Behind Obama and Clinton
Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly disappointed by the similarity of the foreign policy positions of the two remaining Democratic Party presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. However, there are still some real discernable differences to be taken into account. Indeed, given the power the United States has in the world, even minimal differences in policies can have a major difference in the lives of millions of people.
As a result, the kind of people the next president appoints to top positions in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs is critical. Such officials usually emerge from among a presidential candidate’s team of foreign policy advisors. So, analyzing who these two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination have brought in to advise them on international affairs can be an important barometer for determining what kind for foreign policies they would pursue as president. For instance, in the case of the Bush administration, officials like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle played a major role in the fateful decision to invade Iraq by convincing the president that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat and that American forces would be treated as liberators.
The leading Republican candidates have surrounded themselves with people likely to encourage the next president to follow down a similarly disastrous path. But what about Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Who have they picked to help them deal with Iraq war and the other immensely difficult foreign policy decisions that they’ll be likely to face as president?
Contrasting Teams
Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton’s administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor - and her likely choice for Secretary of State - is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband’s administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter’s assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto’s repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.
Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
Contrasting Issues
While some of Obama’s key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton’s advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.
While Obama advisors Susan Rice and Samantha Power have stressed the importance of U.S. multilateral engagement, Albright allies herself with the jingoism of the Bush administration, taking the attitude that “If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future.”
While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.
Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that “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.
Iraq as Key Indicator
Perhaps the most important difference between the two foreign policy teams concerns Iraq. Given the similarities in the proposed Iraq policies of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Obama’s supporters have emphasized that their candidate had the better judgment in opposing the invasion beforehand. Indeed, in the critical months prior to the launch of the war in 2003, Obama openly challenged the Bush administration’s exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat and presciently warned that a war would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism, terrorism, and regional instability, as well as a decline in America’s standing in the world.
Senator Clinton, meanwhile, was repeating as fact the administration’s false claims of an imminent Iraqi threat. She voted to authorize President Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and confidently predicted success. Despite this record and Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote, however, her supporters argue that it no longer relevant and voters need to focus on the present and future.
Indeed, whatever choices the next president makes with regard to Iraq are going to be problematic, and there are no clear answers at this point. Yet one’s position regarding the invasion of Iraq at that time says a lot about how a future president would address such questions as the use of force, international law, relations with allies, and the use of intelligence information.
As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.
Pre-War Positions
During the lead-up to the war, Obama’s advisors were suspicious of the Bush administration’s claims that Iraq somehow threatened U.S. national security to the extent that it required a U.S. invasion and occupation of that country. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor in the Carter administration, argued that public support for war “should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy.”
By contrast, Clinton’s top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”
Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America’s leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.
Another key Obama advisor, Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment, argued that the goal of containing the potential threat from Iraq had been achieved, noting that “Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression. Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in WMD capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people.”
By contrast, Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband’s national security advisor, insisted that “even a contained Saddam” was “harmful to stability and to positive change in the region,” and therefore the United States had to engage in “regime change” in order to “fight terror, avert regional conflict, promote peace, and protect the security of our friends and allies.”
Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors, such as Larry Korb, raised concerns about the human and material costs of invading and occupying a heavily populated country in the Middle East and the risks of chaos and a lengthy counter-insurgency war.
And other top advisors to Senator Clinton - such as her husband’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright - confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force 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. Perhaps that was one reason that, 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.
These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposed views in the lead-up to the war.
National Security
Not every one of Clinton’s foreign policy advisors is a hawk. Her team also includes some centrist opponents of the war, including retired General Wesley Clark and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
On balance, it appears likely that a Hillary Clinton administration, like Bush’s, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars. By contrast, a Barack Obama administration would be more prone to examine the actual evidence 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.
Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama’s foreign policy agenda. At the same time, as The Nation magazine noted, members of Obama’s foreign policy team are “more likely to stress ’soft power’ issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states.” As a result, “Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.”
And new approaches are definitely needed.
Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.
Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies
I was in Rick’s Café in Casablanca the night Major Strasser and the other Nazis started singing Watch on the Rhine. Victor Laszlo got up and had Rick’s house band play La Marseillaise. Everyone tearfully, ecstatically, rose to their feet and began singing, drowning out the Germans. I was there. I have thought of that moment every day since. I am very old now and it will probably be the last thing that crosses my mind as I take my final breath. There are no Victor Laszlos seeking the American presidency but there are plenty of Major Strassers. To McCain and Romney and Clinton and Obama I say this: I knew Victor Laszlo and you’re no Victor Laszlos.
Marlene D. Trick…outstanding post.
I am sure that Hillary Clinton’s supporters will be Shocked! Shocked! to find that there are saber rattling militarists among her advisors.
Round up the usual suspects!
We were misinformed.
Thank you Marlene D Trick. That was an incredible moment in your life, and affirms the power of the human spirit. Your sharing that experience fills me with the surge of strength duress can produce.
