Obama Administration

By Marc Lynch

I thought Obama's speech on Iraq this afternoon was outstanding.It laid out a powerful rationale for the new policy, sent a very clear signal to Iraqis about American intentions, placed American policy firmly within the context of the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated with the Iraqi government, and embedded the policy effectively into its wider regional context.  I know that some on the left are worried about the 50,000 figure for the residual force and about the timeline, but I think those concerns are overblown.The plan Obama laid out today is entirely consistent with his campaign promises and -- more important -- is the right strategy for today's Iraq.

Here's what I liked:

• The very clear signal. "The drawdown of our military should send a clear signal that Iraq’s future is now its own responsibility."Obama stressed repeatedly and clearly that he was bringing the war to an end -- "Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end" -- and that all troops would leave Iraq in accord with the SOFA by December 31, 2011. Everything I've written over the last year has emphasized the importance of the clarity of this signal. This is more important than the specifics of the pace or number of troop withdrawals -- which are better handled by the military commanders and diplomats on the ground -- because it gets to shaping the political calculations of Iraqis and Iraq's neighbors. Obama did this extremely well today, taking pains to reiterate and to flag his signaling so that it could not be misinterpreted.
• Iraqi responsibility. Obama also did an outstanding job of framing the U.S. drawdown in terms of a shift to Iraqi responsibility: "The drawdown of our military should send a clear signal that Iraq’s future is now its own responsibility. The long-term success of the Iraqi nation will depend upon decisions made by Iraq’s leaders and the fortitude of the Iraqi people." This emphasis throughout the speech on the agency of Iraqis deserves particular attention and praise. Gone is the assumption that what happens in Iraq is all about America, that only the force of American will and material commitment matters.The future of Iraq is for Iraqis to decide, not Americans.
• Public diplomacy. Obama's decision to speak directly to the Iraqi people -- and not only to Iraqi leaders -- was brilliantly conceived and executed. His very clear statement that the U.S. had no aspirations on Iraqi territory or resources -- no permanent bases -- was pitch perfect. And I just really liked this frank, direct, respectful talk:

So to the Iraqi people, let me be clear about America’s intentions. The United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources. We respect your sovereignty and the tremendous sacrifices you have made for your country. We seek a full transition to Iraqi responsibility for the security of your country. And going forward, we can build a lasting relationship founded upon mutual interests and mutual respect as Iraq takes its rightful place in the community of nations."

• Realistic goals. Last September Brian Katulis and I argued that "the United States will have to distinguish between those outcomes that are truly catastrophic and those that are simply suboptimal." Obama did so clearly today: "What we will not do is let the pursuit of the perfect stand in the way of achievable goals." This, combined with the emphasis on Iraqi responsibility, demonstrates a very healthy realism about the enterprise which has too often been lacking from American rhetoric.
• Respecting the SOFA. Obama referred repeatedly to the Status of Forces Agreement, which others have preferred to ignore or wish away.
• Regional context. He correctly placed Iraq within its wider regional context: "America can no longer afford to see Iraq in isolation from other priorities".His commitment to direct engagement with all Iraq's neighbors -- including Syria and Iran, singled out -- and higher expectations for their positive contributions fits well within his strategic vision for the region. With the Arab states unifying their ranks ahead of next month's Doha Summit, and Kuwait's Foreign Minister paying a historic visit to Baghdad today, I expect significant movement here in the near term.
• Refugees. I was heartened to hear Obama put such prominence on the issue of Iraq's displaced and refugees, and to define their plight as both a strategic interest and a moral responsibility for the United States.

No plan is perfect. I would like to have heard more about the pace of troop withdrawals, particularly in the early going. The role of the residual force could have been better explained. But I must say that I am far less concerned about the size of the residual forces than are others on the Left. Such a residual force was always a part of Obama's campaign platform, and -- more importantly -- is perfectly consistent with the Status of Forces Agreement, which does not require U.S. troops to leave until the end of 2011. Their mission will change, and they will play an important role in training and support for the Iraqi government and security forces. Nor am I at all bothered by the two month difference between the campaign promise and the timeline in the speech -- and can't imagine that anybody else is either.

Obama's speech today was all that I had hoped, especially after yesterday's conflicting reports. It very closely follows his campaign commitments.It maintains a clear timeline for withdrawal, and sends the clear, unambiguous signal that Iraqis and the region needed to hear while re-emphasizing America's commitment to engagement with the region. It puts Iraqis first and defines a normal, positive future relationship between governments and peoples. And it does this with a frank recognition of Iraq's continuing fragility and plethora of unresolved political fissures, and the tough road ahead. And most remarkable of all, he may even succeed in commanding a bipartisan and inter-agency consensus in support of this policy at home.

