Kagan's "No Change" Narrative Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Bob Kagan is the latest to latch on to the idea that Barack Obama's policy is a continuation of George Bush.  This is an easy and intellectually lazy argument to make, mostly because it is physically impossible to turn around and change everything overnight.  And it's not as though Bush was wrong 100% of the time.  He just happened to be wrong about some incredibly important issues - issues, which the Obama team is now trying to repair.  So, obviously there is going to be some continuity, but Kagan seems to ignore some critical issues while mischaracterizing others.  Let's take a closer look.

The media have also reported a dramatic shift in the Obama administration's approach to conducting the Activity Formerly Known as the War on Terror. "Bush's 'War' on Terror Comes to Sudden End," The Post announced on Jan. 23, and subsequent stories have proclaimed a transformation from "hard power" to "soft power," from military action to diplomacy -- even as the Obama administration sends 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, significantly expands Predator drone attacks in Pakistan and agrees to a timetable for drawing down troops in Iraq scarcely distinguishable from what a third Bush administration (with the same defense secretary) might have ordered.

But on this issue public diplomacy and the perception in the Muslim World really does matter.  President Bush early in his term referred to a "crusade" against terrorism essentially convincing much of the Muslim World that the U.S. was at war with Islam.  President Obama used his inaugural address to call for a relationship based on "mutual interests and mutual respect."   This sounds pretty different to me. 

As for Afghanistan, it's worth pointing out that as early as August 2007 Obama was calling for more focus and direct strikes into Pakistan. But the biggest question here is prioritization.  Afghanistan played second fiddle for years during the Bush administration, while Iraq dominated resource allocation and policymakers' time.  As a result, our strategy drifted to the point where no one could clearly answer what American strategic goals were in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.  After years of rudderless policy, the Bush administration finally commissioned a number of reviews during the end of its term.  But that is very different than an Obama administration that has come in and immediately put together a 60 day review to try and put a strategic focus on the war.

This statement from Kagan also seems off the mark.

So, too, the administration's insistence on linking proposed missile defense installations in Europe to the "threat" posed by Iran, or its offer to negotiate Russia's acquiescence to this plan and even to share missile defense technology. All this is widely celebrated as new. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates began these negotiations with Moscow more than a year ago. On Iran, the emphasis on carrots, in the form of a global political and economic embrace if Tehran stops pursuing nuclear weapons, and sticks, in the form of international sanctions and isolation if it doesn't, is not exactly novel.

First of all, it's true that Gates may have been working on this deal a year ago.  But Kagan conveniently forgets to mention that a very powerful Vice President by the name of Dick Cheney opposed this plan and was doing all he could to obstruct engagement with Russia. Compare this to Vice President Biden who at the Munich conference was the first member of the administration to call for resetting the relationship with Russia.  Gates' views may not have changed but the difference between the Obama and Bush administration is pretty stark.

Then there is Iran.  Yes.  Both Bush and Obama have looked or a combination of economic pressure points and incentives.  But the Bush administration also had this nasty habit of using over the top saber rattling rhetoric to make their points.  This type of language has fueled distrust and made it impossible to move forward on any fronts with Iran.  For example:

Mr Bush said Iran's nuclear programme would cast the Middle East "under a shadow of nuclear holocaust" and said the regime was the "the world's leading supporter of terrorism".

"I will take all actions necessary to protect our troops," he said. "I have authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities."

Compare this to Obama's statements on Iran, which can sometimes be tough but do not come close to approaching this level of militancy.  "It is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress."  It's just not the same.

On Iraq, Kagan claims that Obama has gone with "a timetable for drawing down troops in Iraq scarcely distinguishable from what a third Bush administration (with the same defense secretary) might have ordered."  But he seems to forget that Obama has essentially been arguing for this timetable for two years, while Bush began the SOFA negotiations last year thinking that the agreement would solidify a long-term American presence in Iraq.  It was only because of Iraqi push-back that the SOFA eventually became a long-term disengagement agreement.

In the end Kagan's arguments simply don't seem to hold up.  It's very clever and contrarion to argue that Bush and Obama aren't all that different. In fact, it's so clever that there seems to be an op-ed on it in a major paper almost every day.  Unfortunately, it's also a weak argument that isn't supported by the facts.

Comments

[Simmons]

There was an insightful article on the Foreign Policy magazine website a while back predicting the 'Bushification' of Obama, meaning that people would increasing say that Obama's policies are similar to Bush's, and use that as a tool to criticize. The prediction has definitely come true.

[Dan Kervick]

Ilan, so far as I can tell your claim is that the changes we have seen so far consist mainly in changes in rhetoric and tone. And rhetoric is indeed important. But we are still awaiting most of the substance.

Certainly, Obama seems very interested in creating the impression of a clean slate or "reset" in various areas. But I think it is just far too early to say whether there will be any significant changes or not. Maybe the reset rhetoric is just an attempt to wash away some of the bad Bush era feelings without significantly changing the policies. But right now we don't know, because Obama seems to be in an extended listening and review phase, which is probably a good idea after the turbulence of the past eight years. And the administration is clearly much preoccupied with the domestic economy. In some ways it seems as though the new administration's foreign policy show has yet to begin, and the musicians are still tuning the instruments.

