17 comments

• 

  TT

  8 months ago

  I think if Obama is elected, then re-elected in 2012, then at some point during his eight years - possibly even during his first term - you will see a Secretary of State Petraeus. It's happened before.
  reply
• 

  Mary

  8 months ago

  What worries me about Kerry is his lack of a track record of accomplishment in the Senate. Yes, he's respected and thoughtful, but he is not known as a doer. With all the complex problems we face right now in foreign policy, we need someone hands-on who - through determination, ability to persuade, problem-solving skills, and will - can move people and issues forward to resolution. Obama and Biden will be trusted voices, and Kerry's attributes seem to offer more of the same rather than a distinct skill-set tailored to the job of Secretary of State.
  reply
• 

  ed

  8 months ago

  Kerry would be an absolute disaster at the job. They might as well tap Holbrooke, or some other Wilsonian to give the neocons another opportunity to influence the foreign policy apparatus.
  
  Obama needs to take in a high-profile Republican. Hagel is the best choice to do so. In addition to finding common cause with him on a range of foreign policy issues, he'd also be able to bring with him disaffected Republican realists to solidify support for Obama's foreign agenda. That is the most important objective of the Obama presidency at this point, outflank the neocons by building a bipartisan foreign policy consensus. Anything less keeps them in the game, and should there be a terrorist attack or an international crisis, they will possess the opportunity to appeal to the emotional side (rage and fear) of the electorate.
  reply
• 

  Elna

  8 months ago

  Above all, Kerry is a snore. He is not someone to imbue American foreign policy with vibrancy or dynamism. While Obama will electiry the world, if Kerry is his representative he will put people back to sleep. This is not the message we should be sending now. We need someone with energy who can move people
  reply
• 

  Ginny_in_CO

  8 months ago

  I hope they have considered who will be available to replace Kerry in the senate, given that within a few years, Kennedy will also leave a MA senate seat vacant.
  
  Lack of accomplishment in the Senate???? He has a strong record on the stuff that doesn't attract attention but is the bread and butter of legislation; on women's issues, small business, and much more. Kerry's knowledge and insight are deep and broad. "The New War" was not only prescient, it initiated and became the basis for a whole new line of research and policy development which continues worldwide in universities and think tanks. Still worth reading, especially for his identification of international crime as potentially the biggest threat of all. The need for a viable international justice system- an accomplishment with huge barriers.
  
  Perhaps the key advantage to that breadth and depth is having an understanding of what problems other countries are having and how we might provide targeted help with modest expense.
  
  No matter how many people want to claim that Kerry didn't inspire people, those of us who were active in that campaign know better. When he returned to campaigning in '06 he was even more inspiring to the people who came to hear him stumping for about 80 candidates. Until the media and some Dems (Hillary) allowed the stupid 'joke' to become yet another GOP smear that was accepted instead of rejected as patently ridiculous. (Kerry's support for Veterans is about 20 points higher than Obama's 'ok' 80% ).
  
  If you want to see Kerry's skills in persuasion and leadership - and how young he was when he first developed them, see "Going Up River".
  
  Kerry's long standing relationships with leaders in other countries is = or better than Biden's. Understanding the culture of those countries and knowing the history of our relations with them is essential to succesful diplomatic relationships. Kerry and Biden would be superb for the preparations Obama will need before he goes to a table.
  
  Another millitary person in the State Department is the last thing we need. 90% of our diplomatic problems are due to the fact that in addition to a military on amphetamines and steroids, the State Department has been simply a choral backup for the DoD for decades. Kerry could rebuild it to what it should be.
  
  There is one thing McCain has proposed that is absolutely correct. Cutting the fat and waste out of the Pentagon to use for health care and infrastructure. (Can you immagine the response if Obama had suggested it?) We are talking way more than 18 billion in pork barrel funds (some of which is actually reasonable). McCain isn't qualified - talk about an undistinguished record. But how about Hagel for SoD? Then it would be a Republican doing the dirty work. The military might be a lot more comfortable with a republican in there too.
  reply
• 

  Ginny_in_CO

  8 months ago

  Good grief. When has the SoS been known to be 'electrifying'? It is a position a patrician demeanor is an advantage if there ever was one. Kerry was born into the foreign service. That's a minor but not insignificant plus.
  
  If you asked the rest of the world who they would like as SoS, Kerry would be a big favorite. They were more behind him - and not just because he wasn't Bush- than the ignorant US voters in '04.
  reply
• 

  ed

  8 months ago

  The problem with Hagel at SECDEF, is that he's far less qualified to fill that position. He hasn't been a member of the Armed Services committee so he's not as familiar with the Pentagon bureaucracy as other individuals, like, Richard Danzig. Danzig would be an excellent pick for SECDEF given the respect that he commands in both parties.
  
