COMMENTS: 55
Obama Gathering a Flock of Hawks to Oversee U.S. Foreign Policy
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.
In disc golf, there's a shot known as "an Obama" -- it's a drive that you expect to veer to the left but keeps hooking right.
In no other area has this metaphor been truer than Barack Obama's foreign policy and national security appointments. For a man who was elected in part on the promise to not just end the war in Iraq but to "end the mindset that got us into war in the first place," it's profoundly disappointing that a majority of his key appointments -- Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Dennis Blair, Janet Napolitano, Richard Holbrooke and Jim Jones, among others -- have been among those who represent that very mindset.
As president, Obama is ultimately the one in charge, so judgment should not be based upon his appointments alone. Indeed, some of his early decisions regarding foreign policy and national security – such as ordering the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, initiating the necessary steps for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, and ending the "global gag rule" on funding for international family-planning programs – have been quite positive.
But it's still significant that the majority of people appointed to key foreign policy positions, like those in comparable positions in the Bush administration, appear to be more committed to U.S. hegemony than the right of self-determination, human rights and international law.
Supporters of Wars of Conquest
Though far from the only issue of concern, it is the fact that the majority of Obama's appointees to these key positions were supporters of the invasion of Iraq that is perhaps the most alarming.
Obama's defenders claim that what is most important in these appointments is not their positions on a particular issue, but their overall competence. Unfortunately, this argument ignores the reality that anybody who actually believed that invading Iraq was a good idea amply demonstrated that they're unqualified to hold any post dealing with foreign and military policy.
It was not simply a matter of misjudgment. Those who supported the war demonstrated a dismissive attitude toward fundamental principles of international law, and disdain for the United Nations Charter and international treaties which prohibit aggressive war. They demonstrated a willingness to either fabricate a non-existent threat or naively believe transparently false and manipulated intelligence claiming such a threat existed, ignoring a plethora of evidence from weapons inspectors and independent arms control analysts who said that Iraq had already achieved at least qualitative disarmament. Perhaps worst of all, they demonstrated an incredible level of hubris and stupidity in imagining that the United States could get away with an indefinite occupation of a heavily populated Arab country with a strong history of nationalism and resistance to foreign domination.
Nor does it appear that they were simply fooled by the Bush administration's manufactured claims of an Iraqi threat. For example, Napolitano, after acknowledging that there were not really WMDs in Iraq as she had claimed prior to the invasion, argued that "In my view, there were lots of reasons for taking out Saddam Hussein." Similarly, Clinton insisted months after the Bush administration acknowledged the absence of WMDs that her vote in favor of the resolution authorizing the invasion "was the right vote" and was one that, she said, "I stand by."
Clearly, then, despite their much-touted "experience," these nominees have demonstrated, through their support for the Bush administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq, a profound ignorance of the reality of the Middle East and an arrogant assumption that peace, stability and democratic governance can be created through the application of U.S. military force.
Given that the majority of Democrats in Congress, a larger majority of registered Democrats nationally, and an even larger percentage of those who voted for Obama opposed the decision to invade Iraq, it is particularly disappointing that Obama would choose his vice-president, chief of staff, secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Homeland Security and special envoy to Afghanistan and Iraq from the right-wing minority who supported the war.
But the Iraq War isn't the only foreign policy issue where these Obama nominees have demonstrated hawkish proclivities. In previous articles, I have raised concerns regarding the positions of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Below is a list of some additional foreign policy appointees who are troubling ...
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jay Randal on Jan 30, 2009 12:21 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» During his campaign I said he had a record, 6 CFR advisors ....
Posted by: Prophit
» Here is another reason to be afraid... this from a dual Israeli citizen...
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Comments are closed-
Posted by: weathered on Jan 30, 2009 1:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AIPAC will be Obama's undoing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: too many rats in the woodpile. I agree. AIPAC will be Obama's undoing. Oh really?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» AIPAC vs the blacks
Posted by: barefeet
» RE: AIPAC vs the blacks
Posted by: empty
» You know what is worse??? They can do here what they do....
Posted by: Prophit
» Oh my Gawd, I had no idea..... do you have a link for this information?
Posted by: Prophit
» They may have the will, but they don't have the same money.....
Posted by: Prophit
» RE: Manuel 'the weasel' gets another Woody
Posted by: patriaaustria
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BobBrrz on Jan 30, 2009 4:24 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Obama is a puppet: "constitutional government" is DEAD
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Artra on Jan 30, 2009 5:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It is not the best omen that the future United States president repeats over and over,
without trembling his voice, that he will mantain with Israel the 'special relation' that unites both countries, in particular the unconditional support that the White House dispenses to the represive (represive is a too little as saying) policy with which israelian rulers (and why not governed citizens too?) have martyred the palestinian people by all possible manners and means. If Barack Obama doesn't find abhorrent to drink his tee with executioners and war criminals, good profit to him, but hi is not to count on honest people. Other of his colleague presidents did it before without needing another justification than such 'special relation' with which have given coverage to all ignominies deviced by the two countries against the national rights of the palestinians.
