The return of Scowcroftian foreign policy
posted at 8:30 am on November 24, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
When Barack Obama ran for president, especially in the primaries, he relied on a group of foreign-policy advisers that included radical leftist thinkers like Robert Malley, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power. The rise of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State gave political watchers the first indication that Obama would not follow that direction after winning office by gaining the trust of the Left. The Wall Street Journal looks at the rest of the team forming on foreign policy and sees even stronger indications that Obama will instead fall back to the foreign policy direction of President Bush — George H. W. Bush, that is:
Many of the Republicans emerging as potential members of the Obama administration have professional and ideological ties to Brent Scowcroft, a former national-security adviser turned public critic of the Bush White House.
Mr. Scowcroft spoke by phone with President-elect Barack Obama last week, the latest in a months-long series of conversations between the two men about defense and foreign-policy issues, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The relationship between the president-elect and the Republican heavyweight suggests that Mr. Scowcroft’s views, which place a premium on an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, might hold sway in the Obama White House.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was deputy national-security adviser under Mr. Scowcroft in the George H.W. Bush administration, is almost certain to be retained by Mr. Obama, according to aides to the president-elect. Richard Haass, a Scowcroft protégé and former State Department official, could be tapped for a senior National Security Council, State Department or intelligence position. Mr. Haass currently runs the Council on Foreign Relations.
Other prominent Republicans with close ties to Mr. Obama — including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who endorsed the Democrat in the final days of the campaign, and Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — share Mr. Scowcroft’s philosophy.
I’m not particularly enamored of Scowcroft’s foreign policy. He exemplified the supposed “pragmatist” policies of the past that led us to prop up kleptocrats and dismiss democratization activists. His advice over the last few years, offered in op-ed columns, has represented mostly a retreat to the past, and his positions on Israel have been more reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain than Winston Churchill, or Golda Meir, for a better example.
However, I see Scowcroft as a huge improvement over Susan Rice, Robert Malley, and Samantha Power. The Scowcroftian school at least still understood the advantages of Israel as an ally. It also viewed American power as essential for a globalized economy, and its projection as a necessity, although in much less Wilsonian terms than Bush 43.
Based on his campaign rhetoric, Obama appeared to have adopted the Jimmy Carter/Zbigniew Brzezinksi foreign policy. I’ll take Brent Scowcroft any day of the week over the Carter/Brzezinski model.
Of course, George W. Bush appeared to go that direction as well but turned Wilsonian after 9/11. Assuming Obama sticks with the Scowcroft model, how will that impact his standing among the Left? Not only will they not see the sweeping economic changes they expected with Obama, but now they’re going to get the foreign policy of Bush 41 — hardly the kind of Change they expected. I’d expect to hear some wailing and gnashing of teeth in those circumstances.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The nutroots time bomb is a-tickin’.
MB007 on November 24, 2008 at 8:34 AM
But, I though Obama Osama wasa Marxist jihadist infant-murderer who wanted to turn us all into Marxist Muslims and disband the US military? I guess you guys were, um, wrong?
Grow Fins on November 24, 2008 at 8:35 AM
The Left’s problem? They actually believed him.
Obama had better not try to split Israel into two parts. He will have a problem of Biblical proportions.
REF: Joel 3:2
kingsjester on November 24, 2008 at 8:37 AM
I’m not a big fan of either Scowcroft or Haass, but as you say, it could be worse. Much worse.
Zorro on November 24, 2008 at 8:37 AM
I think we will see the One American idiots selected as president bounce between various camps of advisers.
Whatever seems expedient for his ambitions will be the orders of the day.
Right_of_Attila on November 24, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Obama will surely piss off his supporters. It is impossible to run this country responsibly based on how he said he was going to run it during his campaign. Hope and Change? Ha! More like more of the same and like it or not O’bummer will necessarily have to run the government a lot like Bush did.
Eat it Lefties! Now where’s my popcorn?
