(HOST) Since President elect Obama named his National Security team last Monday, most of the complaints have come from Democrats – not Republicans. This morning, commentator Barrie Dunsmore, a veteran diplomatic correspondent for ABC News, has some words of reassurance for those nervous Democrats.
(DUNSMORE) When the likes of Rush Limbaugh are praising Barack Obama’s choices for Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and National Security Adviser, it’s enough to make a liberal Democrat cringe. Surely this is not the change that progressives had in mind when they worked their hearts out for Obama’s election.
But wait a minute. No self-respecting liberal has ever taken anything Limbaugh says seriously. Why start now? Limbaugh is a master showman. He lives for the limelight. He also loves to scare liberals. What better way to achieve both ends than by praising Hillary Clinton? However, suppose John McCain had been elected and he chose Clinton to be his Secretary of State. What would Limbaugh’s reaction have been then? I think we know. He would have retreated into his anti-Clinton vituperation, for which he has been famous for the past sixteen years.
The national security team that Obama has put together is centrist, some would say pragmatic or realist. But I would argue that this makes it very different, especially from the first six years of the Bush administration. While some have expressed concern that the principal team members are more hawkish than Mr. Obama himself, that may not be such a bad thing. In poll after poll, Democrats lose to Republicans on the issue of national security, and to some extent this new team will shore up Obama’s image as a strong Commander-in-Chief.
But whatever the appearances, this is not a team of super-hawks. Defense Secretary Robert Gates clearly believes that America’s security depends upon more than its military. Gates has actually been publicly calling to have the State Department’s budget greatly expanded, so that America’s soft power can be used more effectively. It was Gates who said, "There are more people in America’s military bands than there are civilian diplomats." He has also said that an American military strike against Iran would be a "strategic calamity."
As for National Security Adviser designate General James Jones, he is a Vietnam veteran and a former Marine Commandant. But he also grew up abroad, speaks French, and attended the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. He is a former NATO Commander who understands alliances and wants the Guantanamo detention center closed "tomorrow."
Then there is Hillary Clinton, who jousted with Obama during the campaign over foreign policy, but their differences were subtle. They both wanted American combat troops out of Iraq, and both believe in the use of diplomacy in dealing with Iran. She is hawkish on Israel, and that may be useful when the time comes to cajole the Israelis and Palestinians into a final peace agreement.
As Obama has said, his appointees will be executing his foreign policy. As such, there will be no more torture, international law will be respected, allies will be listened to, Americans will lead by persuasion and example, and war will be truly the last resort. That, I believe, represents profound change.