Obama's Bush Doctrine: "not the change so many expected"

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: Obama's Bush Doctrine
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, November 28, 2008; Page A29

In electing Barack Obama, the country traded the foreign policy of the second President Bush for the foreign policy of the first President Bush. That is the meaning of Obama's apparent decision to keep Robert Gates on as defense secretary and also to select Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. With strong ties to the military and a carefully cultivated image of tough-mindedness, Clinton will protect the incoming president's back from those on the right ready to pounce at any sign of what they see as weakness. As for Gates, Obama has found the ideal figure to help him organize his planned withdrawal from Iraq, and to bless it.

What's most striking about Obama's approach to foreign policy is that he is less an idealist than a realist who would advance American interests by diplomacy, by working to improve the country's image abroad, and by using military force prudently and cautiously. This sounds a lot like the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush, and it makes perfect sense that Obama has had conversations with the senior Bush's closest foreign policy adviser, Brent Scowcroft. Obama has drawn counsel from many in Scowcroft's circle, and Gates himself was deputy national security adviser under Scowcroft.

The truth about Obama's worldview was hidden in plain sight in his most politically consequential foreign policy speech. Antiwar Democrats cheered Obama for addressing a rally against the Iraq war in Chicago's Federal Plaza on Oct. 2, 2002....Obama did indeed denounce the impending war as "dumb," "rash" and "based not on reason but on passion." But in retrospect, the speech may be most notable for other things Obama said that separated him from some in his antiwar audience. Not once but five times did Obama declare, "I don't oppose all wars."...The thrust of his argument against the Iraq invasion was a classic realist's critique of a war he denounced as "ideological." It would, he said, "require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." It also would "fan the flames of the Middle East" and "strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

In fact, Obama sounded a great deal like -- Brent Scowcroft. In a widely noted 2002 op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, published six weeks before Obama gave his speech, Scowcroft warned that an invasion of Iraq "very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation." Going to Iraq, Scowcroft said, would "divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism," and it could "destabilize Arab regimes in the region," "stifle any cooperation on terrorism" and "even swell the ranks of the terrorists." Clinton, who once said that "we have to be both internationalists and realists," is a natural fit with the new Obama-Scowcroft-Gates establishment. In explaining the appeal of Clinton, a senior Obama adviser recently spoke several times of the president-elect's respect for her "toughness" and described the practical reasons for choosing a figure who would have instant credibility around the world....

Obama's national security choices are already causing grumbling from parts of the antiwar left, even if Obama made clear six years ago that while he was with them on Iraq, he was not one of them.

Ironically, Obama is likely to show more fidelity to George H.W. Bush's approach to foreign affairs than did the former president's own son. That's change, maybe even change we can believe in, but it's not the change so many expected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR2008112702048.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Submariner]

1. I get a kick out of these dickheads like Dionne, Frum, et al all seem

to know what is going on in Obama's mind and make predictions they are clueless about. Just like their essays on their hero Dubya. What a bunch of f'ing mooks.

[liberalpragmatist]

2. EJ Dionne is very good

He's been a great columnist throughout.

[aquart]

5. Please show me the column that proves Dionne admired W.

You seem to know such a column exists. I'd like to read it.

[theboss]

8. It would shock Dionne to find out that W is his hero

Perhaps you could find the proof of that.

[elleng]

3. "[A] realist

who would advance American interests by diplomacy, by working to improve the country's image abroad, and by using military force prudently and cautiously" sounds like Wes Clark to me.

[Kalyke]

7. And, yet, once again, he seems to be getting ignored.

I'm pretty tired of it, myself: everyone copying his words and never crediting him or bringing him into the fold in an active capacity.

[elleng]

9. I agree,

but Wes has said that he's ok when his ideas are used; that's his test for SUCCESS. It may help him to know that WE recognize it when it occurs.

[anonymous171]

4. tl;dr Obama has always been consistent on foreign policy, but nobody bothered to listen.

[Bandit]

6. Well I hope Obama chooses a different path than Bush's

People just never seem to get that we are all in this world together and our foreign policy has direct impact upon our domestic policy and our economic conditions. Bush brought us near to depression and his son brought us there. Clinton came along and changed the direction of America and we witnessed the "Greatest Economic Expansion in History" and it had very much to do with our foreign policy. I suspect Obama will follow Clinton's foreign policy far more than he will Bush's..I find nothing and I mean NOTHING beneficial from Bush's foreign policy. I even believe with diplomacy we could have gotten Saddam to leave Kuwait without anyone ever firing a shot..The Bush's just are not into talking to people. They are into telling people how it is going to be.."Read My Lips" not "Let's discuss this".