This speech is something for which I and many, many others have been waiting -- and working -- for a long, long time. There's much hard work to come, but the die is cast and the signal is clear.

Photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

George Mitchell was appointed to bring about Middle East peace, but he has returned from the region empty-handed -- no peace in the Middle East. His mission is clearly a total failure. The Obama administration has been humiliated! There's obviously no difference between Obama and Bush! His failure will embolden America's enemies, making it imperative to stop the stimulus package! It's time to... um, ahem, sorry. Thought I was writing for a newspaper op-ed page for a minute there. Let's try again.

Middle East envoy George Mitchell's maiden trip to the region was an important first step, but it also contained some troubling signals. It was extremely important for the Obama administration to demonstrate immediate, high-level engagement with the issue after Bush's near-total disengagement. It was also a good step to announce that Mitchell will be returning to the region before the end of the month and will spearhead a sustained, ongoing and high level engagement. A listening tour was appropriate, both because of Obama's repeated stressing of the importance of listening and because the half-staffed administration isn't ready to put forward its own initiatives yet.

But there were some ominous signals too. Mitchell's itinerary apparently only included meetings with one side of the great Arab divide: the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Fatah. Little surprise, then, if he heard few new ideas. What's more, in his comments with Secretary Clinton on his return he signaled no new thinking on the Hamas question. Her remarks about Hamas -- "Hamas knows the conditions that have been set forth" -- could have been delivered by Condoleeza Rice. The Arab "moderate" camp followed his trip with a gathering in Abu Dhabi which could have been held in the Bush years: demonizing Iran, bashing Hamas, and promoting the schism between the "moderate" and "rejection" camps.

 

 

_{Iconic image of the Arab faux-reconciliation at the Kuwait meeting}

Mitchell is not going to be able to break through this stalemate with the old playbook. He needs to engage both sides of the great Arab divide, and he needs to take the lead in bridging rather than exacerbating those divisions. Obama's approach to the Middle East during the campaign was built upon serious dialogue with adversaries and upon a holistic regional conception which captured the relationships among the various issues. But Clinton and Mitchell's first moves instead run the risk of reverting to the Bush style of sharpening regional divisions.

That has to change if Mitchell hopes to find new paths through this mess. The intensity of the intra-Arab divisions will only make this harder, and it doesn't make sense to encourage them either intentionally or unintentionally. The wounds of last month's dueling summits have not healed, and the official Arab order appears to be even more disconnected from popular opinion than normal. The leaders Mitchell went with are caught up in nasty political and personal arguments. They are hunkering down into their mutually hostile bunkers, and are likely in no mood to advocate an American outreach to the other camp.

But a strong signal from Washington that the time has come to bridge regional divides rather than stoke the divisions could change that in a hurry. I think that much of the Arab public is hungry for such a move, and so are a lot of the Arab "fence-sitters" who fear getting caught up in the diplomatic cross-fire. My strong sense is that Mitchell understands this, and sees his mission as part of Obama's conception of a wider regional restructuring. But he needs to avoid getting trapped by the business-as-usual instincts that others bring to the table.

So what should he do?

First, go to Doha. If Mitchell isn't going to talk to Hamas, he should at least talk to the only close American ally which does. Talking to Sarkozy, who talked to the Qataris, is good but doesn't have quite the same impact because it doesn't send the same signal. If he doesn't go to Qatar, then he implicitly validates the current lines of division and sends a strong but possibly unintended signal endorsing the Arab lines of division.

Second, pay attention to the whole Arab public. Mitchell needs to recognize that the leaders he's meeting represent only one side in a sharply divided region, are out of touch with broad swathes of public opinion, and have only limited ability to shape public attitudes. There's a reason that al-Jazeera dominated the Arab coverage of Gaza and not al-Arabiya -- and Washington needs to understand the reasons for that.. and the implications for successful diplomacy. If he doesn't see what al-Jazeera viewers see out of Gaza, he's just not going to understand why they feel the way they do right now -- so watch.

Third, be open to a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. If the attempts (in Cairo or elsewhere) to broker a Palestinian national unity government succeed, the U.S. shouldn't veto it or work to destroy it as the Bush administration did. This doesn't look likely right now, with acrimony running high and Hamas leaders talking about the formation of an alternative to the PLO. It's even less likely if regional actors think that the U.S. will reject it. But if regional players thought that the U.S. might be supportive of such a unity government, their calculations could quickly change.