Guardian on November 24, 2008 at 8:38 AM
You seem to assume that the far left wing is going to be able to cost Obama something if they are upset. If he’s shown anything yet, Obama has demonstrated that he doesn’t feel like he owes the Netroots, MoveOn, et. al. a darned thing and will go his own way. Deep down he is, I expect, adopting the same attitude as we’ve seen from plenty of Republicans. He’ll be a pragmatist and go his own way, and when it’s time for reelection, they will still come along and support him, even if they grumble a bit. What else are they going to do? Vote for Palin? HA!
Jazz Shaw on November 24, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Time will yet tell on that.
Browncoatone on November 24, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Not nearly as wrong as your side will feel Obama has done you. There’s a word for Obama supporters. SUCKERS!
Guardian on November 24, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Barry is a Political Chameleon. Whatever the situation requires. He joined Rev. Wright’s church for political gain among Chicago’s Black community. He has surrounded himself with the Clintonistas because he does not know anything about how to lead a country. He will tap foreign poicy experts like Mr. Scowcroft because he knows nothing about Foreign policy.
All he knows how to do is dress in a suit and speak from a teleprompter.
It’s gonna be a looong four years.
kingsjester on November 24, 2008 at 8:45 AM
I guess we should never take a Marxist/Jihadist/Infant Murderer at his word…
Mini14 on November 24, 2008 at 8:47 AM
At this rate, he’ll have approval numbers comparable to W on the day he’s inaugurated.
RushBaby on November 24, 2008 at 8:47 AM
And that wouldn’t bother me so much if he wasn’t a socialist.
Browncoatone on November 24, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Obama was definitely lying to somebody during the campaign, in order to dupe the rubes into voting for him.
Question is, who are the rubes? The moderates who bought his centrist tack during the general or the leftists who got him the nomination during the primaries? Right now it looks like the leftists were the “useful idiots” (a position they should be familiar with by now) but only time will tell.
Gilda on November 24, 2008 at 8:50 AM
I think we are underestimating the sheer stupidity of the Obama supporters. I think it has been proven that they voted more out of emotion than anything else. They think the Republicans were in charge in Congress, they thought Palin campaigned in 57 states, etc… I think Obama and his supporters will continue to blame Bush for everything no matter what happens.
He warned us of coming attractions at his acceptance speech – won’t be quick, maybe not in a year, or even two. Maybe not even in 1 term.
And here……. we……. go.
JeffinOrlando on November 24, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Our liberal trolls w re correct for once? I don’t think so….
Right_of_Attila on November 24, 2008 at 8:54 AM
That’s the funny thing about stupidity, it can’t be underestimated.
thomasaur on November 24, 2008 at 8:56 AM
However, I see Scowcroft as a huge improvement over Susan Rice, Robert Malley, and Samantha Power.
Similar to being executed by firing squad rather than being strangled is a huge improvement? Small favors.
Bishop on November 24, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Grow,
Nahh. He’s just smart enough to know he was wrong about how the world works, (now that he’s actually getting intel briefings) and thank God for that. Step one to understanding US foreign policy-we support Israel. Most of the world hates Israel. Therefore, we will never be “respected” in the world; the first World Trade Center bombing was a testament to that…
I just hope Barry’s chameleon-ness becomes even more hawkish, up to and including Iran nuke site strikes…but I’m not holding my breath.
hippie_chucker on November 24, 2008 at 9:00 AM
I guess you guys were, um, wrong?
Obarfy isn’t President yet. Oh…wait…you thought he actually took office on November 4th, didn’t you?
Bishop on November 24, 2008 at 9:00 AM
I’m guessing we’ll be looking at the return of the Neville Chamberlain foreign policy…..
Now the real question is:
When the you-know-what hits the fan, who is gonna be our Winston Churchill?
mjk on November 24, 2008 at 9:02 AM
to dupe the rubes into voting for him.If, so he surely studies the Bush-Cheney playbook with regards to the evangelical right. Throw the dogs a bone and mock them as wackos in private.
