Meet Barack Obama's foreign policy people -- they're good people. They also might have added Dan Shapiro to the list.
« Union Beer | Main | Strange Days »
Another Memo for Sally Quinn
11 May 2007 11:09 am
Comments (10)
What is "outside consultant on Israel?"
As a Blue Dog Dem, I could never vote for Obama
http://www.bluedogdemocrats.us/
I adhere to the Patriot's Pledge
"Meet Barack Obama's foreign policy people -- they're good people."
When did MY start to talk like a wannabe mobster?
The linked article indicates that Obama's team is well-credentialed, but says precious little about their policy inclinations. What does "good people" mean in this context, then? Clinton's people are highly experienced, but they also endorse a militant and interventionist view of American foreign policy. I don't expect any major presidential campaign to throw together a foreign policy shop staffed by grad students and interns; I take it for granted that all of these people are going to have impressive resumes. What makes any of them "good people" is whether they advocate good policies. Where are Obama's people on Iraq, on Israel/Palestine, on Iran, on foreign aid, on nuclear proliferation, on global warming, on retooling the military? The only answer I've heard so far is that they don't think the U.S. is spending enough on the military, a position which, if held sincerely*, is idiosyncratic, to say the least.
*The more likely possibility is that Obama's "more troops" stance is just an attempt at asserting his "toughness." It would hardly be unusual for a Democratic candidate to embrace a bad policy in a cheap attempt to look tough - see the entire senate career of Hillary Clinton - but it would hardly be all that inspiring, either.
I am no expert on Obama's people but I do know he wants to double foreign aid. But he also said he wanted foreign aid to be 50 million so I don't know whether he means debt relief too. He's been a leader on nuclear proliferation:
So him and Lugar have worked on that. Here is what he said about it in his speech.
"Countries should not be able to build a weapons program under the auspices of developing peaceful nuclear power. That’s why we should create an international fuel bank to back up commercial fuel supplies so there’s an assured supply and no more excuses for nations like Iran to build their own enrichment plants. It’s encouraging that the Nuclear Threat Initiative, backed by Warren Buffett, has already offered funding for this fuel bank, if matched two to one. But on an issue of this importance, the United States should not leave the solution to private philanthropies. It should be a central component of our national security, and that’s why we should provide $50 million to get this fuel bank started and urge other nations, starting with Russia, to join us.
Finally, if we want the world to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example. President Bush once said, “The United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status – another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation.” Six years later, President Bush has not acted on this promise. I will. We cannot and should not accept the threat of accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch. We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads.
The danger of nuclear proliferation reminds us of how critical global cooperation will be in the 21st century. That’s why the fourth way America must lead is to rebuild and construct the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges and confront common threats. "
He said the Palestinians suffer more then anyone. Which pissed off the AIPAC people but I like that. I'd say he's center-left on the issue. He's pro-Israel but also pro-lasting peace.
He's worked on global warming quite a bit, I'd like him to be a bit more aggressive but he works on things that might be passed. He's got co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle for his CAFE bill. His Health Care for Hybrid's bill and i think he'll get it for his less carbon in fuel bill. He also is a co-sponsor of The Climate Stewardship Act (McCain-Lieberman)
For his expanding the Military he wants to mostly just build up the national guard. Which has been broken.
So yeah. I'm no staffer or expert but that's what I know about his policy. Hope that clears some stuff up for you.
I know that things can be "on the radar screen" and "under the radar", but "under the radar screen"? Doesn't that mean the things would be inside your control panel?
By "under," I mean "below" of course. But the point still holds.
Daniel Shapiro is mentioned in the article.
By surrounding himself with capable and qualified foreign policy advisors hopefully Obama is signalling that he wants to actually make an impact in the global arena.
One issue which I think he is well positioned to address is the fight against global poverty. The U.N. and world leaders have developed the Millennium Development goals which seek to end global poverty by 2025, but support in the US is lacking.
Hopefully Obama and his team, as well as all the presidential candidates, will see this as an important issue and help the rich nations direct the extra $19 billion needed annually to achieve these goals.
Comments closed May 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The last paragraph of this reporter's story puzzled me:
The Obama foreign policy team deals with counterterrorism, democracy development and the inter-related matters of energy and the environment, global health, homeland security and nuclear nonproliferation, among other issues. There's also a cadre of former Clinton officials who are very involved with the Obama campaign who for now want to stay below the radar screen.
Does Sweet mean: "they are so far below the radar screen that I don't know who they are"; or does she mean "I know who they are, but have chosen to respect their wishes to stay below the radar screen"?
Posted by Dan Kervick | May 11, 2007 11:22 AM