Finally, don't give in to the status quo. There's going to be strong pressure on the Obama administration from inside and outside to revert to standard practice on all of these issues. Doing so is a recipe for failure. I don't think that's why George Mitchell took on this assignment. Making progress will require a long, hard slog but at this stage at least let's hope that he's slogging in the right direction.

It's impossible to exaggerate the symbolic importance of Barack Obama choosing an Arabic satellite television station for his first formal interview as President -- and of taking that opportunity to talk frankly about a new relationship with the Muslim world based on mutual respect and emphasizing listening rather than dictating. His interview promises a genuinely fresh start in the way the United States interacts with the Arab world and a new dedication to public diplomacy.

 

 

_{Obama on al-Arabiya (screen capture)}

In his conversation with the estimable Hisham Milhem (a good choice for an interlocutor), Obama reached out directly to the Arab public via the Saudi TV station al-Arabiya (which shrewdly posted the transcript immediately).  It signals the importance of the Middle East to the new President, his commitment to engaging on Arab-Israeli peace, his genuinely fresh thinking and new start with the Muslim world, and his recognition of the importance of genuine public diplomacy. 

I admit that I'm a little biased here. How can I not be thrilled that Obama has adopted the policy advice I've been offering since the publication of "Taking Arabs Seriously" in Foreign Affairs back in 2003? And in his first interview anywhere, less than a week into job, no less.  I have to admit it feels a bit odd to see an administration doing things right after all these years. But that said, credit should go where credit is due. I do think that this is an extremely significant gambit which signals his commitment to real public diplomacy, his engagement with Middle East issues (repudiating all the pundits expecting him to neglect foreign policy), and his ability to speak in a genuinely new way to the Muslim world.  

His remarks hit the sweet spot again and again.  He repeatedly emphasized his intention of moving past the iron walls of the 'war on terror' and 'clash of civilizations' which so dominated the Bush era.   "My job is to communicate to the Muslim world that the United States is not your enemy," Obama said, emphasizing as in his inaugural address that he is "ready to initiate a new partnership [with the Muslim world] based on mutual respect and mutual interest." And where so much of the Bush administration's 'public diplomacy' was about manipulating and lecturing, Obama begins -- as he should -- with listening: "what I told [Mitchell] is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating..so let's listen."

He clearly understands that this won't be easy, that there are real conflicts and obstacles and enemies. He obviously recognizes that the Gaza crisis and eight years of the Bush administration have left a heavy toll on America's reputation and credibility. He stressed the importance of engaging on Israeli-Arab issues right away, the need for new ideas and approaches, and the interrelationships among the region's issues that I've always seen as the key to his Middle East policy ("I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan. These things are interrelated.")

And above all, he understands that words are only the beginning, and that ultimately deeds and policy will determine Arab views of the United States. Public diplomacy is not about marketing a lousy policy -- it's about engaging honestly, publicly, and directly with foreign publics about those policies, explaining and listening and adjusting where appropriate.  Obama gets it:

"But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what's on a television station in the Arab world -- but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well."

 I couldn't have written this script better myself.

Arabs are both impressed and skeptical.  As one prominent Jordanian blogger commented,

" I agree that, generally, Americans are not the enemy of the Muslim world. However, I’m just not sure how to classify those Americans who have big guns, big tanks and big jets that occupy a neighboring country and have a habit of killing a lot of its people. Or, at least, the Americans who sell those big guns, big tanks and big jets to other people that occupy another neighboring country and have a habit of killing a lot of its people."

I will update with additional Arab reaction as it begins to pour in (it's a day too soon for editorials, for the most part there are only a few straightforward news reports like this one in Jordan's al-Ghad). 

Three other important points which have thus far been missed in the general commentary:

• This is also outreach to Saudi Arabia.  Al-Arabiya is the Saudi contestant in the Arab media wars, and scoring the first interview with Obama is a major coup. It has lost a lot of ground because of Gaza, and this will help it regain some buzz.  After the initial perceived snub of the Saudis, Obama has now had a much-hyped phone call with King Abdullah and now given the Saudi al-Arabiya his first interview. Feathers have been smoothed in Riyadh.

• Not al-Jazeera.  Granting the first interview to al-Jazeera would have reached a much larger audience, and would have been more daring -- like going on to Fox News instead of MSNBC. Bush administration officials almost always used al-Arabiya on those rare occasions when they wanted to talk to the Arab public, so this isn't a change. That said, there will be time for al-Jazeera down the road, and I hope Obama doesn't shy away from that challenge. 

