Chuck Hagel » Undiplomatic

24 November 2008 Charles J. Brown
03:08 pm

Thought for the Day

Chuck Hagel would make a great U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

If, as expected, Barack Obama is elected in ten days, attention will turn almost immediately to the transition. Several friends close to the Obama campaign have shared some of the speculation they’ve heard on who will be named to Obama’s foreign policy team. Several other bloggers, including Steve Clemons and Marc Ambinder, have heard similar rumblings.

There are two problems with such rumors. First, as one of the commenters over at Steve’s site noted, they usually are little more than trial balloons designed to find out what folks think of a particular candidate. Perhaps the best recent example of this were the stories that Evan Bayh was a sure thing for Obama’s VP.

Second, as one of my friends said to me recently, “people are anxious about Obama winning, but they’re just as (if not more) anxious about whether they’re going to be offered a job.” I’ve heard that too — in fact, it’s not just concern about being offered a job, but also worrying about whether they’ll be offered the right kind of job. If past is prologue, it is often the candidate who starts the rumor in order to advance his or her own cause. Most of the time, it doesn’t work.

Given the degree to which the Obama team has managed to remain leak-free so far, I find it hard to believe that its discipline would start breaking down now, especially given the fact that, as Ambinder reported, most senior campaign staff have excluded themselves from transition deliberations in order to remain focused on winning the election. In addition, Obama remains focused on the campaign, meaning he is unlikely to havesigned off on any of these appointments.

One rumor I’ve heard (as has Steve) is that Obama will announce a number of key appointments as early as Friday, November 7th in order to speed up public vetting and, to the degree possible, Senate confirmation. If that’s the case, I’m guessing that any announcement will be limited to the national security team (State, Defense, National Security Advisor), the Attorney-General, and the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Treasury.

I’ll leave speculation on the last three to others more qualified than me, but I would like to offer my thoughts on who is (and who should be) on the short list for the first three (as well as their Deputies and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations). To be clear, this is more speculation than reporting.

Secretary of Defense: The most likely scenario has Obama keeping current SecDef Robert Gates for at least one year, and appointing a key Obama team member as Deputy Secretary — probably either Richard Danzig , who was Secretary of the Navy under Clinton, or Scott Gration, who is a retired three-star general. The deputy will then step in after learning the ropes. The other strong contender is Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed, but I would be surprised if Gates doesn’t stay for at least six months. The long-shot outsider is Wesley Clark, who has not played a prominent role in the Obama campaign.

National Security Advisor: The safe money is on Susan Rice, who has been one of Obama’s top foreign policy aides during the campaign, and has managed the 300-odd (now probably closer to 600) members of the two dozen foreign policy advisory teams. Susan would be a fine choice, but I’m not sure that she’s a lock. Some are suggesting Gregory Craig, who headed policy planning in State under Clinton and served as one of Clinton’s attorneys during the impeachment trial (only to break with the Clintons fairly early in the campaign). Although that certainly is plausible, I think Craig may be a better fit as Deputy Secretary at State. I’ve heard through the grapevine that James Steinberg, who currently is managing the foreign policy transition team and who served as Deputy National Security Advisor in the Clinton Administration, also is a strong contender.

Should either Craig or Steinberg get the top post, then Rice probably would be named Deputy National Security Advisor (the other two are unlikely to serve in that role). Other possible candidates include Dennis McDonough, who formerly served as Tom Daschle’s chief foreign policy advisor; Mark Lippert, who has been Obama’s chief foreign policy aide in the Senate; and Sarah Sewell, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Peacekeeping Operations in the Clinton Administration. Samantha Power, who also served on Obama’s staff is a long-shot, but I think she’s more likely to be named Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (she would be an outstanding choice). All four have been part of Obama’s inner circle of foreign policy advisors (although Power had to resign after calling Hillary a “monster”), but none are senior enough to get the top job.

