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.

Update: Obama's Challenge? Curbing the Pentagon

A hat tip to our colleague Giles Scott-Smith, who wrote for us on 29 November: "The possibilities for improving the US standing in the world are equally great.. ..To make the changes required, however, Obama faces his challenge: curbing the Pentagon."

Scott-Smith's prediction was already being fulfilled this week in tussles from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay. However, his wider point --- that the Department of Defense is trying to seize some control of "information", US economic assistance, and even diplomacy --- is backed up in a New York Times editorial by Gary Schaub, an assistant professor at the Air War College. This is Schaub's opening declaration:

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will shape American engagement with the Middle East for years to come. While Mrs. Clinton prepares to put together the State Department, the military is already reconsidering American policy in critical regions. The politically savvy General Petraeus has both a plan and the resources to see it through.

Schaub identifies the mission of Petraeus' Central Command not only "to provide security" but to "help nations in the region govern effectively [and] build their economies" and "to communicate America’s foreign policy intentions clearly". Rather than support the lead of other agencies who normally carry out these duties, military commands should co-opt civilian employees to implement their plans.

Of course, one could suggest this is Schaub's personal wild ride in How to Make US Foreign Policy, rather than the intentions of Petraeus or Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. It is a bit discomforting, however, especially as the nightmare of Pentagon-State Department battles in the Dubya years and amidst some evidence of the military's unease with Obama, to see this splashed across The New York Times.

President Obama's Remarks to State Department Staff (22 January)

Reprinted from The Washington Post, which also includes the remarks of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joseph Biden, and special envoys George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Please, everybody. Thank you. Be seated. Thank you so much.

It is my privilege to come here and to pay tribute to all of you, the talented men and women of the State Department. I've given you an early gift, Hillary Clinton.



(APPLAUSE)

You -- in her, you will have a secretary of state who has my full confidence. And I want to thank Chairman Kerry and the Senate for acting swiftly to confirm her, because we have no time to lose.

My appearance today, as has been noted, underscores my commitment to the importance of diplomacy and renewing American leadership. And it gives me an opportunity to thank you for the services that you perform every single day.

Sometimes I think the American public doesn't fully understand the sacrifices that you and your families make, the dedication that is involved in you carrying on your tasks day in, day out.

And I know I speak for Joe Biden, as well as everybody else on this stage, when we tell you that we are proud of you. You are carrying on a vital task in the safety and security of the American people.

And part of what we want to do is to make sure that everybody understands that the State Department is going to be absolutely critical to our success in the years to come, and you individually are going to be critical to our success in the years to come. And we want to send a signal to all kinds of young people who may be thinking about the Foreign Service that they are going to be critical in terms of projecting not just America's power, but also America's values and America's ideals.

The inheritance of our young century demands a new era of American leadership. We must recognize that America's strength comes not just from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from our enduring values. And for the sake of our national security and the common aspirations of people around the globe, this era has to begin now.

This morning, I signed three executive orders. First, I can say without exception or equivocation that the United States will not torture.

(APPLAUSE)

Second, we will close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and determine how to deal with those who have been held there.

And, third, we will immediately undertake a comprehensive review to determine how to hold and try terrorism suspects to best protect our nation and the rule of law.

The world needs to understand that America will be unyielding in its defense of its security and relentless in its pursuit of those who would carry out terrorism or threaten the United States. And that's why, in this twilight struggle, we need a durable framework.

The orders that I signed today should send an unmistakable signal that our actions in defense of liberty will be just as our cause and that we, the people, will uphold our fundamental values as vigilantly as we protect our security. Once again, America's moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership.

We are confronted by extraordinary, complex and interconnected global challenges: the war on terror, sectarian division, and the spread of deadly technology. We did not ask for the burden that history has asked us to bear, but Americans will bear it. We must bear it.

Progress will not come quickly or easily, nor can we promise to right every single wrong around the world. But we can pledge to use all elements of American power to protect our people and to promote our interests and ideals, starting with principled, focused and sustained American diplomacy.