Barack Obama may not be the progressive dream (although I don’t rule out that ultimately he might turn out to be just that) but he doesn’t look to me at all like the reject that Clinton is. We know where Clinton would take us - down Bush’s path. But surely we’re getting an inkling of where Obama wants to go with our country. It’s a direction I can go. Always before, I would vote for a hopeless candidate because I refuse to hold my nose and vote for someone I don’t want to see President. But now, I want to see Obama President. Yes, he does things I wouldn’t do and my ideal candidates wouldn’t do. But neither they or I could ever get anywhere the Oval Office. He doesn’t fight dirty and he doesn’t cheat. He fights, but he keeps it clean. Alice Palmer invited him to run for her Illinois state Senate seat when she decided to run for US Congress. But when she lost the primary she asked for it back. Naturally a gentleman would have held it for her. But in politics gentlemen are losers. Obama said “No”. She then ran against him and he challenged her petition signatures, which did not hold up under scrutiny. He didn’t do anything illegal immoral or unethical. I believe he has a clear vision of where this country needs to go and I agree with that direction. I think we have an opportunity here and am wondering if the Democrats are the only ones who can’t resist snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
kathyodat
Funny, but Obama’s frenzied, totally uncritical supporters, not to mention their shills in the media, remind me of nothing so much as Major Strasser and company standing up to sing “Watch on the Rhine.” If Hillary Clinton is the female candidate, why is is that so many of Obama’s supporters are–oh, I don’t know–hysterical?
Very good Marlene. If fits the American political atmosphere perfectly. Everybody wants to be a player and they know how to talk to remain a player. None of them really wants to change the system, they just want to keep playing Uncle Sam.
Hoa binh
this is a very important article. Thank you Stephen for writing it! It is extremely important to know who is advising the candidates on foreign policy. I have been concerned about Albright and Holbrook advising Hillary, but didn’t know much about who was advising Obama. Now we know that there is a clear difference. The candidates’ advisers are indicative of how the candidate thinks. I much prefer this list of Obama advisers. I think it shows that Obama will be a much more progressive leader than Hillary.
And remember folks, Albright is the one who said “it was worth it” when asked about the tragedy of 500,000 children who died in Iraq of illness and malnutrition caused by Bill Clinton’s embargo and bombing of Iraq long before the Iraq war.
I get this creeping feeling that many/most supporters of both candidates only support them out of a belief that either a woman or an African-American can do better.
Two words: Condi Rice.
Prediction: Clinton will get the nomination (because the Republicans want her). Gen. Clark will be her running mate. McCain will select Giuliani as his running mate (thereby getting the fix from Karl Rove). And will win the election with people once again questioning the computerized voting machines.
Um, the TWO remaining Democratic Party presidential candidates?
We all realize the mainstream media has been playing up the “horse-race” between Obama and Clinton, but I expected better of Common Dreams. There are still THREE Democratic Party presidential candidates! Anyone remember Mike Gravel?
At the very least, Common Dreams could have added a ‘disclaimer’ or correction above this article. This is very disappointing.
I’m with Paladin… all candidates should be allowed in the debates and discussion. Their ideas need to be heard.
Thank you professor Zunes.
Far too few are willing to examine the handlers behind these candidates. The one name that stands out is Zbigniew Brzezinski. I advise all to check out his past influence in government and to read his books “The Grand Chessboard” and “Between Two Ages”. This man is the Kissinger of the so-called left.
It is telling that there are just ten comments preceding this one.
“We simply ‘will’ not to see whatever is too difficult for us to bear or whatever bulks too large for our understanding.” –Jacques Ellul
Brzezinski? You mean the Carter advisor who bragged about giving arms to the muhjadeen in Afghanistan in July, prompting the Soviet invasion later that year?
The one who said it was worth it, because what was a few riled up Muslims compared to the glory of bringing down the Soviet Union? (And impoverishing its people and looting its wealth).
That was July, 1979. Sorry to leave it out
That’s the one. Now why would any self-described liberal have this monster in his cabinet?
As for Marlene “Tricks” comment (the first one above) it was a “trick” indeed. Rick’s Cafe did not exist in fact but was part of a 1942 movie, “Casablanca” starring Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman. If Ms “Trick” was ever present at Victor Laszio’s singing of La Marseillaise, it was because she was an extra on the movie set.
“. . .Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote . . .her supporters argue that it no longer relevant and voters need to focus on the present and future.”- - S. Zunes
Yoohoo, Clinton supporters: Her refusal is very relevant. It suggests that she would make a similar mistake in similar circumstances, e.g. with regard to Iran; e.g. like voting for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.
And while Brzezinski has made some questionable calls in the past, his testimony to Congress with regard to Iraq is as sensible and reasonable as it gets. Is there ANYONE among Clinton’s advisors that has done such a coherent critique? Anyone? http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001916.php
Marlene’s post at the top of this thread is by far the most brilliant post i have ever seen on Common Dreams. And fast enough to get it first in queue! If i could compose one post of such brilliance before i died, i would die a satisfied man. i’m very happy to see that several readers understood the post and responded in kind. Thanks for the lift!
