And on the Eighth Day: Hopes and Fears over The Obama Foreign Policy

Whatever else is said about Barack Obama, you cannot accuse him of being slow off the mark. A day after the Inauguration, he issued the order closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and CIA “black sites” and ending torture by American agencies. Two days later, he revoked the Reagan directive banning funding for any organisation carrying out abortions overseas. On 26 January, he ordered a new approach to emissions and global warming, as the State Department appointed Todd Stern to oversee policy on climate change.



Last Monday, Obama launched his “reach-out” to the Islamic world with a televised interview, his first with any channel, with Al Arabiya. Two envoys, George Mitchell for the Middle East and Richard Holbrooke for Afghanistan and Pakistan, have been appointed; Mitchell is already in the region searching for diplomatic settlements. All of this has occurred even as the Administration was pushing for approval of its economic stimulus package and engaging in fierce inter-agency debates over Iraq and Afghanistan.

The media, rightly but ritually, hailed Obama's symbolic renunciation of his predecessor George W. Bush. Much more substantial was this Administration's attention to methods. The American global image would not be projected and its position assured, as in the Dubya years, through military strength; instead, the US would lsucceed through a recognition of and adherence to international cooperation, a projection of tolerance, and a desire to listen. While the term “smart power”, developed over the last two years in anticipation of this Administration, is already in danger of overuse, it is the right expression for the Obama approach.

Yet, even in Obama's more than symbolic announcement, there were seeds of trouble for that “smart power”. The President had hoped to order the immediate, or at least the near-future, shutdown of Camp X-Ray, but he was stymied by political opposition as well as legal complications. The interview with Al Arabiya was a substitute for Obama's hope of a major foreign policy speech in an Arab capital in the first weeks of his Administrat. The Holbrooke appointment was modified when New Delhi made clear it would not receive a “Pakistan-India” envoy; Mitchell's scope for success has already been constrained by the background of Gaza.

Little of this was within Obama's power to rectify; it would have been Messianic indeed if he could have prevailed immediately, given the domestic and international context. The President may have received a quick lesson, however, in the bureaucratic challenges that face even the most determined and persuasive leader.

Already some officials in the Pentagon have tried to block Obama initiatives. They tried to spun against the plan to close Guantanamo Bay, before and after the Inauguration, with the claims that released detainees had returned to Al Qa'eda and terrorism. That attempt was undermined by the shallowness of the claims, which were only substantiated in two cases, and the unexpected offense that it caused Saudi Arabia, who felt that its programme for rehabilitation of former insurgents had been insulted. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates finally and firmed quashed the mini-coup by declaring on Wednesday that he fully supported Obama's plans.

On other key issues, however, the President faces tougher, higher-ranking, and more persistent opposition. Within a day of Obama's first meeting on Iraq, Pentagon sources were letting the media know their doubts on a 16-month timetable for withdrawal. And, after this Wednesday's meeting, General Raymond Odierno, in charge of US forces in Iraq, publicly warned against a quick transition to the Iraqi military and security forces. This not-too-subtle rebuke of the President has been backed by the outgoing US Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and I suspect by the key military figure, head of US Central Command General David Petraeus.

The future US strategy in Afghanistan also appears to be caught up in a battle within the Administration, with a lack of resolution on the increase in the American military presence (much,much more on that in a moment). And even on Iran, where Obama appears to be making a overture on engagement with Tehran, it's not clear that he will get backing for a near-future initiatives. White House officials leaked Obama's draft letter to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a British newspaper, but State Department officials added that such a letter would not be sent until a “full review” of the US strategy with Iran had been completed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Still, all of these might be minor irritants, given the impact both of Obama's symbolic steps and of other quieter but important steps. For example, after the outright Bush Administration hostility to any Latin American Government that did not have the proper economic or political stance, Obama's State Department immediately recognised the victory of President Evo Morales in a referendum on the Bolivian constitution, and there are signs that the President will soon be engaging with Havana's leaders with a view to opening up a US-Cuban relationship. In Europe, Obama's phone call with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev was quickly followed by Moscow's announcement that, in return for a more productive US stance on missile defence (i.e., Washington wasn't going to roll out the system in Eastern Europe), Russia would not deploy missiles on the Polish border. There are even signals of an advance in the Middle East through a new US-Syrian relationship, although this is probably contingent on some recogntion or acceptance of Hamas by Washington.

