The Los Angeles Times has a piece this morning on anti-war activists' fears that the Obama cabinet will be stocked with hawks.
True enough, many of his principal foreign policy advisers, including his Vice-President Joe Biden, voted for the war in 2003 but have become critics since then. The article points to the potential decision to keep the incumbent Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, in his job for a year as a sign that Obama is going to be more hawkish, but it's really the exact opposite: Gates will be used as cover to draw-down forces in Iraq; though he is a Republican, he is not a neoconservative and has been in touch with the reality of the Iraqi occupation. John Kerry is mentioned as a potential adviser who would be criticized for his vote for the war in 2003, but would anyone deny he has become a serious anti-war voice in his own right since then?
Even worse, the article assumes that cabinet officials are the most important, when in fact most foreign policy decisions will be made in the White House. Two important aides names aren't even mentioned: Leading National Security Adviser candidate Jim Steinberg began calling for a withdrawal timetable as early as 2004, and Susan Rice, Steinberg's likely Deputy and the campaign's top foreign affairs aide, has been an opponent of the war since the very beginning. These are two very important aides whose views will impact Obama's policy making from the get-go.
But part of the problem is that anti-war groups who worked hard to elect Obama may be expecting him to be anti-war in general as opposed to anti-the Iraq war. No doubt many of them do realize that. But despite this, Obama and his team will withdraw the troops from Iraq; there's no dissent surrounding the necessity of that decision. And I would worry less about Hillary Clinton, who never apologized for her war vote, as Secretary of State. Obama will not bring her on board unless he will be confident she will advocate his administration's views in public even if her private advice is more hawkish.
Even the article's attempt to increase paranoia about the 16-month deadline seems a little off. We've seen those attempts before, and they've been wrong. While there will obviously be some flexibility as planning continues, don't be surprised if 16 months remains the gold standard.
Incidentally, while it's totally appropriate for various constituencies on the left to hold Obama's feet to the fire, I think they should try and pick their battles. Obama has no incentive to stay in Iraq and will likely pull out as promised, but he has every incentive to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. While I still think that may be the right decision, if I were solidly anti-war that's where I would be focusing my efforts.
--Tim Fernholz
