Beyond Obama, As The World Turns
09 November 2008 5:00 am by Taylor Marsh
–updated–
Putin is stirring open conversation, helped along by his man Medvedev:
[...] Alexander Rahr, a Russia expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations,
said the notion of Mr. Putin’s return had been discussed openly, with
some theorizing that Mr. Putin had wanted to stay on without amending the
Constitution himself. If Mr. Medvedev makes the change, “it is more
clean, because it’s another president proposing this, not himself,”
Mr. Rahr said.
But let’s get some things straight first. The colossal screw up on Georgia,
the crashing Russian market, and the plummet of oil prices makes Putin’s dreams
of returning to create an empire a bit iffy. That Medvedev started out of the
gate with the missile bluster isn’t helpful to Russia’s status either.
Obama’s office responded with a “no commitment” but, leaving, as they say in traditional security language, “all options on the table.”
“President Kaczynski raised missile defense, but President-elect Obama made no commitment on it,” Denis McDonough, Obama’s senior foreign policy adviser, said in a statement released to reporters. “His position is as it was throughout the campaign, that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable.”
Note to President-elect Obama: To keep Putin in check begin a green revolution
of job creation and energy independence. Nothing could be more important to
our national security and that crazy Central Asian area that’s going to cause
you so much trouble very soon.
Is
Putin Poised for a Comeback? offers more analysis, including that the
Russian people like Putin: Thanks to a carefully honed PR image and a suffocated
media and opposition, Mr Putin is by far and away Russia’s most popular politician.
He is credited with bringing stability to the country after the chaos of the
Yeltsin years in the 1990s.
Something else I’ve obviously been giving thought are the national security appointments. Laura Rozen wrote about it recently. Obama’s security team?
James Steinberg, the highly regarded former Clinton-era deputy national security advisor, is being considered for national security advisor. Long time Obama national security advisor Susan Rice, Clinton’s former assistant secretary of state for Africa, is being considered for deputy national security advisor, as well as for US ambassador to the UN. Top NSC appointment announcements could come as early as today, and other White House appointments would be announced after that. For top jobs at State, the short list is said to include Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb, ret.), Richard Lugar (R-IN) (all moderate colleagues of Obama and VP-elect Joseph Biden on the Senate Foreign Relations committee), former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Georgia), former Clinton era Balkans envoy Richard Holbrooke, and retired Marine Corps General and Mid East envoy James L. Jones, who is likely to get a top job in the administration elsewhere if not at State. Deputy Secretary of State could go to Greg Craig, a former counselor to President Clinton.
Also take a look at Jane Harman, who’s likely to get appointed somewhere.
But getting back to Steinberg, Rozen evidently saw the same tape, which showed Obama with Steinberg as he went into his first intel briefing after winning the election. As she says, if you’re going for your first intel confab, it would be advantageous to have your national security advisor with you. Though at this point I’m not taking bets on any particular appointment, but Steinberg is someone to eye. Interesting reading from him:
[...]The new approach must have the following key “design” characteristics, which reflect the character of the threat we confront. 1. The handling of information must be decentralized, modeled on a network approach (just as our adversaries have modeled their actions on a network approach).
2. Our strategy must focus on prevention. Although apprehension and conviction of wrong-doers may in some cases contribute to prevention, a prevention mind-set must dominate.
3. The line between “domestic” and “foreign” threats is increasingly difficult to sustain, and our approach must avoid rigid structures and procedures based on this distinction.
4. The range of actors necessary to this task inevitably will extend beyond what can be contained in any single department or organization.
5. The network must reflect the fact that most of the key actors are not in the federal government, but in state and local government, and in the private sector.
6. Because the problem of terrorism is transnational, our approach must integrate the need for wide-scale international cooperation.
7. Since the effort to combat terrorism is a long-term problem and is designed to protect our way of life and our values, as well as our security, the policies and actions undertaken must have the support of the American people.
On the Afghanistan front, Zbigniew Brzezinski signaled a bit of a shift on Afghanistan on Friday on “Morning Joe.”
“I think a limited additional deployment of forces may be necessary. There may be some parts of Afghanistan in which the military presence from the outside has to be beefed up. So I have no objections to some limited further military deployments. What I do feel strongly about is that the problem has to be viewed as a political problem rather than as a military problem and the only way to deal with it as a political problem is to engage the various Talibans, not just Taliban, because that’s to some extent is a fiction. But the various Talibans that exist in different parts of Afghanistan in a dialogue pointing essentially to local arrangements, whereby the local Taliban would commit itself to eliminate or expel any Al Qaeda presence in that region. … In return for which NATO would be prepared to disengage from that region, because ultimately Afghanistan has to solve its own problems, and it’s a country with a real sense of identity, but also xenophobia.”
This is a shift from what Zbig has previously stated, which to me signals that it’s possible some sort of dialogue has been engaged to explain Obama’s broader thoughts in order to bring Brzezinski on board. Pure speculation on my part, but not impossible given Zbig’s prior statements on expanding troop presence in Afghanistan, and also because Obama’s gone to him before.
On the Israeli front, see Rahm Emanuel. Message received?
As for Hezbollah in Lebanon, Juan Cole writes something I wish would catch on, but I say that often in regards to Professor Cole:
If the only real reason Iran is accused of supporting international terrorism is its arming of Hizbullah in south Lebanon, that is a pretty problematic charge. The recent agreement among political parties in Lebanon recognized Hizbullah as a kind of Lebanese national guard charged with defending the Lebanese south against Israeli aggression. …
As for that interesting letter from President Ahmadinejad, Obama responded:
“I will be reviewing the letter from President Ahmadinejad, and we will respond appropriately,” he said, leaving open the question about whether he will reply. President Bush chose not to respond to a rambling 18-page letter he received from Ahmadinejad in 2006, but during the campaign Obama indicated he would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders. “Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable,” Obama said yesterday. “And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening.”
If you’re looking for bombast or bluster from Obama, please adjust your windshield appropriately. Slow and steady she goes, we can only hope.
Indonesia executes Bali bombers.
U.S. halts Columbian aid, because of continuing scandals.
In the Congo, things continue to worsen.
Spain’s in at the G-20 thanks to France’s Sarkozy.
No doubt by the time you finish reading this there will be more developing. Tenuous times, especially for an incoming president at the beginning of the post Bush era.
UPDATE: This broke later this morning, after this post: China Announces $586 Billion Stimulus Plan:
China on Sunday announced a massive $586 billion stimulus package aimed at boosting domestic spending over the next two years in its most aggressive response so far to the spreading global financial crisis. [...] “The leadership here is still reluctant to move aggressively, lest it be accused of not attending to matters here and simply following the lead of more powerful countries,” a Beijing-based political analyst, Russell Leigh Moses, said last week. “Beijing wants to look responsible internationally, but it is also terrified of seeming weak domestically.” …
