David Brooks is right to understand Barack Obama's national security team as the maturation of thinking that began in Iraq and Afghanistan and focuses more on building civic capacity than destroying military capabilities. This is the post-Iraq consensus between liberals and realists, and it will hold as long as the question is Iraq. But what if the topic changes? If China triggers a confrontation over Taiwan or a threatening genocide cries out for a swift intervention? Where does Gates, or Jones, stand then? On one level, it may not matter. Policy on pressing priorities is set from the top. Cabinet secretaries can either implement the agenda or resign in protest. There's the question of advice, of course, but Samantha Power and Richard Danzig will be able to send Obama memos, too. That said, it does raise the question of tensions and divisions. The consensus around Iraq may or may not signal broad agreement on other foreign policy issues, but this will nevertheless be the team that faces down the full spectrum of foreign threats and crises. It will be a harsh test for the young bond between the two camps.