State: Joe Biden is likely to play a central role in foreign policy decision-making, and may serve as a de facto Secretary of State. That means that certain individuals who otherwise would be interested in the job, may pass on it. Among Obama’s current advisors, Anthony Lake, who served as National Security Advisor in the Clinton Administration, would be a strong contender, but I hear that he has made it pretty clear that he’s not interested. Other names I’ve heard include Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, John Kerry, and Bill Richardson. Although Obama will want to demonstrate bipartisanship, he would get significant pushback from Democrats were he to appoint Republicans to both State and DOD. That would exclude Hagel and Lugar, unless Gates doesn’t stay.

That leaves Richardson and Kerry. Given the fairly dynamic figures that have held the post more recently, Obama will want someone who can be an effective leader with the capacity to push back against Biden (when necessary). He also should pick someone who can fix what’s wrong with the current bureaucracy, including the challenges facing existing foreign assistance and public diplomacy operations. That pretty much excludes both Kerry and Richardson, who are neither assertive nor reformers.

Steve Clemons believes that, if those are the choices, Obama should go with Kerry — largely because of Clemons’s concerns (which I share) about Richardson’s temperament, mistreatment of staff, and tendency toward personal self-aggrandizement. Richardson also might face the toughest confirmation fight, given his erratic tenure as Secretary of Energy and a talent for exaggeration that exceeds even Joe Biden’s.

But I’m not so high on Kerry either. Despite his brilliant speech at the convention, Kerry is, in many ways, a slightly younger version of Warren Christopher, Clinton’s first Secretary of State. Christopher was a weak Secretary, lacking the energy to reform the Department (not that his three successors did much better) or the charisma to influence policy. Kerry also would reinforce the now-outdated perception of the Department as a striped pants-wearing East Coast elite out of touch with mainstream America.

There are two other factors concerning Kerry that Steve may not have considered — neither of which is likely to prevent him from taking the job, but still should be remembered as we discuss the possibility of it. First (and sadly to say), Ted Kennedy probably doesn’t have long to live; Kerry may hesitate to leave his state with two fairly junior Senators (then again he may not). Second, assuming that Chris Dodd wants to continue playing a central role in managing the Congressional response to the financial crisis, Kerry is next in line to succeed Biden as Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. Again, that may not prevent him from taking the job, but I could see Obama encouraging him to play that role for at least a couple of years.

So where does that leave us? I see four likely scenarios:

Obama goes with Reed, Danzig, or Gration at DOD, enabling him to pick Lugar or Hagel at State;
Obama picks Kerry or Richardson;
Obama picks a younger, more dynamic figure from his inner circle (Danzig, Rice, or Craig are the most likely);
Obama goes long and makes an unexpected pick.

If it’s the fourth scenario, let me throw out some names: former Vice President Al Gore; former Senator Gary Hart (who has done some of the more creative thinking out there); and former Congressman (and 9-11 Commission co-chair) Lee Hamilton. Gore would have the gravitas, the ability to push back when Biden gets a bit assertive, and experience in trying to reform government institutions. Hart also has those qualities, although his track record as a reformer is more the result of his post-Senatorial career promoting change from outside the political process. Hamilton flunks the dynamic leader test, but his leadership on the 9-11 Commission demonstrates that he understands the structural challenges.

Let me suggest three other possibilities, all of which would pass the dynamic leader and reformer tests: Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, and Eric Holder. Neither Feingold or Boxer has much executive experience, but Hagel, Lugar, and Kerry don’t either. Of the two, I think Feingold is more likely, if only because James Doyle, a Democrat, would appoint his replacement, while Schwartzenegger would pick Boxer’s.

Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney-General in the Clinton Administration, is usually viewed as a leading candidate for the top job at Justice. But when Obama announced his national security advisory group back in June, Holder was on the list. He certainly passes the dynamism test, and he also should be able to shake up the foreign policy apparatus.

In terms of who definitely won’t get the job, my money is on Richard Holbrooke, who would have been the frontrunner had Gore won in 2000. Holbrooke is smart, capable, and has the confidence to be an effective leader, push back against against Biden, and reform the foreign policy apparatus. Unfortunately, he also has a track record of angering the wrong people at the wrong time, and treats his staff as abysmally as Richardson does. According to what I’ve heard, neither Rice nor Lake like him much. CQ’s inclusion of him as one of the three most likely candidates (along with Rice and Richardson) is laughable, especially given the fact that he was consciously excluded from the senior foreign policy advisory team created after Obama brought the Clintonistas on board.

