Book of the Month

The Case for Intervention... In Obama's dysfunctional foreign-policy team.

by artappraiser 10/19/2012 - 4:02 pm

By Rosa Brooks, ForeignPolicy.com, October 18, 2012

[....] It doesn't have to be this way. If Obama wants to fix his broken foreign policy machine, he can do it -- but conversations with numerous insiders, as well as my own government experiences, suggest that he needs to focus on strategy, structure, process, management, and personnel as much as on new policy initiatives.

Not sexy, I know. But just as a start-up company needs more than an entrepreneurial founder with a couple of good ideas and a nifty PowerPoint presentation, the United States needs more than speeches and high-minded aspirations. [....]

Author bio:

Rosa Brooks is a law professor at Georgetown University and a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation. She served as a counselor to the U.S. defense undersecretary for policy from 2009 to 2011 and previously served as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department.

Read the full article at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/18/the_case_for_intervention

From page 3, my underlining added:

4. Get out of the bubble. The National Security Staff operates as a tiny fiefdom. Many NSS senior directors say they speak with Tom Donilon only once or twice a year. Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisors Denis McDonough and Ben Rhodes function as gate-keepers, and even Cabinet-level officials often struggle to get direct access to the president. Some gate-keeping is necessary, of course, but this president lives in as much of an echo chamber as George W. Bush did. Add to this President Obama's even more infrequent contact with the press and his infrequent meetings with members of Congress, and you end up with debate performances like the one the president gave on October 3, in which he seemed surprised and irritated at being challenged in public.

Getting out of his bubble may not come naturally for Obama. As Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, put it in an unguarded moment, "The truth is, Obama doesn't call anyone, and he's not close to almost anyone. It's stunning that he's in politics, because he really doesn't like people."

But if he wants good, candid feedback, President Obama needs to deal with more people. He should increase the number of press conferences he gives, increase the number of formal and informal meetings with members of Congress, and institute at least quarterly town-hall style meetings with his national security staff -- invited based on position, not based on whether they're in the in-club -- and with other senior staff from State, Defense, and AID. He should also create internal "red teams," tasked with pointing out the dangers and flaws of the policy approaches recommended by his senior staff -- and he should require his staff to listen and respond to critics, instead of just repeating administration talking points.

by artappraiser 10/19/2012 - 4:21 pm

Not sure that Obama is in as much a bubble as Ms. Brooks thinks.   The internet(s) are a more efficient method of information gathering and communication that better suit his personality as well.

Now that I think about it, the whole Village will probably become increasingly dysfunctional as new channels develop and old ones fade away.  Interesting times.

 

by EmmaZahn 10/19/2012 - 5:45 pm (re: artappraiser)

"... the whole Village will probably become increasingly dysfunctional...."

 
This is possible?
by quinn esq 10/19/2012 - 6:06 pm (re: EmmaZahn)

Sad to say, but yes.  

Not that that means total collapse into anarchy.  More like an extension of the current misery indefinitely.  Which is worse?

by EmmaZahn 10/19/2012 - 6:14 pm (re: quinn esq)

There are times when I think a transition to anarchy would result in a more organized system.

by Verified Atheist 10/19/2012 - 6:28 pm (re: EmmaZahn)

Me, too.  Then I wonder, "better the devil you know?"

by EmmaZahn 10/19/2012 - 9:00 pm (re: Verified Atheist)

 

Try again.

The Village is an echo chamber of bad advice.

Obama likely doesn't go on the internetz.

And if he does, he's going to the Village. To confirm bad advice.

And he always was pretty brittle about criticism or disagreement.

Which is why he doesn't give press conferences.

And so on.

by PeraclesPlease 10/20/2012 - 12:39 pm (re: quinn esq)

Well the article really struck me immediately in many ways, my gut reactions, some related to what you say, some not :

1) wow this is real genuine bitching about dysfunction from an ex-employee of the kind that we don't usually read about on the internet, as most of the complaints are not of an ideological bent or even disagreeing with Obama's originally stated goals. Maybe he will read about it on the internet now, though.

2) why are taxpayers paying for all these people to work on stuff that nobody in the administration pays any attention to? (With, I must admit, subsequent related thoughts about those MMT supporters who believe more government jobs are the answer to all of our problems)

3) why did someone as smart as Obama, and furthermore someone as attached to the ideology of post-partisanship as I believe he is, let his people hand out important jobs related to foreign policy as thanks for political support? And then let those people control what and who he hears on issues? Even Richard Nixon wasn't that naive, he went and sought out people like Henry K.

4) is Hillary Clinton similarly as frustrated at times? with like all the patronage job fillers?  and how the long term civil experts aren't the ones being listened to? or is she part of the problem?

5) Amazing, how times have changed: the Pentagon under Robert Gates was a remarkably civilized place. As the military knows, command climate matters. The command climate at the NSS is one in which rudeness is tolerated. It shouldn't be.

6) I thought Brooks correct to note in her summary that some of what she is complaining about is common to first-term presidents. Before she got to that point, I was reminded several times in reading of staffing mistakes in Bill Clinton's first term. The differences occurred to me too, though: Clinton did a clean up in reaction to 1994 Congressional elections; Obama changed little after 2010.