  That leaves you with a single significant spot to fill...State. As I said before, the last thing that this administration needs is neoconservatives finding their way back into influential positions (either inside or outside of the administration). That's exactly what Kerry will allow to happen especially given how aloof the guy is when it comes to personnel. Judging by the people that supported him in the past--these are individuals that continue to find common cause with neoconservatives on a whole range of foreign policy issues.
  
  I realize that I sound like a broken record here, but keeping the neocons in the game is enormously dangerous...because as soon as the U.S. is attacked, or a crisis develops, they’ll use that opportunity to pressure an Obama administration to do something crazy.
  
  Per Joe Biden’s warning, you aren’t going to be able to sell Obama’s foreign policies if you’ve got the democrats advocating patience and prudence vs. the neocons advocating a punish our enemies mentality in a crisis. That’s where a guy like Hagel comes in. He brings with him a significant cadre of Republican realists which can shore up a bipartisan approach to an international crisis. That's what Obama needs to do immediately if he's to stunt the criticisms that will inevitably follow a withdrawl from Iraq.
  
  I’m very much hoping that Obama (provided he wins) does not make the mistake of bringing Kerry into State. This will be strategically and politically disastrous if he gives these morons (the neocons) another chance.
  reply
• 

  ed

  8 months ago

  Ginny,
  
  The thing is that I'm very worried about what the rest of the world wants/expects from an Obama administration. Let's say they get Kerry, I imagine that they will feel that Kerry is going to give in to what they want from the U.S.. The reality is that the rest of the world (especially the European) is going to be rather disappointed when John Kerry tells them that the U.S. wants more troops in Afghanistan, a serious commitment to NATO, and serious sanctions on Iran.
  
  Better to temper their expectations with someone like Hagel that they know is a tough, but fair negotiator...and won't tell them what they want to hear. We don't need a repeat of the Clinton administration that lied to the Europeans for the purposes of making them feel that we were amiable to some of their more unrealistic demands (CTBT for example).
  reply
• 

  Ginny_in_CO

  8 months ago

  I think what the world wants most from Obama and America is less arrogance, not threatening them with the power of our millitary to get what we (and the neocons) want, and more effort at solid diplomacy.
  
  The only thing I want less than a return to the Clinton administration is a continuation of the Bush regime. I grew up in the 50's, Ike Was more liberal than Clinton. They all make mistakes, it is inevitable.
  
  Your first paragraph is confusing. You imagine that the world will feel that Kerry will give in to what they want and then be dissappointed because he carries out what Obama has said he wants to do. (Kerry's understanding of narco-trafficking applied to Afghanistan?)
  
  Obama tends to talk like he is more willing to use the millitary than I would like. It strikes me (wishfully?) as saying stuff that he is not committed to acting on, to get elected in a promilitary mindset that is not reliably changed. In office I expect him to push the diplomatic and minimize the military.
  
  Whatever the world might be disappointed in being different from what they expect, if they are approached with the cooperative, respectful, creative approach that I think Obama, Biden and Kerry would use, it would dissapate quickly.
  reply
• 

  Ginny_in_CO

  8 months ago

  ed,
  
  I 'm trying to wrap my brain around how and what has given you the notion that Kerry is going to let the neocons into influential positions.
  
  If there really is evidence he would do such a thing, there is no way I would support him for SoS.
  
  Danzig would be great for SECDEF. I am as leary of GOP appointments to cabinet positions as you are of Kerry to SoS. The crony appointments and neocon approach to regulations strike me as much more likely in any of those positions than Kerry.
  reply
• 

  ed

  8 months ago

  Ginny,
  
  I've worked in and around DC in the foreign policy community for a little while now. What I have found, and I can give you a couple of examples, is that there is a great deal of common cause between Wilsonians and Neoconservatives. Going back a decade to the interventions in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo...The Republican supporters of those interventions were the neocons that we deal with today.
  
  The main reason for this is ends. Both Wilsonians and Neocons seek to remake the world in America's image. Neocons are more prone to try and use force to achieve these ends whereas Wilsonians are more prone use laws to try and achieve these ends. Both are equally Utopian and equally dangerous.
  
  As for collaboration, I would check out some of the stuff that has been produced by Bruce Jackson and Ron Asmus. Additionally, there was an excellent column in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks back that was written by a prominent Neoconservative and a Wilsonian arguing that the U.S. shouldn't take itself out of intervention game. It's entitled the Dangers of a Diminished America and you can find it here at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352...
  
  It's not so much that Kerry is directly linked to these people, it's that the Wilsonians will turn to the Neocons to support their interventions. That keeps them in the game and sets them up to move into pole position in a crisis.
  