WmC,
“And while Brzezinski has made some questionable calls in the past, his testimony to Congress with regard to Iraq is as sensible and reasonable as it gets.”
In terms of geopolitics in 1979, using the mujahadin to combat the USSR and the Afghan resistance as a symbol of Soviet imperialism was a very canny way of restoring the balance between the blocs & make the Soviets more tractable in negotiations & discredit them in the eyes of revolutionaries, which it effectively did. That it would be part of the general collapse of the Soviet bloc & what villain the US would choose to fill the role of global threat was on the far reaches of political imagination at the time.
Great article. Thank you Dr. Zunes.
Now…who are their economic advisors? Possibly even more important than foreign policy although the 2 are intertwined in many ways these days. For example: OIL as an impetus for an invasion; if Iraq grew Broccoli we wouldn’t be there.
This is not WWII
We are no longer fighting Nazis or a group like them.
Nationalism will not offer a solution to the problems we are facing now
marlene d(ietrich) died in 1992
………………….
Stephen Zunes is brilliant and informative.
This is 1984
No, we are no longer fighting the Nazis, we are the Nazis.
It has been 1984 for a good many years now.
tailcap—sad that your comment is too damned close to the truth to be totally funny. Whatever shall we do to take our country back?
Damn good question! Can the brains out there please weigh in.
Let’s see, in this corner there’s “Brzezinski [who] has made some questionable calls in the past…” such as?? Supporting: Marcos, Suharto, supporting the military dictator of the day in Pakistan, arming the Mujahideen to suck the Soviets into a war in Afghanistan, supporting the military in El Salvador despite pleas from Archbishop Romero not to do so, and perhaps the most enlightened move of all, propping up the Shah of Iran.
And in the other corner we have Albright, who oversaw the deliberate application of sanctions that resulted in the deaths of more than half a million children in Iraq without firing a shot, who imposed “No fly” zones, with no basis in law or fact to do so, the bombing of Baghdad during Clinton’s impeachment, the bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, choosing to destroy the civilian infrastructure in Serbia which included the TV station and the Chinese Embassy, the refusal to recognize the rights of Pacific Marshall Islanders. And for both the continued incarceration of Leonard Peletier, meddling in and emasculation of Aristide in Haiti, occupation of Palestine and I am sure I have left off many more accomplishments of note, but these are a few of those I can recall off hand. Someone else can continue to fill in the history. Why am I not thrilled by either of these two heavyweight contenders? How much of a mass murderer is too much? And why should any progressive give either one their support??
Great review, 4thefuture. It’s too bad candidates must produce an obligatory hawk to reassure the masses they will be safe.
Marlene D Trick caught me all right. You’re sharp, Gene Therapy.
kathyodat
Mike Gravel, democratic candidate, for President. It is funny how the supposed progressives silence his hame as well.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a hundred times, and keep fooling me, cause I’m a Democratic Party supporter.
When will people learn that Obama (or Hillary) will not even be as good as they say they will be, much less be better.
When we are desparate, we grasp at straws.
Instead grasp for a third party, or Green Party. It is why the democrats work so hard at silencing Nader, because he has an actual message that would change the status quo.
Don’t fall for another one, don’t pull a Charlie Brown. The democratic party is going to snatch the football away, regardless of what they promise you. Again.
so it goes…
I was just reading over on Juan Cole’s Informed Consent blog the following poll numbers. In CA, 92% of Dems and 42% of Republicans oppose the war.
When even half the Republicans oppose the war, it becomes an interesting question why the Democrats continue to support the war. When you look at these lists of ‘advisors’ to the Dems, it starts to become clearer. A good number of these people would be on trial for war crimes in a just society.
Yep, that’s today’s Democratic Party …. with the blood of millions on its hands …. and promising to do a better job of managing the Evil Empire than the Republicans.
The amazing part is that the Dems still manage to persist in the con that electing a candidate with a (D) after their name will make a difference.
Hmmmm…female? African-American?
Cynthia McKinney. As much as I like Ralph it’s time he put down the Kool-Aid and get behind Ms. McKinney. She is not the Green candidate yet, but neither are the others for the corporate parties.
Oh, and getting rid of Pelosi is just as important. We should all be throwing money at Cindy Sheehan as well.
Wow - Gene Therapy - you mean she WASN’T ACTUALLY THERE?? Could it be that she was making some kind of allegorical point? No, she was clearly trying to fool us with some kind of trickery. I bet she some kind of godless liberal!
Well done for missing the point entirely.
If nominated, I will vote for Obama. If this party is screwed up as to elect Hillary with all her past baggage, I’ll vote for McCain.
With Obama there hope for some changes for the good. With Hillary, we’ll get nothing more than 4 years of political bickering and hate in this country. People will be more inclined to give Obama room to govern hoping for something new. With Hillary, the hate will trap her into political infighting. Remember, half the country does not trust her and this smilin face she’s showing is nothing more then a decieving election mask.