To carry forward that effort, we are going to be calling on your hard work and perseverance in the months and years to come. Given the urgency and complexity of the challenges we face and to convey our seriousness of purpose, Secretary Clinton and I are also calling upon the two distinguished Americans standing with us today.

It will be the policy of my administration to actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as Israel and its Arab neighbors. To help us pursue these goals, Secretary Clinton and I have asked George Mitchell to serve as special envoy for Middle East peace.

George is renowned in this country and around the world for his negotiating skill. He brings international stature and a lifetime of service. His years in the Senate were marked by strong leadership and bipartisan achievement. His efforts on behalf of peace in Northern Ireland were indispensable in reconciling a painful and protracted conflict.

Time and again, in public service and private life, he has acted with skill and acted with integrity. He will be fully empowered at the negotiating table, and he will sustain our focus on the goal of peace.

No one doubts the difficulty of the road ahead, and George outlined some of those difficulties. The tragic violence in Gaza and southern Israel offers a sobering reminder of the challenges at hand and the setbacks that will inevitably come.

It must also instill in us, though, a sense of urgency, as history shows us that strong and sustained American engagement can bridge divides and build the capacity that supports progress. And that is why we will be sending George to the region as soon as possible to help the parties ensure that the cease-fire that has been achieved is made durable and sustainable.

Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats.

For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror.

To be a genuine party to peace, the quartet has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements.

Going forward, the outline for a durable cease-fire is clear: Hamas must end its rocket fire; Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza; the United States and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot rearm.

Yesterday I spoke to President Mubarak and expressed my appreciation for the important role that Egypt played in achieving a cease-fire. And we look forward to Egypt's continued leadership and partnership in laying a foundation for a broader peace through a commitment to end smuggling from within its borders.

Now, just as the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis is intolerable, so, too, is a future without hope for the Palestinians.

I was deeply concerned by the loss of Palestinian and Israeli life in recent days and by the substantial suffering and humanitarian needs in Gaza. Our hearts go out to Palestinian civilians who are in need of immediate food, clean water, and basic medical care, and who've faced suffocating poverty for far too long.

Now we must extend a hand of opportunity to those who seek peace. As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime, with the international and Palestinian Authority participating.

Relief efforts must be able to reach innocent Palestinians who depend on them. The United States will fully support an international donor's conference to seek short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term reconstruction for the Palestinian economy. This assistance will be provided to and guided by the Palestinian Authority.

Lasting peace requires more than a long cease-fire, and that's why I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security.

Senator Mitchell will carry forward this commitment, as well as the effort to help Israel reach a broader peace with the Arab world that recognizes its rightful place in the community of nations.

I should add that the Arab peace initiative contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative's promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all.

Jordan's constructive role in training Palestinian security forces and nurturing its relations with Israel provide a model for these efforts. And going forward, we must make it clear to all countries in the region that external support for terrorist organizations must stop.

Another urgent threat to global security is the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism. There, as in the Middle East, we must understand that we cannot deal with our problems in isolation.

There is no answer in Afghanistan that does not confront the Al Qaida and Taliban bases along the border, and there will be no lasting peace unless we expand spheres of opportunity for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is truly an international challenge of the highest order.

That's why Secretary Clinton and I are naming Ambassador Richard Holbrooke to be special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ambassador Holbrooke is one of the most talented diplomats of his generation. Over several decades, he's served on different continents and as an outstanding ambassador to the United Nations.

He has strengthened ties with our allies, tackled the toughest negotiations, and helped deliver a hard-earned peace as an architect of the Dayton Accords. He will help lead our effort to forge and implement a strategic and sustainable approach to this critical region.

The American people and the international community must understand that the situation is perilous and progress will take time. Violence is up dramatically in Afghanistan. A deadly insurgency has taken deep root. The opium trade is far and away the largest in the world.