  What we need is a more restrained U.S. that only intervenes when it's vital national interests are at stake. Hagel provides that in line with what Senator Obama believes. Moreover, Hagel brings with him a different group of Republican realists that are ready to support Senator Obama's foreign policy agenda (as it currently stands).
  reply
• 

  a

  8 months ago

  You know this is done, right? Kerry's had a promise in place since June.
  reply
• 

  ed

  8 months ago

  I pray that's not the case. That would be a blunder of significant proportions that will come back to haunt the Dems in a very short period of time. If Israel goes after Iran, the neocons will be right back in this without Republican realists to provide cover for the administration.
  
  Mark my words, if Hagel is not in this administration, Republican realists will wait until the Dems to fail on national security.
  reply
• 

  Ginny_in_CO

  8 months ago

  Ed,
  
  If you should come back, thanks for your info, I will check into it. The Neocon roles in the conflicts you cited I am familiar with. I am aware of the Wilsonian influence on foreign policy but did not realize they had gotten in bed with the neocons. Then again, it's hard to remember all the associations of so many people. At one point I tried to use an alphabetized divider to record names , associations and records. I misplaced it and have not kept up.
  
  Did you by chance come across Peter Brock's "Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting"? His writing, for an award winning (environmental) journalist, is unbelievably awful and the editing did nothing to salvage it. I found it difficult to come to any definite conclusions other than it would be good to have an investigation and coherent review by someone who could turn the information into a cogent piece of the picture.
  
  I agree to some extent that the Republican cover would be a good move. I prefer to push the idea that Obama is not an idealogue, he is a pragmatist who works from an understanding of right and wrong that I use.
  
  We need to abandon ideology for the time being and start trying to
  
  Do the right thing for the right reasons.
  
  While avoiding doing
  
  The right thing for the wrong reasons
  
  The wrong thing for the right reasons
  
  The wrong thing for the wrong reasons.
  
  If we do the first enough and learn the correct lessons, we might eventually develop an ideology that supports the Constitution without going through all of the pendulums swings we have over the decades and centuries.
  
  I also think that Americans have reached a teachable moment in regards to the reality of what our foreign policy, covertly as much or more as overtly, has messed up the world and the progress of democracy. As Kinzer said, it is hard to wrap your brain around what the middle east would have looked like in 2000 if we had not covertly unseated the first democratically elected president of Iran and reinstalled the Shah in '53.
  
  The world as a whole faces the same storm of crises and we will need to work together to figure out how to resolve them. It will be a crossroads in history that demands new thinking and given the well documented worldwide grassroots movements to do this, I have to hope and believe it will happen.
  
  It's been a while since I read "The New War" and will probably get it out and scan it. If you haven't read it, I think you might get a better understanding of Kerry's thinking on the international issues and how some form of international legal alliances need to be formed in order to effectively fight them. He offered nothing specific other than it will be a monumental task to create something effective while not infringing on national rights.
  
  Whatever the decisions on the cabinet positions, I think it is going to be uncharted water in going forward. What looks dangerous and futile may well turn out to be as successful as Obama's run for the presidency.
  
  Yeah, that audacity of hope.
  
  It's a right brain thing :). The US needs to do more right brain thinking - that is not convoluted by religious ideology. As an atheist, I am really impatient for that to gain traction.
  reply
• 

  Sammi

  8 months ago

  can it get any scarier?
  reply
• 

  Mark C

  8 months ago

  it took me more than a year to overcome my saddness when Senator Kerry did not become President. I had read and followed this wonderful patriot since 2003 and all I kept on saying to people is this man just has to become president. Well, that didn't happen and Kerry swallowed his pride and went back to work for the people pooring his heart and soul into it. He is passionte about many issues, but foreign policy and global issues are issues he comes back to and can talk of with easy. He knows his stuff in other words. I would not reccomend the faint of heart taking Kerry on on these issues.
  I have no doubt that he would make an excellent Secretary of State at a time when we need to see a new vision and much needed changed. the foreign policy ideas that Pres. Obama talked of during the campaign are so similar to Kerry's 2004-2008 ideas that I did a double. The two of them would work well together and Senator Kerry would be a fine extension of the Obama administration.
  I hope he names Mr. Kerry. I will be very disapointed for our country if he doesn't.
  reply
• 

  Sergio santana

  8 months ago

  Felicitar a los Estados Unidos y al mundo entero por recuperar la ilusión. No sabemos si tendrá efectos prácticos la elección del nuevo presidente, que esperamos que sí, pero siento por mí y muchas personas, que los tendrá y tiene anímicos.
  
  Saludos desde Lanzarote (islas Canarias)
  Sergio Santana
  reply