All along the election campaign Barack Obama, had it been by personal experience or political strategy, knew how to show himself as a dedicated father. That allows me to suggest him to tell a story to his daughters before they sleep, the story of a ship that was transporting four tons of medicines to rescue Gazan population in that terrible sanitary situation they are facing, and that such ship, Dignity is its name, has been destroyed by israelian naval forces attack because it did not have authorization to tie up in their coasts (did I believe, utter ignorant, that Gazan coasts were palestinian...) Might he not become surprised if one of his daughters, or both to choir, tell him: dad, we know what a special relation is, its called crime complicity".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: so, does Obama simply hate the people of Gaza, or is he fooled by the jews?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» There are many entries to solve several problems simultaneously and of roots. Just needs Will.
Posted by: Artra
» RE: so, does Obama simply hate the people of Gaza, or is he fooled by the jews?
Posted by: Jeffrey Levy
» Thats exactly what happened to Kennedy.... he got snuffed...
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beandang on Jan 30, 2009 6:18 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RT
Privacy Center
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: lame
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Don't click that link!
Posted by: GuitarBill
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 30, 2009 7:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I look forward to you Obamabots getting SMASHED just like the Bush die-hards got it !
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Nope, I'm a ULTRAPROUD Nader voter who stayed progressive and liberal while
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» What??? Do you realize that military guy is working for Bush...?
Posted by: Prophit
» RE: What??? Do you realize that military guy is working for Bush...?
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeffrey Levy on Jan 30, 2009 8:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead, Obama stood against the invasion simply because it would not succeed; he has, for example, never mentioned the one million Iraqi civilians we have killed, nor suggested that the perpetrators of the crime of aggression -- George Bush and Dicky Cheney, et. al. -- should be prosecuted.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» How did Obama stand "against the invasion" while voting to fund the war?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: How did Obama stand "against the invasion" while voting to fund the war?
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» Hahahaha, oh, my, great sarcasm...... LOL
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 2thepoint on Jan 30, 2009 9:22 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Second we all knew whoever was in office was going to close Gitmo and Bush had already signed the accord that would get our troops out of Iraq, something that would not be possible were it not for the foresight of MaCain.
The worst thing he can do is appear weak or appoint weak people re foreign policy. But that said he has to get us out of Iraq and not widen that war. Lets see how he approaches this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Strong" as in who, the elites?
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» RE: "Strong" as in who, the elites?
Posted by: 2thepoint
» Sigh, ok, I don't know who's really a strong leader anymore. :.(
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» His foreign policy advisors???? STrong????
Posted by: Prophit
» (CON'T from prev post) His foreign policy advisors???? STrong????
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edgar_michel on Jan 30, 2009 9:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: madmax427 on Jan 30, 2009 1:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Author of this article is what got Me started thinking about that. It is not that I disbelieve any particular 'fact' of Histroy as recorded, But the Motivation or Explaination given.
As an example: COULD it be possible the Massive Deaths of Jews by Hitler, which I personally have no doubt occurred, have been motivated by an awakening fo the "Control" of Jewish Influence pointed out by one Poster? IF You consider current events such as Israeli's treatment of the Palestinian People in Gaza: consider the isolation, starving & attacking with grossly superior weapontry, it does tend to rebuke the "Poor Jews" as the "underdog", never deserved any bad treatment theory promoted by History, Doesn't it?!
I am NOT saying what the Jewish People suffered under Hitler was desevred or a good thing, all I am saying is maybe We should look more into the motivation of those talking for whatever reason than just listening to what they are saying! ANY conclusions drawn from garbage input will be garbage output!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Given the complexity of the Issue its a good question...
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BillSamuel on Jan 30, 2009 5:32 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama has consistently voted for bloated military budgets and funding of the Bush wars, campaigned for escalation in Afghanistan, advocated in the campaign higher military budgets and larger armed forces, and worshipped at the altar of AIPAC. I never understood why someone for peace would vote for him.
He did say he was going to run a Presidency in which there would be people of diverse views, and he would sit them all down and hear them all out before making decisions. Sounds good, but it appears to have been a bald-faced lie.
Instead, he has appointed a very narrow range of people in key positions of influence on several important issues. There is no committed peace person around. This is not unique - the same thing is true on abortion, for example. He had indicated he would have an Administration more diverse in points of view than prior Administrations, and instead it appears to be even narrower.
This is a key problem. For a President with no personal inclinations toward peace to have no one around him who is pro-peace gives us very bleak prospects. Because he is intelligent and thoughtful, if he heard peace views there might be a chance of some peace decisions. But with the peace position shut out of his Administration, there is little hope. And there are no peace people in the Senate, and the few in the House are regarded as fringe and unlikely to get a chance to talk to the President. So it's not coming from the Congress.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» If your right, then everyone better start calling congress to kill the gun control bill.