So why am I even more concerned about the Obama foreign-policy path than I was a week ago, when I wrote of my conflicted reaction to the Inauguration? Let me introduce to the two elephants in this room, one which he inherited and one which he seems to have purchased.

Unless there is an unexpected outcome from George Mitchell's tour of the Middle East, Obama's goodwill toward the Arab and Islamic worlds could quickly dissipate over Gaza. The military conflict may be over, but the bitterness over the deaths of more than 1300 Gazans, most of them civilians, is not going away. And because President-elect Obama said next-to-nothing while the Israeli attack was ongoing, the burden of expectation upon President Obama to do something beyond an Al Arabiya interview is even greater.

Whether the Bush Administration directly supported Israel's attempt to overthrow Hamas and put the Palestinian Authority in Gaza or whether it was drawn along by Tel Aviv's initiative, the cold political reality is that this failed. Indeed, the operation --- again in political, not military, terms --- backfired. Hamas' position has been strengthened, while the Palestinian Authority now looks weak and may even be in trouble in its base of the West Bank.

And there are wider re-configurations. Egypt, which supported the Israeli attempt, is now having to recover some modicum of authority in the Arab world while Syria, which openly supported Hamas, has been bolstered. (Those getting into detail may note not only the emerging alliance between Damascus, Turkey, and Iran but also that Syria has sent an Ambassador to Beirut, effectively signalling a new Syrian-Lebanese relationship.)

Put bluntly, the Obama Administration --- with its belated approach to Gaza and its consequences --- is entering a situation which it does not control and, indeed, which it cannot lead. The US Government may pretend that it can pursue a political and diplomatic resolution by talking to only two of the three central actors, working with Israel and the Palestinian Authority but not Hamas, but that is no longer an approach recognised by most in the region and beyond. (In a separate post later today, I'll note a signal that even Washington's European allies are bowing to the existence of Hamas.)

The Israel-Palestine-Gaza situation is not my foremost concern, however. As significant, in symbolic and political terms, as that conflict might be for Washington's position in the Middle East and beyond, it will be a sideshow if the President and his advisors march towards disaster in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On Wednesday, the New York Times had the red-flag story. White House staffers leaked the essence of the Obama plan: increase US troop levels in Afghanistan, leave nation-building to “the Europeans”, and drop Afghan President Hamid Karzai if he had any objections. On the same day, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Congressional committees that the US would continue its bombing of targets in northwest Pakistan. (Not a surprise, since the first strikes of the Obama era had already taken place , killing 19 people, most of them civilians.)

So much for “smart power”. Leave aside, for the moment, that the rationale for the approach to Afghanistan --- Gates saying that the US had to defeat “Al Qa'eda” --- is either a diversion or a flight for reality, since the major challenge in the country (and indeed in Pakistan) is from local insurgents. Consider the consequences.

What happens to Obama's symbolic goodwill in not only the Islamic world but worlds beyond when an increase in US forces and US operations leads to an increase in civilian deaths, when America walks away from economic and social projects as it concentrates on the projection of force, when there are more detainees pushed into Camp Bagram (which already has more than twice as many “residents” and worse conditions than Guantanamo Bay)? What happens to “smart power” when Obama's pledge to listen and grasp the unclenched fist is replaced with a far more forceful, clenched American fist? And what has happened to supposed US respect for freedom and democracy when Washington not only carries out unilateral operations in Pakistan but threatens to topple an Afghan leader who it put into power in 2001/2?

This approach towards Afghanistan/Pakistan will crack even the bedrock of US-European relations. In Britain, America's closest ally in this venture, politicians, diplomats, and military commanders are close-to-openly horrified at the US takeover and direction of this Afghan strategy and at the consequences in Pakistan of the US bombings and missile strikes. Put bluntly, “Europe” isn't going to step up to nation-build throughout Afghanistan as a mere support for American's military-first strategy. And when it doesn't, Obama and advisors will have a choice: will they then criticise European allies to the point of risking NATO --- at least in “out-of-area” operations --- or will it accept a limit to their actions?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the lack of agreement in the Obama Administration so far on a defined number of US troops means the President might not be in accord with the approach unveiled in the New York Times. Maybe the Administration will pursue an integrated political strategy, talking to groups inside Afghanistan (and, yes, that includes “moderate Taliban”) and to other countries with influence, such as Iran. Or maybe it won't do any of this, but Afghanistan won't be a disaster, or at least a symbolic disaster --- as with Iraq from 2003 --- spilling over into all areas of US foreign policy.