The Afghan government has been unable to deliver basic services. Al Qaeda and the Taliban strike from bases embedded in rugged tribal terrain along the Pakistani border. And while we have yet to see another attack on our soil since 9/11, Al Qaida terrorists remain at large and remain plotting.

Going forward, we must set clear priorities in pursuit of achievable goals that contribute to our collective security. My administration is committed to refocusing attention and resources on Afghanistan and Pakistan and to spending those resources wisely. That's why we are pursuing a careful review of our policy.

We will seek stronger partnerships with the governments of the region, sustain cooperation with our NATO allies, deeper engagement with the Afghan and Pakistani people, and a comprehensive strategy to combat terror and extremism.

We will provide the strategic guidance to meet our objectives, and we pledge to support the extraordinary Americans serving in Afghanistan, both military and civilian, with the resources that they need.

These appointments add to a team that will work with energy and purpose to meet the challenges of our time and to define a future of expanding security and opportunity.

Difficult days lie ahead. As we ask more of ourselves, we will seek new partnerships and ask more of our friends and more of people around the globe, because security in the 21st century is shared.

But let there be no doubt about America's commitment to lead. We can no longer afford drift, and we can no longer afford delay, nor can we cede ground to those who seek destruction. A new era of American leadership is at hand, and the hard work has just begun. You are going to be at the front lines of engaging in that important work.

And I'm absolutely confident that, with the leadership of Secretary Clinton, with wonderful envoys like Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, with the dedicated team that is before me today, that we are going to be able to accomplish our objectives, keep America safe, and bring better days not just to our own country, but all around the world.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Your Obama on Top of the World Updates (22 January)

Related Post: The Joseph Lowery Benediction
Related Post: The Inaugural - The Daily Show Tribute

5:55 p.m. Mike here- one last update: Obama has called on Israel to open its borders with Gaza.

5 p.m. Well, that's Day 2 (so far) of the Great Obama Foreign Policy Journey. Tomorrow, we'll attempt an assessment of the ups, downs, and in-betweens of the initial meetings and decisions.

The President's moves not only on Guantanamo Bay but on CIA black sites were encouraging, even if they cannot be implemented soon. Less encouraging, despite all the fanfare at the State Department were the Mitchell and Holbrooke appointments, as it is not clear the Administration has really thought through its diplomatic approach. It is a blessing, at least, that Obama and Hillary Clinton did not make the situation worse by naming Dennis Ross as envoy on Iranian matters, a move only slightly less provocative than appointing Mike Tyson to keep the peace.

The emerging conflict and muddle over Iraq and Afghanistan, brought out by the Robert Gates statement and the military-White House competing briefings on Iraq, is not encouraging.

Good night and peace to all.

4:50 p.m. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has issued what is, frankly, a very strange statement on the Administration's goals in Afghanistan.

Gates, unintentionally, points to the conflict that has already broken out over troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, stating that "no decision on troop deployments to Afghanistan has been made". What is even more disconcerting, however, is his explanation that the Obama Administration's new war plan will focus on "very concrete things" such as establishing control in parts of the country, going after al Qaeda, and delivering services and security for the Afghan people.

Hmm....isn't that what the Bush Administration was doing? Apparently not: "The goals we did have for Afghanistan [were] too broad and too far into the future, [were] too future-oriented, and [were] we need more concrete goals that can be achieved realistically within three to five years."

That, to be blunt, is gobbledy-gook. One can only hope it is not reflective of the thinking in the NSC-military meeting yesterday.



4:40 p.m. And is that an Obama pre-emptive strike in the US approach to Iran? He declares that all external support for "terrorist organizations in the Middle East" must be halted.

4:35 p.m. But George Mitchell, I fear, may already be boxed in by his President. After declaring to applause that "the US will not torture", Obama firmly declared that Hamas must not re-arm and recognise Israel's right to exist.

The question is whether the US Government will discreetly talk to Hamas in advance of such a statement, hoping to move the organisation towards recognition of Tel Aviv, or set recognition as a pre-condition for any discussions. If the latter, the Mitchell mission is a non-starter.