Grow Fins on November 24, 2008 at 9:03 AM
It’s too bad. I really had hoped Obama would have tacked hard-left on foreign policy.
I still believe Obama is a hard-core leftist and that he WILL govern from the left. I believe a lot of this stuff is a ruse. Obama may bring some Republicans from GHWB’s administration-era into the fold so he can say he’s bipartisan.
But rest assured. SECSTATE Hillary will bring back Albright and her crew, all of which were impotent and incompetent. Holder will bring his corruption. Rahm Emanuel basically is a communist. And I promise you that Obama’s group of crazy lefties WILL occupy important positions within the White House, both on foreign policy matters and on other matters.
Outlander on November 24, 2008 at 9:10 AM
You mean using God and religion to appeal to atheists? Wow! You Lefties use some really odd circular logic. So now you are saying that O’bummer is following in his Masters footsteps. That’s rich.
Guardian on November 24, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Well, if he gives MoveOn.org a bloody nose, backs off his socialism mantra, and actually trys to prosecute electoral fraud I might have to give the HopeChanger a chance.
Browncoatone on November 24, 2008 at 9:14 AM
I suspect that the evil bastard about to take office will quickly find that campaign rhetoric rarely translates into substantive public policy. Normally, this discovery is made prior to being elected to the highest office but, there you have it. Obama’s first 100 days are going to be spent living down the great expectations and attempting to find himself when the White House shouldn’t be a place of self-discovery.
highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Throw the dogs a bone and mock them as wackos in private.
9 out of 10 clingers in Pennsylvania agree with that statement.
Bishop on November 24, 2008 at 9:18 AM
The rationalization by the Left of all upcoming Obama flip-flops and backtracks and changes are: “Well, at least it is not George Bush”.
Then they will go into the “truther” discussion about George Bush was really not elected President in the first place.
The Left really believes in nothing other than them being vocal.
albill on November 24, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Yeah like the return of Colin Powell or Maddie notsobright. I’m just glad to see that Obama isn’t filling all his posts with individuals who have zero experience.
highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Trolling, in its most refined form, can be mildly entertaining. So quickly resorting to “b-b-b-but Bush!!!” is spectacularly lame.
Is this your first week on the Internets?
Gilda on November 24, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Let’s face it, BO hasn’t a clue about a world he’s never seen and never known. We’re screwed.
Mojave Mark on November 24, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Ok, let me get this right.
-Obama has pissed off the far left
-Those on the right who didn’t vote for him already don’t like him
-Then there are all those who loved him prior to the election are going to feel disenchanted once they realize the hope/change thing isn’t going to happen.
Not to mention, all those who voted for Obama in the primary as an ‘anti-vote’ against Hillary. Now they get her in a big way, with all the Clinton drama that is certain to come.
Bush’s approval ratings are going to look real good pretty soon.
jcheney on November 24, 2008 at 9:26 AM
To me, it’s all about power consolidation/re-election/legacy building for Obama, than him having an ideological center.
He’s proven over and over again to tack with the winds, and while being a hardcore leftist served him well in Chicago and the primaries, he now is realizing that power consolidation will come from a more hawkish approach regarding foreign policy. I’m optimistic in that he’s tacking right, but realize that he’s only doing that to gain political capital and not appear weak to his electorate….he’s tossing out bread to us in the Colosseum, essentially.
hippie_chucker on November 24, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Obama could completely ban abortion (let alone adopt an anti-left foreign policy) and the left’s partisans would find a way to excuse it and own it. There will be no significant wailing from the Left and we should really drop this notion that Obama would shed any of his support if he moves to the right in any of his policies.
It will only get worse, so start caching any positive Bush foreign policy article you can find. We will need it later. . .
vinman on November 24, 2008 at 9:31 AM
While this is true in the absolute sense, I’ve come to the conclusion that many of the conflicting statements are intentional, and designed to leave the population at large uncertain about what the one truly believes or will do. I think this is a strategy to use the current state of information flow as a wielded weapon.