Sitting here amidst the grey rain of Dublin and the morning-after recognition that “expert thought” in the US, whatever that means, doesn't see the dangers in Afghanistan and Pakistan that I've laid out, I desperately hope to be wrong.

Because, if the world was made in six days, parts of it can be unmade in the next six months.

Battles within Obama-land: The Foreign Policy Disputes on Iraq and Iran

Two major stories on US foreign policy, highlighting two critical policy choices on Iraq and Iran:

The New York Times features "On Iraq, Obama Faces Hard Choices".  (Since I wrote that, the Times has gotten to the point: "Obama Seeks Accord With Military on Iraq.) That rather obvious headline is followed by a detailed description of the tension within the White House, a tension we have been highlighting for a week.



Obama's campaign promise for a 16-month withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq is now being confronted --- publicly and blatantly --- by military commanders. General Raymond Odierno, the US commander in Iraq, indicated yesterday that "it may take a year to determine exactly" when US forces can be withdrawn. Although he said there would be a reduction this year, he pointedly used the word "slowly" when describing the transition from counter-insurgency to stability operations.

Describing last week's National Security Council-military meeting as "a very elevated conversation" does nothing to reduce the suspicion of a battle between the President and the military. Nor does sniping from the sidelines by former Dubya advisors like J.D. Crouch III, who was instrumental in pushing General David Petraeus and Odierno to their current command positions.

Meanwhile The Guardian splashes a Page 1 exclusive on a draft Obama letter to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, replying to Ahmadinejad's congratulations to Obama in November on his election. The letter could signal the opening of US engagement with Iran, but if you read further, it seems that this too may be the start of a battle within the Administration:

The letter is being considered by the new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, as part of a sweeping review of US policy on Iran. A decision on sending it is not expected until the review is complete.

Obama may be saved in this case, however, from an immediate conflict because of timing. Ahmadinejad faces re-election this spring, and the US decision may be to hold off on an approach until then. Then again (and this has not been noted by the media), if the US is planning to "surge" in Afghanistan, it would seem prudent to open some discussion with Tehran, which has significant influence in the west of the country.

Morning update ( 12:05 a.m. Washington): The significant overnight news is what was not said by President Obama.

A week after his National Security Council first sat down with military commanders, Obama had a two-hour meeting with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the generals yesterday. His statement afterwards was leading but vague, ""We are going to have some difficult decisions that we are going to have to make, surrounding Iraq and Afghanistan most immediately."

As far as that can be read, it's an indication that there will be troop increases in Afghanistan in the next few months and there will be some decrease in Iraq. The numbers in each case, however, are still up for grabs, as is the strategic approach --- military-first? with or without Afghan President Hamid Karzai? with or without US efforts at nation-building? --- in Afghanistan. Put bluntly, the battles at the moment are not overseas, but within the Administration.

For a clue as to the next development, look for "spin" in The New York Times and The Washington Post in forthcoming days.

Meanwhile, Obama envoy George Mitchell moves to the West Bank today to talk with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.

It's Morning in America: The Day After The Inauguration

Related Post: Your Obama on Top of the World Updates
Related Post: Welcome to the World, Mr President - Afghanistan and Pakistan
Related Post: Obama Orders Suspension of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay

5:30 p.m. Thanks for joining us today. It's a bit early for a Day 1 Assessment, as there may be developments in the next few hours while we have some downtime. As expected, Obama made the high-profile announcement of Guantanamo's closure, although the impact was limited by the 12-month timeframe (a concession to the political and legal obstacles to shifting the detainees). He made the first symbolic step of US re-entry into the Israel-Palestine arena with calls to Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas --- the expected appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy is still awaited. On the bureaucratic front, Hillary Clinton's confirmation as Secretary of State came through.

The most significant event, however, was the National Security Council meeting with top military commanders over Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, as I type this, still no news --- no spin, no leaks, no hints --- of what steps will be confirmed. Similarly, the re-affirmation of a 16-month timetable for US combat troops from Iraq still hasn't been made.