4:30 p.m. George Mitchell's opening statement was professional and suitably non-committal. He said there was no conflict that could not be resolved and promised a sustained effort by the Obama Administration towards Middle Eastern peace.

A reader notes, "The word Palestinians was used twice, the word Ireland I lost count. Good to know they're sending a clear message."

4:25 p.m. A bit of a show at State Department as President Obama and Vice President Biden in clear show of support --- a far cry from the ostracism of the Department and its Secretary,  Colin Powell, in first term of Bush Administration.

3:55 p.m. Richard Holbrooke has also been confirmed as envoy to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. However --- and this is both unexpected and significant --- Dennis Ross has not been named as envoy on Iranian matters.

3:40 p.m. Confirmation that George Mitchell will be Barack Obama's envoy to the Middle East. The former Senator and experienced negotiator, who helped broker the 1998 Northern Ireland agreement and served as Bill Clinton's envoy in 2000 to Israel and Palestine, is of Lebanese descent. Officials and Administration contacts are keen to play up Mitchell as an honest broker:

By naming Mitchell as his personal envoy, Obama is sending a diplomatic heavyweight to the region. "He's neither pro-Israeli nor pro-Palestinian," Martin S. Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, told The New York Times. "He's, in a sense, neutral."

Mitchell is probably best known on the world stage for the Good Friday agreement he negotiated between Roman Catholics and Protestants that created a cease-fire in Northern Ireland in 1998.

2:35pm A list of all Obama's executive orders to date is being published here. (Thanks, mhasko)

1:35 p.m. It's official. Obama has signed an executive order requiring the Guantánamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year.

1:30 p.m. ABC News reports that there were no arrests at Tuesday's inauguration.

10 a.m. And so the manoeuvring within the Obama White House begins. The President, as we noted, tried to lock down any speculation over the outcome of yesterday's meeting of the National Security Council and military with the statement, "I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq."

However, CNN has heard from "Pentagon officials [who] said the generals left believing they were not ordered to being implementing [Obama's] campaign promise to pull all US combat troops from Iraq within 16 months". So a White House official is "insisting that the President did remind the commanders of his goal to remove troops, but he wants to get their input, so he asked them to come up with a plan that's workable".

9:35 a.m. They Just Won't Go Away: All week long, The Wall Street Journal has been desperately insisting that former President Bush was jolly good for the United States and one day we'll all be grateful for his wisdom and leadership. Today it's Karl Rove's turn, as he moves from "the thoughtfulness and grace so characteristic of this wonderful American family" to declare "right about Iraq", "right to take the war on terror abroad", "right to be a unilateralist", say on AIDS in Africa, right on tax cuts, right on Medicare, etc.

Number of times Hurricane Katrina mentioned in article: 0

9:30 a.m. Dramatic, almost star-struck scenes as the new Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, addresses State Department staff. Career diplomats are standing on desks to get a glimpse of Clinton. There is huge enthusiasm when Clinton promises to remedy the "neglect" the Department has suffered in recent years.

7:25 a.m. Today's Axis of Evil Alert: Lawyer Robert Amsterdam in The Washington Post:

The administrations of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Vladimir Putin in Russia are enjoying a robust, burgeoning friendship. Though they are separated by 6,000 miles, the two leaders' bond is sealed not only by their similar tastes for repressive authoritarianism, oil expropriations and large arms deals but also by parallel trends of increasing violence and murder on the streets of their cities.

7:15 a.m. Culture of Fear Alert: Marc A. Thiessen, former speechwriter for former President George W. Bush: "President Obama has inherited a set of tools that successfully protected the country for 2,688 days -- and he cannot dismantle those tools without risking catastrophic consequences."

(Note: George W. Bush was also President from 20 January to 11 September 2001, when more than 3000 people were killed in attacks in the United States.)

7 a.m. The Dark-Horse Crisis? Under the radar of most of the media, the situation in Somalia (and the Bush Administration's policy there) continues to deteriorate. The Washington Post sounds the alarm, "With Ethiopian Pullout, Islamists Rise Again in Somalia". UN agencies are threatening to halt food distribution because of attacks on their staff.