Then I thought of unrelated discussions in recent days  about 2008 Obama-mania and what I see as Obama's deficiencies as a politician and how I was thinking it must be due to Axelrod  and Plouffe et.al., that they must be the ones responsible for that "success."  And I thought of how Obama lets Axelrod speak for him so many times on policy issues when other surrogates would be much more appropriate. And I started to think: who is really running this adminsistration? Not the President, but the whole huge adminstration? Why don't we see or hear much of many cabinet members? And I thought of things like the reaction to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. And I thought she is probably tempering her criticism of him as a manager in this essay, she and colleagues probably think he's worse at it then what she's saying here, and all those people who argued that he wasn't the best candidate because he had no government managerial experience, that he should go be a governor or something first, were spot on.....

by artappraiser 10/20/2012 - 10:12 am (re: EmmaZahn)

Thanks for the bullet points.  Hopefully, they will keep my mind focused long enough to respond to each. ;)

1) wow this is real genuine bitching about dysfunction from an ex-employee of the kind that we don't usually read about on the internet, as most of the complaints are not of an ideological bent or even disagreeing with Obama's originally stated goals. Maybe he will read about it on the internet now, though.

Perhaps, although it does match the most salient aspect this election's opposition:  it is first and foremost anti-Obama. And, its timing makes it even more suspect. For her sake, let's hope that if it is read, Ms. Brooks does not find herself the subject of an FBI investigation. J/K, I hope.

Obama Pursuing Leakers Sends Warning to Whistle-Blowers ...

2) why are taxpayers paying for all these people to work on stuff that nobody in the administration pays any attention to? (With, I must admit, subsequent related thoughts about those MMT supporters who believe more government jobs are the answer to all of our problems)

While I am enough of an MMTer (and venture capitalist) to have no fundamental problem with paying people to work on stuff nobody pays immediate attention to, the White House and NSA would be among the last places I think that should happen.  Apprentices have to learn and hone their skills somewhere somehow and in venture capital you never really know which one investment will pay off financially.  Last time I checked about 95% of venture capital fails to but often knowledge is advanced.  More on MMT another time, maybe.

3) why did someone as smart as Obama, and furthermore someone as attached to the ideology of post-partisanship as I believe he is, let his people hand out important jobs related to foreign policy as thanks for political support? And then let those people control what and who he hears on issues? Even Richard Nixon wasn't that naive, he went and sought out people like Henry K.

Isn't there is an inherent contradiction in the presumption that Obama is smart, at least politically, and his naive belief that he could successfully challenge his party's favorite and then expect everyone to fall in line afterwards?  Administration staffs are almost always drawn from political parties' machines and the only one in the Democratic Party with any real FP experience belonged to his chief rival.  That and the continuity required by ongoing conflicts left him little choice.  Putting Hillary at State and keeping Gate at Defense was a practical and non- partisan choice even if it did eventually lead to the dysfunction that so dismays Ms. Brooks.

4) is Hillary Clinton similarly as frustrated at times? with like all the patronage job fillers?  and how the long term civil experts aren't the ones being listened to? or is she part of the problem?

I would think Hillary's frustration is unbounded.  Remember after 1994, how she was put back in her place from co-President to First Lady.  Then in 2008, her turn to run as the Democratic nominee is usurped by an upstart unwilling to wait his turn. ;D  

Also remember how the Village treated the Clintons as outsiders just as they are now treating Obama.

No idea really how much interest Hillary has in running State.  Is its sole utility to her as a placeholder until she can run for President again?

5) Amazing, how times have changed: the Pentagon under Robert Gates was a remarkably civilized place. As the military knows, command climate matters. The command climate at the NSS is one in which rudeness is tolerated. It shouldn't be.

And what of the Pentagon under Gates' predecessor?  

According to the article linked to, command climate is best when set further down the chain of command so why rag on Obama for the rudeness at NSS?  Besides, rudeness is perceptual and without even anecdotal evidence, are we just to accept that it is a problem just on her say so?

---------

It was a thought-provoking article and I thank you for the link.  I have mostly ignored this election cycle because here in Georgia it is already over except for a couple of resolutions on charter schools and property taxes.

 

 

by EmmaZahn 10/20/2012 - 2:18 pm (re: artappraiser)

Interesting article, but it rests on the undiscussed and unproven assumptions that Obama's foreign policy is wrong. I generally agree with many of the suggestions for a shake up of his foreign policy apparatus. They're good suggestions for any president. But its hard to be a strong advocate for those changes when I think his policies are mostly good.

I expected this turbulence in the Middle East and the election of Islamist parties. Just as I expected Hamas to be elected when Bush pushed for free elections in the Palestinian territories. Just as I expected trouble when Reagan put marines in Lebanon. There's been embassy attacks and riots in the Middle East under the last 5 presidents. I didn't expect that to change over night with Obama. The fact that parties are elected that have anti-american feelings doesn't mean we shouldn't support free elections and democracy. The fact that there's turbulence afterward does not by definition discredit that policy.

