidence [12] of
potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America's
allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country's
international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last
resort.
In terms of Iran, for instance, Cirincione has downplayed the supposed
threat, while Clinton advisor Holbrooke insists that [13] "the Iranians are
an enormous threat to the United States," the country is "the most pressing
problem nation," and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
This is consistent with Clinton's vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment [14]
that opened the door to a potential Bush attack on Iran, and with Obama's
opposition to it.
Given the problems exemplified by the tragic legacy of the current
administration, primary voters should recognize that Obama's promise of
change is the most prudent course in these dangerous times.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and International Studies at the
University of San Francisco.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
the War
By Paul Rogat Loeb
Created Feb 11 2008 - 7:56am
Introducing a Steven Zunes piece
In their focus on the electoral horse-race, the media have ignored a key
difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- the positions of
their foreign policy advisors on the Iraq war. As political scientist
Stephen Zunes points out in Foreign Policy in Focus [1], Clinton's key
advisors overwhelmingly supported it, while Obama's opposed it. The
differences in their positions on whether to go to war mirror those of the
two candidates. They also give a sense of how Clinton and Obama are likely
to deal with the immensely difficult foreign policy challenges they'll face
if elected, including dealing with Iraq.
From Zunes's revised version of his article [2]:
The president makes the decisions, but who advises the president? We know
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle insisted to Bush that
American forces would be treated as liberators if we went into Iraq. McCain
has surrounded himself with people likely to encourage him to follow a
similar disastrous path if he becomes president. But what about Obama and
Clinton?
A major difference stands out among those they are likely to appoint to
key posts in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs: Almost
everyone in Senator Obama's foreign policy team opposed the U.S. invasion.
By contrast, most of Senator Clinton's foreign policy team, which largely
comprises veterans of her husband's administration, strongly supported
George W. Bush's call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
It should come as no surprise that during the run-up to the Iraq invasion,
Obama spoke at a Chicago anti-war rally [3] while Clinton went as far as
falsely claiming [4] that Iraq was actively supporting al-Qaeda. And during
the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi
surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and
silent.
Clinton's advisors are similarly confident in the ability of the United
States to impose its will through force. This is reflected to this day in
the strong support for President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton
advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack
and Michael O'Hanlon.
Clinton's top foreign policy advisor -- and her likely pick for Secretary
of State -- Richard Holbrooke, insisted that [5] Iraq remained "a clear and
present danger at all times." He rejected the broad international legal
consensus against such offensive wars and insisted European governments and
anti-war demonstrators who opposed a U.S. invasion of Iraq "undoubtedly
encouraged" Saddam Hussein.
Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband's national
security advisor, insisted that [6] "even a contained Saddam" was "harmful
to stability and to positive change in the region" and insisted on the
necessity of "regime change." Other top Clinton advisors -- such as former
Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright -- confidently predicted that
American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S.
takeover of Iraq.
By contrast, during the lead-up to the war, Obama's advisors recognized as
highly suspect the Bush administration's claims regarding Iraq's "weapons of
mass destruction" and offensive delivery systems capable of threatening U.S.
national security.
Now advising Obama, former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski, for example, argued that public support for war [7] "should not
be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy." Brzezinski seems to have
learned from mistakes like arming the Mujahideen. He warned that invading a
country that was no threat to the United States would threaten America's
global leadership because most of the international community would see it
as an illegitimate act of aggression.
Another key Obama advisor, the Carnegie Endowment's Joseph Cirincione,
argued that the goal [8] of containing the potential threat from Iraq had
been achieved as a result of sanctions, the return of inspectors, and a
multinational force stationed in the region serving as a deterrent.
Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors -- such as Susan Rice, Larry Korb,
Samantha Power, and Richard Clarke -- raised concerns about the human and
material costs of invading and occupying a large Middle Eastern country and
the risks of American forces becoming embroiled in post-invasion chaos and a
lengthy counter-insurgency war.
These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists
surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically
opposing views in the lead-up to the war, with Clinton voting to let
President Bush invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of
his choosing, while Obama was speaking out to oppose a U.S. invasion.
Hillary Clinton has a few advisors who did oppose the war, like Wesley
Clark, but taken together, the kinds of key people she's surrounded herself
with supports the likelihood that her administration, like Bush's, would be
more likely to embrace exaggerated [9] and alarmist reports regarding
potential national security threats, to ignore international law [10] and
the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars.
By contrast, as The Nation magazine noted [11], a Barack Obama
administration would be more likely to examine the actual evidence [12] of
potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America's
allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country's
international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last
resort.
In terms of Iran, for instance, Cirincione has downplayed the supposed
threat, while Clinton advisor Holbrooke insists that [13] "the Iranians are
an enormous threat to the United States," the country is "the most pressing
problem nation," and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
This is consistent with Clinton's vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment [14]
that opened the door to a potential Bush attack on Iran, and with Obama's
opposition to it.
Given the problems exemplified by the tragic legacy of the current
administration, primary voters should recognize that Obama's promise of
change is the most prudent course in these dangerous times.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and International Studies at the
University of San Francisco.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
hlsj.6$%g.5@trnddc08...