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 30, 2009 10:28 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What you may be seeing is the enactment of the old proverb about holding your friends close and your enemies closer. Like them or not, the people he has appointed are all intelligent, experienced in the ways of government, knowledgeable in the area of national security and serve AT HIS PLEASURE.
As long as Obama is President he can overrule any decision they make, fire them at will and they have no recourse. While they serve the President they are largely obliged to tow the line and play along. The fact that they also are largely acceptable to Republicans gives him cover in the here and now against any charges that he is inexperienced in foreign affairs and national security.
I truly think Obama does not want to be surrounded by 'yes men/women' who will always tell him what they think he wants to hear. These strong personalities will certainly speak their minds in private if they think he is not doing the right thing.
Franklin Roosevelt appointed a Republican, Henry Stimson, to run the War Department during World War II. Stimson had served Herbert Hoover as Secretary of State and William Taft as Secretary of War perviously. By all accounts he did an excellent job, but Roosevelt was always able to overrule him if need be.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You Know Nothing of History - Puppet Obama has ZERO in common with Lincoln or FDR
Posted by: PointMan
» RE: History Lesson
Posted by: christianslayer1955
» RE: History Lesson
Posted by: NoPCZone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pete ess on Jan 30, 2009 10:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet I don't see the 'States practicing it. Here again we have a "might is right" approach which avoids introspection, avoids consultation, avoids "seeking first to understand, then to be understood".
I spose I've been naive to think that US salespeople ever believe in their products!? It's only the SALE that counts, stoopid!
Am I right?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: christianslayer1955 on Jan 31, 2009 5:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» OBAMA: IRAN SLAPS HIS FACE
Posted by: reelman
» RE: OBAMA: IRAN SLAPS HIS FACE
Posted by: klmtzx190
Comments are closed-
Posted by: blutopie on Feb 1, 2009 8:56 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guess what? - the solution was just sitting there in front of our faces all along and it's a cakewalk - what America needs to do first is to exert tremendous and overwhelming political pressure on Israel - America needs to LEAD the international effort to put this UN-violating country back in it's pre-67 box as demanded by the UN time and again rather than time and again VETOING that very pressure from the international community. Sure - conforming to these UN Sec Council Resolution 242, 194, 338, the Geneva Conventions, and International Law will be a pinch for Israel and just exactly what the Israel Lobby, AIPAC, and the neocons don't want to happen - so what?
So what's stopping us putting this pressure on Israel? - could the Israelis, her Israel Lobby, and her Neocons be stopping this pressure which is actually the critical solution to the Palestinian Israeli conflict that we all desperately need and that everybody knows underlies successful solution of our 'war against terror' ? Why yes - this appears to be the precise problem - Israel and her Israel Lobby are fighting AGAINST just such a solution of our needs. Why Israel and her Israel Lobby are preventing this solution in the middle east is because they want something else...
What Israel, her Israel Lobby, and her neocons desire is to successfully manipulate America to permit and support Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine (which takes care of her internal enemies, the Palestinians) while manipulating America to illegally attack any nation Israel and her Israel Lobby sends us to attack (which takes care of her external enemies). So far this has worked successfully to the extent that the Israelis have for decade after decade continued to occupy the Palestinian territories and they have had America attack Iraq for them and will have us attacking Iran for them in the next few months - thus taking care of two of Israel's biggest external enemies for her
What workable plans do Israel and her Israel Lobby have for the Palestinians and peace in Palestine? The Likud/Netanyahu extremist Israelis running Israel have put the dead Palestinians in a jar of formaldehyde on the shelf - preserved dead forever (as Dore Gold of Ariel Sharon's staff so disgustingly stated).
So amazingly enough this whole time we were just letting Israel, her Israel Lobby, and the neocons stand in the way of resolving the very issue that everybody knows is at the root of our involvement in the middle east - the very issue that everybody knows needs to be resolved and here these guys are preventing it from being solved. Boy! No wonder it's been so apparently insoluble! Talk about being part of the problem instead of part of the solution - these guys are experts at that! These guys have the solution to peace in the middle east in a jar of formaldehyde on their shelf! And that jar sits next to the jar of formaldehyde containing UN Sec Co resolutions 242, 194, 338, the Geneva Conventions, and International Laws Israel is currently violating, and the 4000 Americans who have died for Israel in Iraq
(Part 2 to continue)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cakewalk Resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict 1of2
Posted by: blutopie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cori on Feb 1, 2009 11:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NYK007 on Feb 3, 2009 3:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Market is flooded with digital cameras from various brands. They too vary in sizes, in features and in specifications. It is obvious to get confused which one is better in this festive season for your family.Thanks
NYK
MLS listings
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
On Anniversary of Iraq Invasion, Time to Rethink Anti-War Activism
The Timing Is Ripe for Obama to Make Demands on Israel to Settle for Peace
Juarez Prison Celebrates International Women's Day With Lurid "Captive Beauty" Pageant