Much remains to be seen:

1. We still await the rollout of a major initiative on nuclear non-proliferation and denuclearization. This is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of Obama's foreign policy. How broad will this effort be? Will sacred cows be slain? Will the Iran issue be subsumed under the global nukes issue, or will it remain on a separate track?

2. We have yet to see whether Obama and other world leaders will seize upon the global economic meltdown to build a new global financial and regulatory order. Will he go Bretton Woods and think big, or just try to muddle through? The shape of the global economic order that emerges from this crisis will determine the shape and outcome of many of the other policies.

3. While Obama is committed to a faster timetable for drawing down forces in Iraq, we have yet to see how Obama's long term strategy for Iraq and the Gulf region does or does not differ from the Bush's.

4. The Iran plans are still a mystery. So far, we have some indications that Obama is following the "talks with pressure" approach endorsed by Dennis Ross. He has come out of the box with a lot of tough talk about Iran, along with efforts to work with other countries to tighten the noose around the Islamic Republic. The idea is supposedly not to appear weak, and that after some months of pissing out some markers, we can finally get down to the business of dealing. Maybe they plan to wait for the Iranian elections. But Obama could easily get maneuvered into a hot conflict. Suppose he engages in six months or so of hawkish noose-tightening, with plans for eventual dealing, but Israel then attacks Iran. He will have left himself no diplomatic ground from which to criticize the Israeli strike, and will be forced by his previous statements to bless it and join in.

5. What is the US's overall global military footprint supposed to look like in 2012 or 2016? Larger? Smaller? About the same, but redistributed? Obama has yet to send a clear message on how he views the US military role in the world in the decades to come.

6. The economic crisis has attached some serious drag to the momentum that was building behind international cooperation on climate change and energy policy. What can be done to re-energize those efforts?

Obama has been rather quiet so far. He has made no attempt to make a big entrance on the global stage and start exerting serious global leadership. But we have the G-20 meeting coming up soon. We are getting a trip to Europe followed by a visit to Turkey. The reviews will soon be completed. Maybe by the end of April we will have a clearer picture.

My early sense is that our foreign policy is still too much a made-in-the-Pentagon affair. The years of war have produced a governing culture featuring some very powerful and high-profile generals. And if anything, Obama so far seems to have increased the reliance on military leaders.

[Peace]

Kagans seems to have also ignored Obama's closing of Gitmo and abolishing torture. Also another issue that Obama differs strongly with Bush, apppears to be in the area of nulcear proliferation. The Bush adminstration made no effort to get rid of this country's nuclear weapon arsenal and in fact increased it by trying to create smaller bunker busting nuclear weapons. The Obama adminstration has a completey different policy in that it wants to get rid of all nuclear weapons in the American arsenal.

[Fake Jimmy Choo Bags]

The Obama adminstration has a completey different policy in that it wants to get rid of all nuclear weapons in the American arsenal.

[replica Bvlgari Bracelets]

The Obama adminstration has a completey different policy in that it wants to get rid of all nuclear weapons in the American arsenal.

[Links of London Jewelry]

The Obama adminstration has a completey different policy in that it wants to get rid of all nuclear weapons in the American arsenal

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[iedge]

As far as I know on Iraq, Kagan claims that Obama has gone with "a timetable for drawing down troops in Iraq scarcely distinguishable from what a third Bush administration might have ordered.

[FFXIV Gil]

Are you fighting in Final Fantasy XIV for FFXIV Gil or Final Fantasy XIV Gil?
Can you suffer yourself being called newbie in FFXIV Gil game?
Are you seeking unofficial Buy FFXIV Gil cheats or Final Fantasy XIV guides in order to make Final Fantasy XIV Gil faster?
Can you get millions of Cheap FFXIV Gil in one day?
Even if you know how to farm Buy Final Fantasy XIV Gil you have to prepare enough Final Fantasy XIV Power Leveling first to buy height class Final Fantasy XIV Items, to upgrade your Final Fantasy XIV characters.
FF14 Gil Then why not Buy FFXIV Gil from us?
In Final Fantasy XIV it's the fastest way FF14 Gil,for you to get rich. We are online 24 hours a day ready and 7 days one week to power up your FFXIV Gil accounts with FFXIV Gil. Here is the best place for the Final Fantasy XIV Online players to buy your Final Fantasy XIV Gil.
We are the professional website in FFXIV GIL sale.FFXIV GIL here,We are professional FFXIV Power Leveling online. We update price every single day to make sure we are the lowest in the market.(we don't compare price with scam sites which uses unbelievable low price to deceive.)
Our slogan:Cheapest price, Fastest delivery, Best service! Final Fantasy XIV GIL
In the 2 years we are in this field , FFXIV GILbuilt many business with tens of thousands of customers. They are very satisfied with our service.So if you want to get a log of Cheap FFXIV Gil ,no doubt ,come to our website to buy. Our customer service is ready for you on line now!(WWW,GM MMO,COM Sell FFXIV Gil)

[3g modem]

well! i like this interesting post,thank you your sharing!

[replica jewelry]

Thank you, great stuff as usual.

[renlewei]

I am happy when reading your blog with updated information! thanks alot and hope that you will post more site that are related to this site.