In the face of too much information, people stop looking at it all objectively and start filtering out what they want to see, need to see, and don’t care about. (Anyone who works in an e-mail based job can attest to this filtering effect.) The picture gets very ugly when there is a conflicting set of data. People who are not skilled critical thinkers will simply choose the information they believe to be accurate, based upon a feeling. That leaves the skillful use of the media as the manner in which to get the emotions of the electorate in tune with your desire to be elected.
This is exemplified by looking at critical issues that weren’t central themes in the campaign, such as the 24 hr turn around on Iran’s potential danger to the US, and the flip on clean coal vs. statements about bankrupting the coal industry. In the face of these, there shouldn’t be any surprise about changes down line to the central themes of the campaign, if you look at these events objectively.
How people can have expectations in light of that level of uncertainty is indicative of the level of hype that this election cycle generated. As a realist, the only expectation that I can articulate is that we’re in for a very rough ride.
My suspicions though, are many.
Marine_Bio on November 24, 2008 at 9:40 AM
I believe Obama personally is a hard-left guy. He’s not a bomb thrower like his buddies Ayers, Dohrn, Pfleger & Wright, but he’s definitely a left wing ideologue. What he’s doing is sending out signals that he’s going to tack to the right on certain issues (e.g. raising taxes and so forth), probably because his economic advisers are telling him that all Hell will break loose if he raises taxes this year.
However, we are not yet out of the woods. I have heard people on the Left saying things publicly like “the recession is striking fear into the hearts of people and to get rid of the fear, we need to pass national health care.” There will be an incredibly strong pull to the left…. The question will be, will Obama give in to that pressure, or will he dial back his commie takeover plans for a year to give the economy a chance to recover first?
Don’t think for a MOMENT that you are not going to see a hard left administration from Obama.
Outlander on November 24, 2008 at 9:47 AM
I’ll take Bush 41 people over Carter people any day of the week — and twice on Sunday.
jonezee on November 24, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Nobody with the slightest credibility has ever claimed that Obama is a Jihadist. As for being a Marxist, I think it’s pretty clear that he is one in his personal beliefs. But will he govern as one? No. He isn’t that stupid. I think he will stick to the center while trying to sneak in some (heavily disguised) leftist programs. If he gains a second term we may see a more blatantly leftist tone from his administration. I think Obama has the potential to cause a lot of damage to America, but we haven’t just elected Castro.
jic on November 24, 2008 at 10:00 AM
IF he tacks Right, they will just say that the junta which really runs the world took him aside and told him what he must do. That’s how conspiracy nutters think.
worlok on November 24, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Well, soon we’ll see who was right, Freddoso or Corsi.
Since, unlike the left, I don’t hate western civilization, let’s hope it was Freddoso. This is a step in that direction.
PimFortuynsGhost on November 24, 2008 at 10:07 AM
All the hope and change that is new, is strangely old again.
The election proves it is very easy to make idiot voters out of ignorant people. The gubbermint screwl system provides the ignorants in prodigious quantity.
tarpon on November 24, 2008 at 10:09 AM
I don’t think you are exactly grasping the schools of thought on foreign policy here. Brzezinski was much more of a Cold Warrior than Carter, he’s just tarnished by the administration he served in. He was actually responsible for splitting Carter’s cabinet and moving it toward a more Reagan like foreign policy during Carter’s last year.
As for Scowcroft, I prefer Kissinger, but its a lot better than the stuff Obama seemed to be going to in the primaries. For the record though Brzezinski and Scowcroft, as well as Henry, are all pretty close on foreign policy thought; they’re all anti neocon and probably would have opposes Iraq had they been serving under Bush.
eski502 on November 24, 2008 at 10:16 AM
eski is right. Believe it or not, Carter would actually have been an even bigger disaster without Ziggy. Hard to fathom, but true. Any spine the peanut farmer exhibited was due to Ziggy.
