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

Thanks for the bullet points.

EmmaZahn — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 18:18:16 +0000

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.

Try again. The Village is an

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 16:39:07 +0000

In reply to "... the whole Village will

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.

Interestingly, as I note

artappraiser — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:13:20 +0000

In reply to Ms. Brooks was Deputy

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..

A snarky but

artappraiser — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:11:26 +0000

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

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.. Comments have to be "edited" as well, human moderation seems to be all there is, solution wise....

So strange when that kind of

artappraiser — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:36:31 +0000

In reply to On a totally unrelated note,

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.

unproven assumptions that

artappraiser — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:29:47 +0000

In reply to Interesting article, but it

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.”

Well the article really

artappraiser — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:12:17 +0000

In reply to Not sure that Obama is in as

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.....

Seriously, how could Obama's

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 02:46:44 +0000

In reply to But...but...but...isn't

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.

Me, too. Then I wonder,

EmmaZahn — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 01:00:13 +0000

In reply to There are times when I think

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

Ms. Brooks was Deputy

NCD — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 00:20:37 +0000

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

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.