Clinton State Department Taking Shape
I didn’t really think of this when it was first announced, but one advantage to appointing a big-shot like Hillary Clinton — and perhaps more important than being a big-shot, someone for whom saying “yes” wasn’t a no-brainer — to head the State Department is that it gives her the clout to argue forcefully for a rebalancing of institutional power away from the Pentagon and toward Foggy Bottom. That’s something the country needs, and even Robert Gates has acknowledged that it’s something we need, but Secretary-designate Clinton has both the motivation and the clout and network and credibility needed to get the job done. The official news that James Steinberg will be her Deputy is also good news. As Steve Clemons observes Steinberg was one of those who recognized the wisdom of setting a date for getting out of Iraq before that became the politically kosher stance for big-shot Democrats to take. Ironically, his co-author on the piece in question was Michael O’Hanlon who later backed off that view, but Steinberg never has. Steinberg also wanted to meet some bloggers at Netroots Nation over the summer, which I think makes him more aware than most security wonks of where things are headed in terms of activist groups.
I’m less sure that having the State Department play a bigger role in international economic policy is really such a great idea. Letting the Treasury lead on this worked fine during the Clinton administration and insofar as it hasn’t worked under Bush it’s been because his Treasury Secretaries have been unimpressive and subcabinet jobs have often lingered vacant for long periods of time. In general, I’d like to see economic people more involved with foreign policy rather than foreign policy people more involved with economics.
The idea of reviving the practice of sending “special envoys” to places is a good one. The three people specifically named as potential envoys to deal with the Israel-Arab conflict, however, were not so encouraging — I’m not sure either Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, or Richard Holbrooke would be seen as credible honest brokers in that role. There are a lot of other parts of the world where Holbrooke, in particular, could be very effective and where that wouldn’t be an issue. Of the buzzed-about names for Israel-Arab issues, Dan Kurtzer continues to be my favorite, though in principle anyone could be good in that job if they really want to be.
45 Responses to “Clinton State Department Taking Shape”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:11 am
Also, given that for many years the international economic policies heavily pushed by the U.S. foreign policy establishment were utter horrific failures, many of which have since then repudiated by the rest of the world, particularly our own hemisphere, I would say that no, having the U.S. take the lead in pushing through economic policies internationally is a bad idea, and that economic policies internationally should be based on the inherent quality of those policies for all concerned, and not who’s pushing them.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:15 am
I suppose Holbrooke is the least Israeli-lobby-connected compared to Kurtzer, Indyk, or Ross.
Any news on Anne-Marie Slaughter’s possible elevation?
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:51 am
I’m reasonably OK with Obama’s appointments in the domestic realm. But the top foreign policy team and national security team is disappointing. I am afraid the Clinton appointment in particular is going to turn out to have been a mistake on several levels.
On the other hand, I understand the political pressures that made him do it.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:28 am
The real news here is the splitting of the Deputy position in two, and the hiring of Jack Lew.
State has typically been beset by management problems. No other cabinet secretary is as divorced from the daily management of their agency as the Secretary of State. Her primary occupation is shuttling about the world, meeting with her peers and counterparts. It’s a job that calls for diplomatic skill; somewhat akin to ambassador-in-chief. She spends a remarkably small proportion of her time actually at Foggy Bottom. That’s a void that the Deputy is supposed to fill. But in general, the Deputy is also selected on the strength of their foreign policy credentials, and not for their management skills. Jim Steinberg is a classic Deputy in this respect.
We’ll have to see what the new organizational chart actually looks like. But it sure sounds like Hillary intends to split the department’s functions in two, a step that is long overdue. My bet is that Steinberg winds up in charge of policy and diplomacy. Lew, meanwhile, will probably assume responsibility for the Undersecretary for Management, as well as a number of the portfolios reporting directly to the Deputy – like legislative affairs and the IG.
One thing that’s become increasingly clear over the past decade is that State simply lacks the bureaucratic heft to go toe-to-toe with defense. Simply increasing its budget and expanding the foreign service is insufficient to solve that problem. Adding a second deputy helps. Jack Lew will outrank his effective counterparts in most other agencies – he’ll be a deputy, meeting with undersecretaries and comptrollers. In Washington, that sort of petty stuff actually matters. Plus, he knows how the budget works, and can secure the funding State needs. And, perhaps most importantly, he comes from outside the foreign policy establishment, and will likely be capable of undertaking the sort of bureaucratic reorganization that State so desperately needs.
