Samantha Power is a Harvard Professor and Barack Obama’s chief foreign policy adviser. She responds to recent criticism from the bipartisan Washington DC foreign policy Establishment.
August 3, 2007
To: Interested Parties
From: Samantha Power — Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Re: Conventional Washington versus the Change We Need
It was Washington’s conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.
Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States “finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda.” He warned that a “dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq would result in an “occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”
Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is “persistent and evolving.” Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war.
Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington’s conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want.
On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things. On each point, he has brought fresh strategic thinking and common sense that break with the very conventional wisdom that has led us into Iraq.
Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:
* The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
* The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
* The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you’re not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator – he’s ready to tell them what they don’t want to hear because that’s how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that’s how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era of tough, principled and engaged American diplomacy to deal with 21st century challenges.
Terrorist Sanctuaries: For years, we have given President Musharraf hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, while deferring to his cautious judgment on how to take out high-level al Qaeda targets – including, most likely, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Here is the result:
* Bin Laden and Zawahiri – two men with direct responsibility for 9/11– remain at large.
* Al Qaeda has trained and deployed hundreds of fighters worldwide from its sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.
* Afghanistan is far less secure because the Taliban can strike across the border, and then return to safety in Pakistan.By any measure, this strategy has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us defer to Musharraf in perpetuity. Barack Obama wants to turn the page. If Musharraf is willing to go after the terrorists and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base of operations, Obama would give him all of the support he needs. But Obama made clear that as President, if he had actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan – and the Pakistanis continued to refuse to act against terrorists known to be behind attacks on American civilians – then he will use highly targeted force to do so.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era that moves beyond the conventional wisdom that has brought us over-reliance on an unreliable dictator in Pakistan and an occupation of Iraq.
Nuclear Attacks on Terrorist Targets: For years, Washington’s conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use – inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America’s prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite platitudes.
Vision: American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble.
Barack Obama says we have to turn the page. We cannot afford any more of this kind of bankrupt conventional wisdom. He has laid out a foreign policy that is bold, clear, principled, and tailored for the 21st century. End a war we should never have fought, concentrate our resources against terrorists who threaten America. End the counter-productive policy of lumping together our adversaries and avoiding talking to our foes. End the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance, and offer the American people the change that they need.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right. It is conventional wisdom that has to change.
I like what I’m seeing here.
Well, after the past 6 years, the standard is pretty low.
What I don’t read or hear being, not only addressed, but even acknowledged by any of the candidates:
Top IEA official: without Iraqi oil, we hit the wall in 2015
A Crude Awakening
I am having difficulty believing these words, particularly “end the war in Iraq,” are more than sweet nothings.
Me too.
I have liked a great deal of what Mr. Obama has to say.
And I like the symbolism of his racial heritages as well, as it plays into the…I hope… thorough eventual browning of America.
If I thought that he could win and then function well as the primary leader of this country, I would support him, too.
But I do NOT think so. I think he is about 6 to 8 years ahead of his time. He might win the election…I mean, he is a VERY talented man on any number of levels and his youth and race would mobilize large segments of the population that generally do not vote because they feel unrepresented, plus over the past 6 years or so the Ratpublicans have dug themselves a hole that they may never escape…but AFTER he won he would still have to deal with the entrenched power structure as it stands (the PermaGov, as I like to call it) and I simply do not think that such a massively centrist force would very effectively cooperate with him.
He would be even more isolated than was Jimmy Carter…and YOU know what happened to good ol’ Jimmeh, right?
Thus…my fervent hope that he runs on the ticket with Ms. Clinton. Let him learn how to play the levers of this government and economic structure for a term or two. Let the power structure get used to him and his ideas. Let things change a little more.
THEN move forward in the ways that he espouses.
If of course we survive that long. Which is the ghost in this particular machine.
We shall see…
AG
And that, AG, is certainly the elephant in the room.
This certainly represents the biggest challenge to any nominee. The ability of anyone to corral this elephant is what will matter the most.
Agree with AG and MikeinOhio.
The “common wisdom” in the article could also be called “manufactured consent”.
The so-called common wisdom regarding preemptive war on Iraq was not generally shared by the US population nor those of the then allied countries of England, Spain and Italy.
I don’t know if any single politician is capable of taking on the PermaGov with its propaganda tools of mass media and smear machines.
AG, I think you nail the problem. But I think the best hope for addressing this is a popular president who approaches the problem through cogent direct appeals to public understanding.
Whether Obama has that level of political savvy is, frankly, doubtful. But then, no one seems to. What I do not believe is that toiling in the background of a HRC White House will address it at all.
I’d most prefer an Obama/Feingold primary challenge in 2012 to set up a campaign from the left in 2016. But that’s putting the cart wayyy ahead of the horse.
Yeah.
Feingold.
The Cuomo/Bradley of the mid-2000s.
“I would if I could. I know I SHOULD…but…NAAAAAHHHHH. I think I’ll just play Senator some more instead.”
Fuggedaboudim.
No fire in his belly.
AG
The punditocracy and its echo chambers overreached when they attacked Obama as “inexperienced” for raising the point that civilians might get killed if you drop nukes on terrorists.