Back for Day 2 tomorrow morning....



5:05 p.m. Hillary Clinton has been confirmed by the Senate as Secretary of State 94-2. The two Republican spoilsports? David Vitter of Louisiana and Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

5 p.m. The War on Terror - The Obama Legacy Begins: Taking a leaf from the America-Will-Love-Bush-One-Day crew who have been frantically spinning this week, a reader notes, "I would like to point out that there have been no terrorist attacks under President Obama."

3:15 p.m. Immunity Now, Immunity Forever. Senate Republicans have stalled the confirmation of Eric Holder, the nominee for Attorney General, for one week to get an assurance that there will be no prosecutions of anyone involved in torture.

2:05 p.m. Desperate Republican Comment of the Day (2): After the attempt to turn a Carter-Clinton non-feud into the downfall of the Democrats, GOP bloggers are going after the size of the crowd on the Mall yesterday: "An ASU journalism professor using satellite images calculated that 800,000 people attended President Barack Obama’s inauguration ceremony."

Oh, my, "only" 800,000. That's a pathetic turnout compared to, say, the massive 400,000 who showed up for George W. Bush in 2005.

(Desperate Republican Comment of the Day (1) is at 2:55 a.m.)

1:55 p.m. Reuters has now obtained a draft copy, although it does not reprint it, of Obama's order to close Camp X-Ray by January 2010. There will be an immediate review of how to deal with all remaining detainees. AP has a copy and prints a few extracts covering the main points: the closure "would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice".

12:17 p.m. Unconfirmed reports that Obama has order closure of Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year.

12:15 p.m. Obama has called Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as well as Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas.

10:55 a.m. Confirmation that Obama called the head of the Palestinian Authority on Wednesday: "Obama reiterated that he and his administration will work in full partnership with President [Mahmoud] Abbas to achieve peace in the region," Saeb Erekat, the PA's chief negotiator, said.

No word on whether Obama calls the leaders of Hamas. (cross-posted from The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: Updates)

10:40 a.m. Obama's initial meeting today on Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to members of his National Security Council such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, will include the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, General David Petraeus of US Central Command, and, by videoconference, General David McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan, and General Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq.

9:40 a.m. What's Happening inIraq: a bomb has killed four people in Baghdad. The target was a university dean who is also a member of the Sunni Islamic Party. Another bomb near Tikrit has killed five policemen and wounded three.

On the up side, US and Iraqi authorities have opened a water-treatment plant in Sadr City, a poor section of Baghdad, only 3 1/2 years after it was begun.

9:30 a.m. In case you think our earlier reference to the intense discussion of Michelle Obama's dress and designer Jason Wu was just a cultural blip in America's priorities: The Washington Post covers Page One with a story on Michelle's entire wardrobe:

For the historic moment when she became this country's first African American first lady, Obama chose a lemon-grass yellow, metallic sheath with a matching coat by the Cuban-born designer Isabel Toledo. The dress followed her curves -- paying special attention to the hips -- and announced that the era of first lady-as-rectangle had ended.

8:55 a.m. A judge has just approved Obama's order suspending military commissions at Guantanamo Bay for 120 days.

8:45 a.m. There's something disconcerting about watching four Americans discuss Obama's Inaugural Speech and politics...on Iran's Press TV. They are generally "disappointed" in the speech and are now having a detailed --- and interesting --- discussion of Obama's approach to Israel, Palestine, and Gaza.

7:25 a.m. Before flying to Washington, General David Petraeus meets Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. Karzai office issues neutral statement, "During this visit, they discussed and exchanged views on their common relations, how to effectively combat regional terrorism and the way to prevent civilian casualties and gain the trust of the people."

Karzai had told the Afghan Parliament earlier inthe day that civilian deaths at the hands of foreign troops was an important source of instability in Afghanistan. Up to 25 civilians reportedly died in an American attack on Tuesday.

7:15 a.m. Vice Premier Haim Ramon to Israel radio: "Let's not fear President Obama. I am convinced that President Obama and his team want to achieve what is essential to Israel -- two states for two peoples." (cross-posted from The Israel Invasion of Gaza: Updates)

6:15 a.m. Uh-oh, a Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey rebuff for Obama. In advance of the President's meeting with General Petraeus (see separate post), French Defence Minister Herve Morin has ruled out any additional French troops for Afghanistan: "We have made the necessary effort. Considering additional reinforcements is out of the question for now."