Deputy Secretary of State is a much more significant position than it used to be — Richard Armitage, Robert Zoellick, and John Pointdexter all were important players during the Bush years, and both Zoellick and Pointdexter left cabinet-level positions to take the job. If Obama goes with one of the more senior figures as Secretary, then he’ll want someone younger and more dynamic to lead the charge on foreign affairs reform. As I noted earlier, Gregory Craig would be a solid choice, although his role as Elian Gonzalez’s father’s attorney may hurt his chances for confirmation (something he wouldn’t face were he to be named National Security Advisor). Susan Rice also would be a good pick, although my gut says she’ll want to stay closer to the White House. If he doesn’t get one of the top two jobs at Defense, Richard Danzig also is a possibility. Two other possibilities are Morton Halperin, who served as head of policy planning under Albright, among other positions over the years; and Dennis Ross, Clinton’s Middle East guru.

Some Presidents have made the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations a Cabinet-level position. Bush did not (thank God in the case of John Bolton); Obama should do so, even if he does not name someone in the near future.

In terms of who would be best for the job, Obama should pick someone who not only can play the role effectively, but will be seen as credible advocate to the rest of the world. My choice would be Harold Hongju Koh, current Dean of Yale Law School and former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in the Clinton years (full disclosure: Harold is my former boss and a close friend) — although he’s far more likely to be on any short list for the Supreme Court. Another possibility is former Senator Timothy Wirth, who now heads the U.N Foundation. A third is former Deputy Secretary of Treasury Stuart Eisenstadt, though he is more likely a candidate for Secretary of Treasury or U.S. Trade Representative.

So who do I want and who do I think will get it? First, here’s who I would like to see named:

Secretary of Defense: Jack Reed or Richard Danzig (although I could live with Gates staying on);
Deputy, DOD: Danzig or Gration
National Security Advisor: Susan Rice or Jim Steinberg
Deputy, NSC: Susan Rice if she doesn’t get the top job, Mark Lippert if she does
Secretary of State: Chuck Hagel (unless Gates stays on, in which case I’d like to see Russ Feingold)
Deputy, DOS: Greg Craig or Mort Halperin
USUN: Harold Koh

Now here’s who I think will get it:

Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates
Deputy, DOD: Richard Danzig
National Security Advisor: Jim Steinberg
Deputy, NSC: Susan Rice
Secretary of State: Bill Richardson
Deputy, DOS: Greg Craig
USUN: Tim Wirth

Share your ideas in the comments below.

Remembering Gerald Ford. Maybe Not So Much.

Currently C-SPAN2 is showing a tribute to those leaders of the Republican Party who have passed away since the last Convention. No snark here, just a couple of observations.

1. Tony Snow got the biggest applause.

2. Jesse Helms was a close second.

3. President Gerald Ford got absolutely no applause. A short video tribute to Ford followed, and that got only the most tepid of responses.

I cannot think of anything that more dramatically illustrates the shift within the Republican party away from the center. For most of these delegates, Gerald Ford is still the guy who kept Ronald Reagan from becoming President in 1976.

I think it’s telling that today, most of those who could be described as “Gerald Ford Republicans” are supporting Obama — Jim Leach, Lincoln Chafee, Susan Eisenhower, and so on. And I’m guessing that Chuck Hagel will follow them shortly.

Hagel for U.N. Ambassador?

Yglesias suggests that Obama reward a smart Republican like Hagel not with Defense, but with the U.N. Ambassadorship:

It would be much more productive, I think, to take someone with a solidly conservative domestic record but internationalist views on foreign policy and make him (or her) UN Ambassador or something. That sends the message that the liberal approach to world affairs has appeal that transcends party lines or debates over tax policy or whatever else. . . .Those are ways of co-opting conservative politicians in order to broaden the appeal of progressive solutions, rather than a way that draws attention to alleged weaknesses in the progressive approach.