• Not al-Hurra. Wouldn't it be nice if the United States had its own Arabic-language satellite television station to present such exclusive, desirable interviews?  Oh, wait... the U.S. has spent half a billion dollars on one which nobody watches. Forget the Broadcasting Board of Governor's endlessly optimistic presentation of fabulous increases in al-Hurra's audience and market share. Obama's choice to give his ground-breaking interview to the Saudi al-Arabiya and not to the American al-Hurra is as clear a statement as it is possible to make of al-Hurra's failure. It's time to face the facts and clean house to recoup some of that investment.

More to come, no doubt. This is only a start and won't solve anything on it's own, but this is simply an outstanding way to start transforming the American engagement with the Arab world. Well done.

UPDATE:  in light of its relevance to Obama's outreach to Arab television, Foreign Affairs has made the full text of my 2003 article available online for free.  Thanks!

Al Kamen reports today that:

Official Washington is abuzz with word that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is poised to tap a longtime friend and Democratic mega-donor as her undersecretary for public diplomacy. Judith A. McHale, one of the area's most prominent female executives, who stepped down in 2006 as president of Discovery Communications, may take a job that has been especially difficult given Washington's reputation abroad.

Her résumé doesn't reflect an excess of diplomatic experience, but we're reminded that this is a job that involves selling a message.

This would be a terrible, terrible selection. I don't know Judith McHale at all, and obviously have nothing against her personally. But the position of Under-Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs should go to someone with experience in and a vision for public diplomacy, and who will be in a position to effectively integrate public diplomacy concerns into the policy-making process. Appointing someone with no experience in public diplomacy but with a resume which "involves selling a message" has already been tried: the first post-9/11 Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Charlotte Beers, whose tenure lasted only 17 months (October 2001-March 2003), focused on "branding" America through television advertising showing happy Muslim-Americans, and is generally considered to be an utter failure.

This is a vital time for public diplomacy. The last few years have seen an emerging consensus on the centrality of public diplomacy and strategic communications. The military has gotten into the "war of ideas" in a big way, while State Department and other civilian efforts have struggled with inadequate budgets or personnel -- prompting Defense Secretary Robert Gates and many others to recommend ramping up the State Department's budget and involvement. Whoever is appointed as Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy needs to be in a position to quickly assert authority over an inter-agency balance currently sharply skewed towards the Pentagon. And that's not even getting into the enormous challenges facing U.S. public diplomacy out there in the real world.

 During the Presidential campaign, Obama talked often and effectively about global engagement and public diplomacy. But during the primary I had noted Clinton's inattention to public diplomacy:

Her Foreign Affairs essay says not a single word about public diplomacy or the war of ideas, or even hints at the notion that there might be a vast, complicated Muslim world out there beyond al-Qaeda impatient for real dialogue with a post-Bush America. When she talks about engagement, she seems to mean either talking to friendly leaders or working within institutions. I searched her campaign web site in vain for her ideas on the subject: the term "public diplomacy" turns up only one, unrelated hit on her campaign site, "war of ideas" none, "dialogue and Islam" none.  Even her big foreign policy address last week... began by proposing to restore America's moral authority but never offered a single word about public diplomacy or international dialogue or the internal debates in the Muslim world. Even when the address closed by reciting all the "tools" which she would use, public diplomacy didn't make the laundry list.

Clinton's answers on public diplomacy to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee mirrored Obama's campaign positions, for the most part. But appointing her "long-time friend and Democratic mega-donor" to this crucial position would validate those earlier fears. And that could undermine Obama's promise and cripple America's ability to revamp its engagement with the world at exactly the time that it is needed most. Thus far, "official Washington" has gotten a lot of these rumors wrong... let's hope this is another of them.

A reported two million people watched Barack Obama's inauguration today.  I, unfortunately, wasn't one of them. If you don't care why, and just want foreign policy blogging, skip the rest of this post and come back tomorrow.

See, I went to the show with a few friends who received excellent Purple tickets as a reward for untold hours volunteering as foreign policy advisers for the Obama campaign.  We got down to the security checkpoint for the Purple section bright and early (I left home at 4 AM), and were guided into a long tunnel which had been closed to traffic.  We waited in line for nearly four hours, in a claustrophobic tunnel with no porta-potties, no food or drink, and not a single official or volunteer in sight.  Finally, we got within sight of the Purple Gate -- only to find that it had been closed.  Thousands of people in front of us hadn't gotten in (not that anyone bothered to tell the people languishing in the tunnel that the gate had been closed, mind you). Thousands of purple ticket holders were behind us.  It's remarkable that there wasn't a riot.  I rode the metro home with a lot of people who had been turned away, including an elderly African-American woman muttering over and over to herself that it had been one of the worst experiences of her life.