5:40 a.m. Juan Cole also offers a cold shower of reality this morning, noting the killing of seven and wounding of 22, including two US soldiers, in Iraq yesterday. Cole also offers a necessary and timely analysis of the upcoming Iraqi elections on 31 January.

And, just to cast some light of hope, Cole refers to an emotional and telling Inaugural moment when "US troops in Iraq shed tears of joy for Obama" --- light years away from the narrative of the US military's rejection of the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton.

4 a.m. Press TV of Iran's top stories: 1) Iran wants Israeli leaders to stand trial for war crimes; 2) Israel withdraws from Gaza; 3) Obama promises "better relations" with Muslim world. Al Jazeera focuses on Obama's likely appointment of former Senator George Mitchell as his Middle East envoy.

3:30 a.m. But Not Quite A New Morning in China, as the BBC reports:

China has censored parts of the new US president's inauguration speech that have appeared on a number of websites. Live footage of the event on state television also cut away from Barack Obama when communism was mentioned. China's leaders appear to have been upset by references to facing down communism and silencing dissent.

3 a.m. Definitely One to Watch: General David Petraeus, the commander of the US military's Central Command with responsibility for the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, returns to Washington today to brief Obama. Yesterday Petraeus had extensive discussions with Pakistani political and military leaders.

2:55 a.m. Desperate Republican Comment of the Day. Don Irvine, the head of Accuracy in Media (accuracy as in "We Won Vietnam", "Last Eight Years Fantastic", "ABC News Flunks Race Test"), sees the downfall of the Democratic Party at the Inauguration:

As [Jimmy] Carter passed fellow Democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton, the two men did not appear to acknowledge each others presence at all. A total snub. This could be a very interesting four years indeed.

2:50 a.m. One more comparison for the record: while the Obama Inaugural celebrations ranged from Pete Seeger to Bruce Springsteen to Aretha Franklin, former President George W Bush's return to Midland, Texas was welcomed by "country music performers Rodney Atkins, the Gatlin Brothers and Lee Greenwood".

2:40 a.m. Israeli officials are busily telling the press that "Barack Obama is a 'true friend of Israel' who identifies emotionally not only with the state, but also with the people of Israel". (cross-posted from The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: Updates)

1:59 a.m. And just to bring out our previous point, Alive in Gaza has posted an audio interview with photojournalist Sameh Hameeb on his perceptions of what Obama's inauguration means for Gaza: "Obama neglected the Palestinians."

1:45 a.m. Global Contrasts: There has been a sharp division, as soon as Obama's image ended, in broadcast coverage between US channels and those overseas.

While US outlets such as Fox and CNN focused on the parade, the parties, and the first formal signing of documents by President Obama, the BBC and Al Jazeera have been all over the question, "What Next?" The best and most detailed analysis and questions have come from Al Jazeera, who had incisive panel discussions on Guantanamo Bay, Israel-Palestine-Gaza, Iraq, Iran, and the US Economy last evening.

This morning, while CNN concentrates on Michelle Obama's Inaugural Gown and Fox has a "presidential historian" burbling over "the peaceful transfer of power...Bush and Obama got along so well", Al Jazeera is focusing on Obama's promise of "mutual respect" for the Muslim world. This is unsurprising, of course, given Al Jazeera's core location and audience, but it still points to the immediate scrutiny that President Obama will face on his first full day in office.

Morning update (1:40 a.m. in Washington):

Even as we finally called it a night in Britain, the parties, the enthusiam, and the energy were still going strong in the United States.

I'm just watching a recording of Obama's speech to the Youth Ball, where he gave a possibly impropmptu speech which was better than his prepared one at the Inaugural:

Young people everywhere are in the process of imagining something different than what has come before. Where there is war, they imagine peace. Where there is hunger, they imagine people being able to feed themselves. Where there is disease, they imagine a public health system that can work for everybody. Where they [see] bigotry, they imagine togetherness.

And so he closed, to "Yes We Can" chanting from the crowd, "I promise you that America will get stronger and more united, more prosperous, more secure. You are going to make it happen."

So, hours after reacting to the Inaugural with a mixture of hope and concern, I'm indulging in a bit of hope with a cup of tea. Now to see what the Day After brings.