PimFortuynsGhost on November 24, 2008 at 10:28 AM
You may be right that the conflicting statements are all a strategy but all those special interests are expecting great things out Obama and sooner rather than later they expect to see results. It will be interesting to see if Obama is torn down with the same zeal he was built up or if there will simply be a growing disenchantment with the man. I suspect the latter.
highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 10:28 AM
My biggest problem with Scowcroft is that eight years of writing nasty op-ed pieces isn’t relevant public policy experience. He’s as out of touch with the reality as the evil bastard about to take office.
highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Outlander…you’re probably correct. I was just making the point that if Axelrod smells a path to more power, he’ll urge Obama to take it, whether it’s left, right, or center….power comes first, then ideology with Obama-he’s proven that again and again. Disqualifiying candidates who oppose him, but positioning himself as someone who helps disenfranchised voters at the same time, etc etc…
hippie_chucker on November 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM
bambi is a socialist at best. he is not a jihadist because that would mean backing up your ideals with your life. i think bambi is too much of a coward for that. ‘course, he might back up his ideals with your life.
kelley in virginia on November 24, 2008 at 10:32 AM
This just reinforces my idea that Obama doesn’t have a clue what he is doing.
He still has a lot of
favors to honorpositions to fill.This guy is simply not a leader, and to be honest, very few on the left know how to truly lead at any level of government.
We’re going to have 4 years of government by committee, heavy on opinion polling and focus groups and light on conviction and leadership.
But hey, I’m sure we’ll see several thousand light hearted stories over the next few months that turn the White House into some reality show. The MSM will keep the focus on great stories like what the Obamas had for lunch, Michelle’s outfits, all the “firsts” for the Obamas in the White House, and wonderful stories about movie stars and celebs staying over.
reaganaut on November 24, 2008 at 10:34 AM
No, ‘useful tools’ come to mind.
Sir Napsalot on November 24, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Obama strikes me as risk averse (its familiar, I tend to be that way myself). The problem is that it is necessary to take some risks, for various reasons. Risk taking is essential for the businesses, and often healthy in the form of marginal tax rate cuts. In foreign policy, if you do not take risks, then you will be at the mercy of foreign powers, as all they have to do to control your behavior is create risk.
Of course, risk taking should not be confused with the over reach and disruptive behavior of FDR. Sometimes, the most important risk to take is to do nothing, and let things play out.
Count to 10 on November 24, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I probably wasn’t as clear as I should have been. You’re right about the special interests having an expectation, and I suspect that you’re also correct about the decline being an erosion in enthusiasm for the one.
I was actually talking about the average person’s expectations. I know of several Obama supporters who think that he’ll do something great for the economy, but cant tell me what policy he supports that they believe will do this. They’re the portion of the electorate that will be most affected by the problems we’ll be facing under his presidency, because they’ll be surprised when whatever he tries to do fails. Economies fix themselves or fail based upon public confidence, not govenrment intervention.
Since he has no executive experience, we’ll see what he does. I don’t think I’ll be surprised by anything unless he actually makes a good decision. (Which I’m not expecting)
Marine_Bio on November 24, 2008 at 10:41 AM
That does seem to be the way things are going already, doesn’t it?
Count to 10 on November 24, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Darn transposition errors.
govenrmentgovernment.Marine_Bio on November 24, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Interesting times. The left complained about Gov Palin and her supposedly wanting to upend the Constitution and impose a theocracy, should she be elected, even though her record as legislator and Governor was of a pragmatic Governor with strong beliefs but who defended the Constitution even when it conflicted with her personal beliefs.
In Obama we appear to have the reverse. He doesn’t have strong personal beliefs and is willing to tack those beliefs to gain personal benefits. So everyone will have to hang onto the sides of the boat cause it may be a bumpy ride. At least for now, hopenchange looks alot like BushI/Clinton. Hope all you libs are on board for that.
eaglewingz08 on November 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM
George HW Bush, Scowcroft and “Chicken Kiev”. Great foreign policy direction.
runner on November 24, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Well, Powell is a big supporter of this thinking. BO probally made an agreement with Powell to put Powell’s people in charge of foreign policy ideas.