That created an opening, and he and his people are nimbly taking advantage of it. So at this point, I think the very least we can say about him is that he is running a better campaign than Kerry did.
Obama has spent a lot less time in the Senate than Kerry, which probably means that he retains a lot more common sense and natural instincts.
There is the question of whether his “ideas” are really that “new”, if he takes it for granted that the US has a right to launch military operations in a sovereign state like Pakistan if we don’t like how the government there is dealing with “terrorists”. But it would be bad manners to raise this question here.
Bin Ladin is dead, and there’s no evidence he is responsible for 9/11. This is more of the “I would have gotten Bin Ladin” nonsense we heard in the 2004 election.
Worse, it’s nonsense that covers up for the people that really murdered Americans on 9/11.
If Obama really wants peace and security, he needs to quit trying to be a tough guy by making irresponsible statements about invading an unstable country.
“I like what I’m seeing here.”
right on booman. i like what i’m hearing too. spot on.
go obama. i’m more and more impressed with obama every day. i was a solid gore/feingold supporter for the 08 run these last few years on dkos and glad to see obama is going for it, cutting out the bullshit and talkin some sense. i’m tired of freeper hawk hillary trying to act like she’s suddenly got the same position in terms of iraq. i’m very glad to see obama pointing out her hawkish freepshow as well. (it was unbelievable no one was standing up and pointing that out.) right on obama.
..and with regard to iraq: out. now. dammit. period.
This is the “fresh face” and “new approach” to American Democracy that I have been saying we need in this country. After the Bush years, every one of our assumptions about foreign policy needs to be reexamined.
For too long, “the way things are done” has undermined our claims to be the leaders of the free world and fighting for democracy that is the core of what needs to change.
that Canada has a Prime Minister, not a President.
You know, if he’s going to get all tough-talking re: NAFTA.
Within the coventional framework this is very unconventional and exactly what we need. A fresh new (mighty perhaps?) wind.
Obama does represent the future. I just hope we have enough progressives on the ground, in congress and in the states to break the paradigm if Obama is elected.
My concern from day 1 has been that there isn’t a strong enough progressive force right now to both get Obama’s back and push him in the direction the country needs to go.
But I’m really liking this too. And he’s not responding to the angry white man memes that Romney and the beltway idiots are trying to get him to buy into.
OK, within the conventional framework, which is largely a lie, this is better. I think he’s an improvement, and would like to see him as president.
Jesus, what am I saying. Duranta and Glen Ford are right. He’s another warmonger, and talks about invading a nuclear power and doing regime change.
Here you see Obama say what he thinks, which is obvious, moral, and rational, and then back pedal to say what the real electorate, the plutocracy, want.
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2007/2742
Disciples of Yossarian
by Bob Koehler
He’s walking a thin line between the break the paradigm candidate of the future and “the serious charismatic leader” who just happens to be multi-cultural.
He’s in a tough position. Howard Dean essentially thumbed his nose at the plutocracy and was crucified for it. Obama’s trying to figure out a middle path I think (hope).
Mushareff has serious problems, the first of which is that he took power in a coup. The second is that no Pakistanileader has ever really had control of the northwest frontier and the tribal lands in Pakistan.
What needs to happen is a 360 turnaround in mindset and a reframing of law enforcement and intelligence as the primary thrust as opposed to military strikes. Of course you’ll need military backup in a region like the northwest frontier but Obama should really begin reframing the GWOT as an extended multi-lateral police action.
from TPM.
I think you both have a point that needs to be considered. It seems obvious that this government we have now is not doing a damn thing about what needed to be done in the beginning of this whole mess. But you do understand the dynamics have changed and we need to consider [how] we are going to change our dynamics to do the job that needed to be done in the first place.
This is going to take a considerable amount of planning and reinforcement as to in what coordination and cooperation with Pakistan we are going to work with or not work with. Remembering all the time we do not want a Pakistan that will turn over the nuclear benefits to the bad guys….[as if] we haven’t already done this. Remembering all the time we have been in Pakistan since a long time ago…I think at since the ’50 or there about as an actionable force in some way or the other. What we do have to have a someone who can communicate the real objective without any bribery or threats what so ever to make it plausible as we do work on the solution.
The reason that Howard Dean excitied me about politics was that he clearly saw the deep structural flaws in our political and media climate. Even more amazing was that he was (is still, I’m sure) able to dismiss them quickly and coherently.
Obama is right to attempt to correct some of the biases towards ignorant group think that exist in the media, but it will take more than a strongly worded press release. Unfortunately, many reporters are lemmings with sharp teeth, and they hate to be told they’re wrong.
Obama has set himself a very hard task with this approach. It will take not just perseverence but also creativity and ingeniousness to get the points he is making accurately reported. And that is the goal.
Once a candidate controls (or at least strongly influences) their own portrayal in the media, they have gone a long way towards winning. Obama may have a decent chance with this line of reasoning (it is, after all, completely correct), but he will have to understand who his audience is (the reporters) and how to effectively communicate with them (by coddling their high-school cool club egos).