Steinberg is no surprise. But Jack Lew should be headline news.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 am
As long as we are citing Steve Clemons posts, note that Steve has another post up sounding the alarm about Afghanistan. I’m extremely concerned about Obama’s plans to rededicate the country and NATO to a stepped-up commitment to Afghanistan, and to deploy more forces there. He is taking a huge gamble with his presidency. If Obama continues to heed the siren call of nation building in the warlord-torn Afghan wilderness, he will end up not as the new FDR, but the new LBJ. His progressive economic, environmental and energy agenda at home will be wrecked by a futile, costly and deadly military commitment abroad, every bit as wrongheaded as Iraq and Vietnam.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
cynic makes a great point about the bureaucratic problems at State. However part of the reason Defense beat State in all those intra-Bush arguments wasn’t because of organization, it was because Powell was a show piece and Cheney/Rumsefeld had Bush’s ear.
As for international economic policy being run out of State: awful idea. Markets are too connected for international issues not to be considered along with domestic concerns. Keep it at Treasury and to a less extent at USTR. If anything we’ve seen Treasury take away some of State’s diplomatic issues. Sec. Paulson has been Bush’s point guy on China.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
A redux of the envoys is a stupid idea. The fact is that unless the Secretary of State or the President himself is involved in the process, it won’t be seen as serious by the rest of the world (not to mention the parties in question). Does anyone really think that given the control-freak nature of Hillary Clinton, that the Iranians, the Israelis, the Palestinians, etc. etc., will see these people as anything more than messenger boys and girls? If you have to ask permission to take a piss, you’re not going to be seen as a particularly strong foundation upon which to build a long term agreement.
The only time that an envoy seemed to work was with Northern Ireland…But given the reality that this was small potatoes (at the time) compared to the Middle East or the Balkans or a host of other serious trouble spots around the globe, I see this as another sign of how disconnected members of this new administration are with reality.
Naivety can be just as dangerous as hawkishness with the right mix of people…And for the sake of saving a couple of paragraphs, I won’t get into how dumb Holbrooke is or how crazy Dennis Ross is.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
The only time that an envoy seemed to work was with Northern Ireland…But given the reality that this was small potatoes (at the time) . . .
Please tell me that was intentional . . .
Envoys will always be seen as messengers and they should be. A good envoy is an observer, not just a problem solver. It’s a tired phrase but an envoy is the President’s “eyes in the field”.
And apparently Ross’s classes at Georgetown are fairly balanced. At least according to my friends.
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I did think of it when it was first announced. Does that mean I win a prize?
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
What cynic said: there absolutely needs to be someone high up at State looking internally, to deal with FSOs and people stateside who have been in “why the fuck do we bother?” mode for the past five years.
However part of the reason Defense beat State in all those intra-Bush arguments wasn’t because of organization, it was because Powell was a show piece and Cheney/Rumsefeld had Bush’s ear.
You also have throw in the selection of John Bolton, who was there primarily to route around Powell and undermine every arms treaty on the table in the first years of the first term.
I’m ambivalent on the envoy issue. On the one hand, it shows skin in the game. On the other hand, it can lead to the stagnation of policy, by encouraging a Procrustean approach dictated by the historical role of past envoys. The abstraction of “Israel” into a policy plank separate from Israel-the-country is the most obvious example, but it applies elsewhere too. If you’re going to have envoys, then the remit needs to be fairly open, and as a result, the picks have to be rock-solid.
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Tony Blair’s the “middle east peace envoy”, which you don’t mention. Sounded like a strange idea at the time and to my knowledge hasn’t produced anything useful. More of that kind of thing’s not really needed.
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Folks,
Come on…It’s not like they’re selling these envoys as individuals that will be sent to places like Canada…They’re selling them as international problem solvers…problems like Middle East peace, Iranian nonproliferation, and deteriorating Russian relations. Envoys may be the “eyes in the field,” but let’s not pretend that when Richard Holbrooke’s name gets thrown around, it’s for anything less than solving some massive foreign policy issue.