I understand the argument, but I can’t say that I agree with it. Given our track record with the U.N., and given the fact that our credibility with the U.N. is at an all-time low, and especially given the fact that we need someone who can help fix the UN, I don’t think that Hagel is the right choice. Maybe Jim Leach or Lincoln Chafee, but I don’t know if they’re the right choice either.

So who would I pick? An old friend of mine. I think he’d be absolutely brilliant.

Obamacons

So now there’s a Republicans for Obama movement. It’s headed by three individuals I respect greatly: former Rep. Jim Leach (IA), former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, and philanthropist and intelligence expert Rita Hauser. I imagine Susan Eisenhower is involved as well, although she was not identified in the news reports I saw.

I was disappointed that Chuck Hagel, despite Steve Clemons’ prediction, is not in the group. And I would love to see a few other folks — Colin Powell and Bret Scowcroft come to mind, as does Tom Kean — join them. But it’s a good start.

An anecdote: I happen to know a gentleman in his 80s who is from one of the oldest Republican families in the nation. Some of his ancestors served in very high positions in government, and some of his current relatives have served there as well. He and his wife now support Obama — and not merely financially, but also by getting involved in grassroots campaigning. He said to me that he cannot in good conscience support the Republicans any longer. He’s not alone — I have dozens of former Republican friends who now consider themselves not just Obama supporters, but Democrats.

That is George Bush’s true legacy. Congrats, Dubya. You’ve done a heckuva job.

Hagel Defends Obama (Vandy Prize)

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) isn’t happy with his old friend John McCain:

Sen. Chuck Hagel took on his old friend and fellow Vietnam veteran Sen. John McCain, criticizing McCain’s new TV ad attacking Sen. Barack Obama.

In the ad, the Republican presidential candidate complains about Obama’s recent decision not to visit U.S. troop hospital in Germany, saying, “Sen. Obama made time to go to the gym but canceled a visit with wounded troops.”

“I do not think that ad was appropriate,” Hagel said in an appearance on CBS-TVs “Face the Nation.” Obama’s staff was advised by the Pentagon about the military’s concerns with Obama bringing his political campaign to see soldiers there, his advisers have said.

It’s been two weeks since Steve Clemons reported that Hagel was going to endorse Obama, and it hasn’t happened yet. That may be because Hagel doesn’t plan to, or it may be because Obama wanted to wait until after their trip. Either way, having a man who once was a top pick for VP (albeit in 2000) now criticize him publicly must be driving McCain nuts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dept. of Not Paying Attention, “The 300″ Edition

Here’s what The Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire had to say about Obama’s trip today:

Sen. Barack Obama doesn’t exactly travel light. Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown writes that, as the candidate moves through the Middle East and Europe, “the Obama campaign machine appears as sprawling and seamless as it is on its home turf. As the presumptive Democratic nominee tours five countries in five days, he brings an entourage that would make a pop star envious.”

The group includes a dozen foreign policy advisers, “either traveling with Obama or doing ground work ahead of his arrival in each country” as well as traveling campaign aides, advance staff and “layers of Secret Service agents,” with the entire group filling 20 vehicles in a motorcade.

Don’t get me wrong — if it’s true, it’s a valid story. Of course, I would bet good money that McCain’s entourage in Mexico and Colombia wasn’t much smaller.

But here’s the kicker. Look at the photo they used to demonstrate the accuracy of the story: Read the rest of this entry »

Quote of the Day

Matt Yglesias on the absurdity of the arguments against a timetable for pullout in Iraq:

[A]ny time a politician offers a medium-term plan — 16 month withdrawal timeline, treaty to reduce global carbon emissions, health care reform, whatever — you can make it sound absurd by saying it would be crazy to stick with the plan under absolutely any circumstances.

Maybe a race of alien lizards will land in Mosul and commence their program of world conquest, in which case it would be odd to stick with the 16 month withdrawal timeline and I assume John McCain would revisit his plan to kick Russia out of the G-8 in the interests of human solidarity.