 

by ocean-kat 10/19/2012 - 5:15 pm

unproven assumptions that Obama's foreign policy is wrong.

I didn't read it that way. I read it as mostly saying that his gut intentions in foreign policy have often been thwarted by his poor process and management. That he could be far more successful in what he wants to accomplish with a shakeup. But that to do so, he has to have work more people skills and stop delegating the people skills thing to others and stop allowing cliques that he is comfortable with (because of long-term friendship,) to run that show.

I thought of this "problem" I have read about on domestic policy and how it jives with what Brooks says about foreign policy:

Mr. Obama’s first two chiefs of staff, Rahm Emanuel and Mr. Daley, clashed with Ms. Jarrett over strategic direction and over who had greater authority to interpret and carry out the president’s wishes, several officials said.

“He’s got a real mess in the West Wing,” said one close presidential adviser. “Valerie is effectively the chief of staff, and he knows, but he doesn’t know. She’s almost like Nancy Reagan was with President Reagan, but more powerful.”

by artappraiser 10/20/2012 - 10:29 am (re: ocean-kat)

But...but...but...isn't foreign policy what Joe and Hillary are there for?

Seriously, how could Obama's FP not be dysfunctional.  Ongoing wars necessitated a degree of continuity from the Bush years. Clinton(s) at State would likely favor some continuity of their.  Remember how nasty the late 90s were?  Would it even be possible to enforce a 'no assholes' rule between those factions?

 

by EmmaZahn 10/19/2012 - 5:25 pm

Seriously, how could Obama's FP not be dysfunctional.

That is a seriously good point, for the reasons you give and a lot of others.

 

 

by A Guy Called LULU 10/19/2012 - 10:46 pm (re: EmmaZahn)

On a totally unrelated note, I've rowed with Rosa Brooks on the Rivanna Reservoir here in Charlottesville. We were in a learn-to-row class (for 8-person shells) several years back (during the Bush administration). She's a really nice person. It wasn't until nearly the end of the season that I found out just who she was.

by Verified Atheist 10/19/2012 - 6:04 pm

So strange when that kind of thing happens, eh? You thought they were just regular people....

But here's the thing, after you posted this, I went back and read her CV more carefully, and then I hated her along these lines: How the hell does she manage to find the time to take a learn-to-row class with two kids, many jobs in DC and a husband in Colorado etc.? Makes me feel like a real slacker and loser. I deal with this by self-delusion, thinking like I am not a grown up yet-instead of nearing retirement age, and still have plenty-o-time to lead a full life. blush

by artappraiser 10/20/2012 - 10:36 am (re: Verified Atheist)

Ms. Brooks was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and then Special Coordinator for Rule of Law and Humanitarian Policy, a position she may no longer be in, if it still exists. The job description would seem to involve a difficult mission to say the least, being at the Pentagon.

Agree with her O should have moved stronger to close the GITMO detention center. As to everything else, maybe he needs some new staff, but the nation and the military are broke, and the world knows it. Two wars and the Great Recession drained us.

As to Pakistan, Obama policy has been far better than George W. Bush, who gave billions with no strings, even as ISI connected terror groups kidnapped and beheaded American Daniel Pearl in 2002, while also playing the Taliban card cross the border, and apparently housing Osama in comfort in the garrison city of Abbotabad. Obama has increased pressure on them, and linked aid to results in fighting terror groups.

by NCD 10/19/2012 - 8:20 pm

Interestingly, as I note above in reply to Emma, point #5, she implies the Pentagon under Gates was run much better than Obama's NSS

On As to Pakistan, Obama policy has been far better than George W. Bush,

That's an understatement, mho, and I suspect you know that's my opinion.. But so what, really? That doesn't mean Obama administration is "being all it can be" to steal a phrase from military PR. Just comparing with GWB is setting a very low bar here. Is that all you want? GWB isn't president any longer. We've have a lot of pretty strange fuckups the last few years with Pakistan the last few years, like for example how about the Raymond Davis case, what was that really all about?

Keeping in mind that foreign policy is one of the few places where a President has more control over what happens than in other spheres... heck, he should be keeping in mind his own legacy should he be re-elected. Does he want to be known as a mediocre president who managed to muddle through so-so a difficult time or one of greatness?

I for one am not happy hearing an opinion from someone of this caliber that they are so dysfunctional. Especially not when the world is the shape it's in, when they've got not just unpredictable Arab springs but also people like Netanyahu to deal with and are using tactics of unstudied blowback potential like drone kills. It's no time to be using a B-team approach..

by artappraiser 10/20/2012 - 11:13 am (re: NCD)

A snarky but thought-provoking comment on Brooks' thread:

FSDA

Obama is a tactician, not a strategist.  Haven't you noticed?

1 day ago

Meta aside: I would however like to add that most of the comments on that post are proof that my former belief that a well-edited site as to contributions/posts will engender high quality comments was totally wrong.. crying Comments have to be "edited" as well, human moderation seems to be all there is, solution wise....

by artappraiser 10/20/2012 - 11:11 am

Latest Comments

more