The reason why I point this out is because the policy is just as naive as the Bush Administration’s views on American power. By sending around a bunch of (establishment approved) foreign policy hacks, you’re not absolving yourself of the need to prioritize your foreign policy objectives. Indeed, you may actually be making things more difficult. How do we think the Iranians will respond if we send over Holbrooke or Ross instead of Clinton? Probably similar to how the Russians reacted to when this administration sent over one of its big donors to lobby for the Iraq war…Insulted and less willing to cooperate.
I realize that this is a difficult thing for the post-modernists to grasp here, but if you’re going to be serious about fixing U.S. foreign policy, you’re going to have to persuade Hillary Clinton to make some politically difficult choices (like sitting down with the Mullahs) rather than outsource our FP to a bunch of well-regarded buffoons with NO POWER.
Which brings up the heart of this issue: Hillary Clinton. Why do you think she’s pushing for these envoys? Because she’s keeping her options open to run for President…and by not involving herself in these difficult issues, she’s not hurting herself politically.
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
njbunk,
Trust me on this one…Dennis Ross is a very, very, dangerous neoconservative. I’ve had the occasion to speak with Kristol, Perle and Woosley…and I can tell you that each one of them are pleasant, disarming, and seemingly reasonable in private conversation. It’s what they do behind the scenes that’s so troubling. Dennis Ross is the exact same way.
What I keep asking myself is which party is dumber at this point? The Republicans that allowed the neocons to destroy them (and the country), or the Democrats that are keeping the door open for continued neocon influence (see Hillary Clinton)?
Answers anyone?
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
njbunk.
I just got the potatoes reference. Yes it took me that long (although I first looked at it at 3).
And no, it wasn’t intentional. Although after the stuff I hear from some of my Scottish friends about the Irish, I’m concerned that they’ve made me some kind of unconscious bigot.
For the record however, I have taken one of those bias tests online…and it told me that I was not biased/bigoted. I credit that to The Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Stoicism, that’s what so-called conservatives ought to try emulate these days.
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Re Ed Smithe
I find it quite amusing that Mr. Smithe considers Dennis Ross to be a neocon and hopelessly pro-Israel. The neocons generally consider Mr. Ross to be soft on the Palestinians and far too pro-Arab for their tastes. He ought to try reading some of the articles on Mr. Ross over at the Israelinsider which are the formers’ mirror opposites in their opinions. I suspect that Mr. Smithe considers anyone who doesn’t favor forcing the Government of Israel to go out of business to be a neocon.
December 24th, 2008 at 7:27 am
SLC,
Who said anything about Israel? Have you read Ross’s statements on Iran or Iraq? If not, then please don’t accuse me of being some anti-Israeli bigot. I realize that attacking me personally is what most of you emotionalists consider a first step in an argument…but it’s really not terribly effective when the facts are on your side.
DLC,
We’ll just have to wait and see. And yes, I understand that the world is a much larger place than just one person…and that she needs the entire diplomatic core to help her. However, per my comment above I’m not talking about your run of the mill stuff…I’m talking about Iran and Israel/Palestine…And already I’ve heard two names floated to handle both (Ross and Holbrooke…although I don’t think that Holbrooke’s ego will allow him to take another envoy position). If she’s going to put a “point-man” on both of these issues (which many would consider the most important foreign policy challenges facing us today), where would you suggest she devote a significant degree of her attention?
December 24th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Re Ed Smithe
I don’t think that the incoming Osama administration has in mind making Dennis Ross an envoy to Iran. It is my understanding that he has been giving President Elect Osama briefings and advice on the Israel/Palestinian front. It would be hard for anyone to suggest that he is in any way, shape, form, or regard incompetent to do so, based on his vast experience in that area, regardless of his ideas about Iraq and Iran. By the way, it would be useful to post a link to an article written by Mr. Ross in which he takes the neocon position on Iraq and Iran.
However, it is probably irrelevant who President Elect Osama would appoint to such a post because there is no possibility whatever of any solution in the foreseeable future to the Israel/Palestinian dispute that both sides would accept so the former would just be wasting his time and political capital trying to square the circle there.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:01 pm
cialis
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:26 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:56 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 17th, 2009 at 2:23 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:02 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:04 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:22 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:14 am
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me. viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 7:17 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:37 am
The style of writing is quite familiar to me. Did you write guest posts for other blogs?