BroncosRock on November 24, 2008 at 10:56 AM
OK,,,,, We shall see…..
DL13 on November 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM
I’m not sure what to believe about Obama at this point–he has changed his mind so many times on so many issues.
Before the election, the Bush Administration was rather mum on foreign policy–they let McCain do the talking, and McCain IS solid on foreign policy, although the election revolved around the economy. But once Obama won the election, the Bush Administration probably realized they had a dangerous greenhorn as a successor, and he needed to be educated in a BIG hurry. Yes, Barry Hussein, there are REAL enemies out there who want to KILL us, and you can’t just talk them out of it, like what he proposed during the primaries!
Whether or not Know-Nothing-Bama really learned his lessons remains to be seen. For now, he is under the tutelage of the Bushies, and Obama knows that if he makes any brash and/or naive foreign policy moves, the Bush White House can make trouble for him, perhaps by Executive Order to strip the Presidency of some of its own power, or by scaring the lame-duck Congress into hamstringing Obama.
But once the Community Organizer (aka Rabble Rouser) takes office, will he announce heart-to-heart talks with Putin and Chavez and AhmaNutJob, and throw his current centrist moves under the bus as “campaign rhetoric”, as he did with his NAFTA positions?
This new-found foreign-policy centrism could either be a reality check and a realization that he needs some adults in the room, or just a head fake to the lame-duck Bushies who still hold power for now.
Joe Biden had it right. Gird your loins.
Steve Z on November 24, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I would be very surprised if he is open to the media. There were complaints about this with Bush, but I suspect Obama will be even more elusive. So, when he has these little heart-to-heart chats, they will be in private, and we will never know what really was said.
Unfortunately I think Obama loves AhmaNutJob, and he’ll be right behind Odinga staying in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Marine_Bio on November 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM
I see two possibilities here, each scary in its own way.
Barry could have just realized that he is in WAY over his head, and unlike the rest of his life, he will now actualy be held accountable for his decisions. Or, in other words, he’s finally growing up.
OR,
Its a Machieavellian Mastroika, to mix idioms. He is purposefully putting his enemies (Hillary, Gates, Repubs) in charge of a no win situation, while he will put forward his Socialist Domestic agenda. Things on the foreign policy front are a mess, and he will let Hill and the Repubs take the blame for any setbacks… Flips the Constitutuin on its head (President is all about foreign policy, less so domestic), but with the lack of real knowledge in his power base, it may work….
All depends on Barry’s intellectual leanings… what he is really after… and that, sadly, we don’t know.
Romeo13 on November 24, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Ed, though you’ve got lots of company, you’re way off in introducing terms like “Wilsonian” or “pragmatic”. Dubya didn’t knock off the Taliban or Saddam out of some sudden and narrow zeal to spread democracy. It was taking offense, militarily, against the enemy. Did Dubya’s CIA director tell him that installing democracy in Iraq was a “slam dunk”? Uh – no. He was referring to another subject, the one that actually was the sine qua non of the whole war rationale.
Influencing areas we conquer towards more becoming open societies under rule of law is pragmatic, as it assists our cause, and also happens to be congruent with our values. It motivates all sorts of unreadable prose in op-eds and journals, and a fair amount of foreign aid spending and scholarships – but it has nothing to do with pulling the trigger on an Afghanistan or Iraq. It is actually troubling to see the more savvy observers adopting this silly false framework for understanding or discussing serious issues. Supporting “kleptocrats” and dictators, in various places and times, was the right thing to do, usually done because no better choice existed. 9/11 changed lots of calculations, in a spectacular but utterly conventional way.
BTW, we still support most of the kleptocrats we were supporting pre-9/11 – again because it’s the best available course of action.
Scowcroft and Powell and Haass would be better than the idiot crew you mentioned in the same sense that Obama is better than Gravel or Kucinich – there isn’t the slightest chance that any of their stuff would ever be tried, anyway. Cold comfort doesn’t beging to describe it.