The US-fostered and Ethiopia-implemented overthrow of the Islamic Courts government in 2006 was meant to install a "proper" Government that would support American plans in East Africa. Instead, that Somalian administration has collapsed, and "more radical" Islamic groups such as al-Shahab have emerged.

6:30 a.m. In overnight fighting in eastern Afghanistan, NATO and US military claim that 28 militants killed.

4:30 a.m. Still no significant word, however, on Obama's National Security Council meeting with military commanders, including General David Petraeus, on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Instead, after the meeting, Obama issued a holding statement:“I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq....[I plan] to undertake a full review of the situation in Afghanistan in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region.”

Dexter Filkins of The New York Times has an article, "In Afghan South, Taliban Fill NATO's Big Gaps", which highlights the tenuous situation in the country and possibly makes the Administration's case for a doubling of US troop levels.

4:20 a.m. Now, this is huge. According to The New York Times:

President Obama is expected to sign executive orders Thursday directing the Central Intelligence Agency to shut what remains of its network of secret prisons and ordering the closing of the Guantánamo detention camp within a year.

So the closure is not just of Camp X-Ray but of all the "black sites" involved in the rendition programmes pursued by the Bush Administration. Those sites, reportedly scattered across Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia have handled and hidden away far more detainees than the number remaining in Guantanamo Bay. If Obama combines this with an order that US intelligence services do not operate these covert prisons in future, that will be a major step back to legal campaigns against those who threaten American security.

One caveat: this order will not affect Camp Bagram in Afghanistan, which is run by the US military and is by far the biggest American detention facility outside the United States.

3:45 a.m. Well, He's Got Fidel's Endorsement: Castro on-line statement says, "I do not have the slightest doubt of the honesty of Obama when he expresses his ideas."

2:45 a.m. So let me understand this: a President re-takes the oath of office to ensure he adheres to the US Constitution while a former President and his advisors, who trampled all over the Constitution, don't have to do anything?

1:05 a.m. Today Obama will sign the order, which we mentioned yesterday, promising the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within 12 months.

Morning update (1 a.m.) One of the minor setbacks for President Obama yesterday was the delay in naming a team to implement the approach to the Middle East, Iran, and Central/South Asia. Simple reason --- it wouldn't have been fitting to roll out his special envoys before Hillary Clinton was appointed as Secretary of State.

This will be remedied today with the naming of George Mitchell as envoy to Israel and Palestine, Dennis Ross as envoy to Iran, and Richard Holbrooke as envoy to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. The announcement brings back three politicians/diplomats from the global negotiations of the 1990s.

We'll offer an analysis as soon as the news is confirmed but, in brief.... Mitchell (with experience that includes the brokering of a Northern Ireland settlement) is an excellent choice but will be limited by Obama's so-far passive approach to the Gaza crisis and possibly by a policy that will not countenance any inclusion of Hamas in negotiations. Holbrooke (with his record in cases such as the Balkans talks in the 1990s) is well-qualified. Ross (as Bill Clinton's representative in Israel-Palestine talks) has experience but --- with a hard-line towards Tehran and ties with groups that countenance coercion of Iran rather than diplomacy --- could be a major error.

Ali Fisher on State Department Twitter-Diplomacy

Our colleague Ali Fisher has emerged as one of the top analysts of public diplomacy, including its pursuit through new technologies and media. Following our own engagement with the State Department's efforts to spread its message via Twitter, he has offered a critique, "To Tweet or Not to Tweet, What is the Question?" on his website Wandren PD:

If [Twitter] is just another means to deliver a message (even if it has more of a human voice than other methods), another way to ask for comment just to answer back with the same rebuttals that will also appear in other media, to take a centralised view and drive traffic to other sites or stories produced by the same organisation, it is a missed opportunity. But if that’s all you want if for, then it will do the job just fine.