But under a range of realistically likely sets of “facts on the ground” a timeline for a phased withdrawal of forces from Iraq would improve the strategic context in which we’re operating and free up resources for use on other problems.`

Heh. You gotta love any foreign policy argument that invokes Harry Turtledove. Yes he’s a bit of a hack, but no more than Michael O’Hanlon and other Iraq die-hards.

Oh, one more thing: why does the Washington Post think it is necessary to quote one of the few remaining Democratic supporters of the war every single time it does a story on domestic divisions over Iraq? Why aren’t they also talking to Republican opponents (Chuck Hagel, Ron Paul, Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones etc.)? That’s the real alternate history here.

The Post can’t have it both ways. Either they can (inaccurately) portray the disagreement over withdrawal as a partisan divide, or they can (correctly) give voice to supporters and critics on both sides of the aisle. Right now, their current approach is no more fair and balanced than Bill O’Reilly.

A Reverse Lieberman with a Half Twist

THIS JUST IN: Steve Clemons is reporting that Hagel will endorse Obama. This is the same post as before, which if Steve is right, is even more important now.

According to The Wall Street Journal, among others, Chuck Hagel is planning to travel to Iraq with Barack Obama. Hagel, of course, has featured prominently in the Obama VP sweepstakes, although his name has dropped off the radar a bit over the past month.

I like Hagel, and I think he’s been an important voice on the Iraq war. I don’t go as far as Steve Clemons does in arguing he should have run for President, or that Obama would be wise to choose him as VP. Frankly, were Obama to put together a unity ticket, he would be better off with Richard Lugar, one of his mentors on foreign policy in the Senate. Lugar brings greater gravitas and is from a swing state to boot. But I think the chances of Lugar on the ticket are about as great as The Condi winning the Masters next spring.

I also believe, in the spirit of Spencer Ackerman and Matt Yglesias’s argument against keeping Robert Gates on as SecDef, the Democrats need to prove that there are worthy people within their own party for these posts. It’s often overlooked, but John Kerry’s slide four years ago began not with the Swift Boat ads or his terrible acceptance speech (although both certainly hurt), but rather with his efforts to get John McCain to become his VP nominee. When McCain said no, it weakened not only Kerry but also John Edwards, the eventual nominee, who was regarded by many as little more than a consolation prize.

All that said, I do find it interesting that none of the mainstream media’s reports (or at least none of the ones I’ve read) have mentioned the fact that Hagel is in many ways the mirror of Joe Lieberman, who betrayed defected from the Democratic party to support John McCain:

Lieberman was on the Democratic ticket in 2000; Hagel was widely presumed to be McCain’s choice to be VP had McCain beat Bush in 2000.
Lieberman is socially liberal; Hagel is socially conservative.
Lieberman is in favor of staying the course in Iraq; Hagel wants us to get out as quickly as humanly possible.
Lieberman has grown increasingly shrill in his criticisms of his former party; Hagel has remained thoughtful and balanced in his criticism of President Bush.

Unlike Lieberman, Hagel has not yet endorsed the opposition party’s nominee. The rumor mill says he just might yet, and it certainly would be a big boost to Obama were he to pull a reverse Lieberman.

But even if he doesn’t, a joint trip to Iraq — and, I would assume, a statement supporting Obama’s position on Iraq — would certainly be as embarrassing to McCain as Lieberman’s shenanigans have been to the Democrats. Even better, it could diminish the marquee value of Lieberman’s defection, and might even force the boys on the bus men and women on the Not-So-Straight Talk Express to ask McCain some hard questions on the war.

Thought for the Day

Related posts

The Transition

Related posts

Remembering Gerald Ford. Maybe Not So Much.

Related posts

Hagel for U.N. Ambassador?

Related posts

Obamacons

Related posts

Hagel Defends Obama (Vandy Prize)

Related posts

Dept. of Not Paying Attention, “The 300″ Edition

Related posts

Quote of the Day

Related posts

A Reverse Lieberman with a Half Twist

Related posts

Twitter

Polls

Podcast Player

Podcast Feeds

Blogroll

Archive

Categories

Admin

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Polls

Podcast Player

Podcast Feeds

Tag Cloud

Blogroll

Archive

Categories

Admin