Scowcroft et al are to more competent guides (Bolton, Rumsfeld) what the unserious Dem opposition in the early 90s were to Bush I’s team. Recall the Dems were against taking action WRT Kuwait (as was, incredibly, Powell), and Scowcroft and company had to be the adults. But it was mostly George H.W. Bush’s personal leadership and decisiveness that mattered there (I’ve read that the NSC staff was stunned when Bush made his famous “this will not stand” statement after stepping off Marine One on the South Lawn – they watched it live on TV like everyone else – having dealt with Haas from way back I can’t imagine he WASN’T one of those stunned).
Best short way of putting it, for me, has always been that Scowcroft types couldn’t “make the turn” after 9/11. They are/were vastly the better sort to deal with a bipolar, static, marginalist international competition, of the sort that ended with Soviet power. (better than the then-alternatives) But they’ve been very disappointingly timid and unrealistic when dealing with the far more dynamic game that the GWOT represents.
If you liked the last 3 years of Dubya’s foreign policy (apart from Iraq/Afghanistan), you’re gonna love a Scowcroft-style foreign policy – cede the initiative to adversaries, engage the unreliable/treacherous, try things that have failed 1,000 times before. The Dubya of the abrogated ABM Treaty, the Rose Garden challenge to the Palestinians, the full-court press against North Korea – THAT was a realistic foreign policy, which didn’t shy away from short-term costs in a futile search for painless and popular “solutions”.
In a dynamic environment such as today’s, the “pragmatic” Scowcroft approach (which itself would probably stretch Obama to his limits, as he seems extremely cautious and amazingly ignorant) is the more dangerous, costly, riskier one.
IceCold on November 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM
I just don’t see how he’s going to get anything of substance accomplished. He’ll make a big show about lifting the ban on federal dollars for abortions and research, he’ll close GITMO which is a far easier process than figuring out what to do with the very bad people housed there, there will be a lot of back slapping as the smug and arrogant feel good about getting Obama into office…. but then what? The President needs to be a leader not a manager. Where is the vision and purpose? What does Obama really stand for (and stand against). Inquiring minds want to know.
Ultimately he is going to be a disappointment because the expections are so high and so vague that he can’t possibly do a single thing without “betraying” some group of worshipers. He’s not even following through on creating a new type of government since virtually everybody are partisans from the Clinton years.
highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Cue theme from
…..
Government by committee is fine in a stable environment. We are not in a stable environment and whether it is the economy, the GWOT, or some other trigger point; at some point the nation will need a leader. Jimmy Carter failed miserably because he wasn’t a leader at all. Ronald Reagan was wildly successful because wheter you agreed with him or not, he led. Both Bush Presidencies and the Clinton era of bad stewardship are somewhere in the middle with leadership on some issues muddled with managerial approaches.
highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Don’t think that Hillary will be the only person in Obama’s cabinet with vagina…male or otherwise.
Wyznowski on November 24, 2008 at 12:24 PM
But who do you think will be behind the scenes pulling the strings. BO will put several “republicans” in “advisory rolls” to make it look good. He might even tack right for a bit to get the people looking the other way. Then when crisis hits, he will revert to form. He is following the Marxist playbook to a tee. I forget the name of the book by his professor buddy, but the outline is there. Oddly, it is also very similar to the Islamic pattern of taking over countries. Look pretty on the outside and have propaganda showing how nice you are, but preaching hate to your followers.
Corsair on November 24, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Scurry scurry little furry
Why don’t they enlist Joe Wilson and get it over with?
He has the depth they need
entagor on November 24, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Opportunist. That is all Obama is. He will do whatever works for him and then find a way to seel it to his dedicated cultists. Perhaps all of this is part of what Biden was talking about when he said that Obama would do something unpopular.
Terrye on November 24, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Hope?
Yeah, I know, I`ll wake up any minute and come to my senses.
ThePrez on November 24, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Yup, I’m girding my loins…… with plenty of 12-ga, 30-06 and 9mm ammo.
UltimateBob on November 24, 2008 at 4:25 PM