Searching for a foreign policy angle so that it isn't just my own bitter rant (and can be justified on FP.com)...

Maybe it's a metaphor for how foreign policy advisers to the Obama campaign feel -- thrown out into the cold, shunted into a dismal and dank tunnel, abandoned without any communication, and ultimately locked out of the show.

Or maybe the Israelis could study the experience to learn how to stop the Gaza tunnels -- give every Hamas member a Purple ticket.

Either way, I just hope that Obama runs his foreign policy more effectively than the inaugural committee ran the ticketed sections today.   What a dismal way to begin the new era.  Bleah.  I hope it was a great speech.

UPDATE:  okay, enough whining (though I see I'm not the only one)... looks like it was indeed a great speech. I liked this part:

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.  To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.  To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. 

Onward.... 

UPDATE 2:  join the Facebook page "Survivors of the Purple Tunnel of Doom" here.. I didn't start it, I swear! Maybe if it gets big enough we can get someone to explain how they managed to give out thousands more tickets than they had room for, why they had absolutely no crowd control or support, and why they didn't have a backup plan.  Not the biggest issue in the world, I know, but first had to take care of the world I know...

THE UPDATE THAT WON'T END (sort of like the tunnel):

_{Inside the tunnel: note the absence of any officials or order, and imagine a stampede.}

The Facebook group is already over 100 150 strong, with comments pointing out the unbelievable security risks posed by putting thousands of unscreened people into a tunnel... with no security, no paramedics, no officials with walkie-talkies. With Gaza in ruins it seems absurd to continue complaining, but still... someone's got some explaining to do. People traveled from far away, many at great expense, because they thought they had guaranteed tickets. And there were an awful lot of Obama campaign staffers and volunteers in that section. The police chief lied bald-faced to the Washington Post ("There's nobody that didn't get to see the inauguration today who had a ticket") and had to reverse himself. They and we are all incredibly lucky there wasn't a stampede.

REALLY LAST ONE:  over 1650 members of the Facebook group now, and some media attention... but no real satisfaction (though this apology is a start). For the record, the Obama foreign policy adviser analogy was just an analogy, not for serious!

The editorial team here has asked its bloggers to weigh in on what should happen and what will likely happen once the inauguration festivities end and reality sets in. My immediate plans will likely include thawing out my hands and trying to hitch a ride out of the District, since I'm planning to head downtown at the crack of dawn for the swearing-in. But for the Obama administration, here are four suggestions for the first weeks in office:

• Give the order to begin drawing down forces in Iraq.  The importance of an immediate, public and dramatic removal of sizable number of U.S. troops from Iraq can not be overstated -- for establishing the credibility of Obama's commitments, for helping ensure the passage of the SOFA in July's referendum, and for pushing forward Iraqi reforms and political accommodation. I explain why here.
• Talk to the Muslim world...and listen.  The idea of a speech in a Muslim capital in the first 100 days is a good one. But don't wait. The enormous excitement about Obama's election throughout the Muslim world has been palpably eroded by Gaza. He should try to recapture that sense of hope and possibility by engaging from the outset with a world desperate for a change from the Bush administration. He should lay out a vision of America's relations with the Islamic world, as he is so uniquely qualified to do.  But engagement doesn't just mean talking -- it means listening,  learning, and treating others with respect rather than simply as objects to be manipulated. That should include a forceful defense of liberal freedoms in Arab countries, including our allies. Obama's administration should seek out ways to reach out, early and often, to a wider range of Arabs and Muslims than usually get heard...and to take them seriously. 
• Engage on Gaza right away. One of the most glaring aspects of the Gaza crisis was the near-invisibility of the United States. Many people in the region saw this as the logical conclusion of eight years of disastrous American disengagement.  It isn't going to be easy for Obama to pick up the pieces. In the short term he should make clear that he expects the cease-fire to stick, and take the lead in offering significant reconstruction aid to the people of Gaza.  More broadly, he needs to demonstrate that the U.S. is re-engaging with the Arab-Israeli conflict on new terms.  Not grand but empty promises -- Bush promised the Palestinians a state by now, remember.  And not Clinton-era peace processing --  it's hard to imagine a situation less "ripe" for resolution, the current Palestinian leadership is in no position to deliver anything, and the Gaza war will leave deep scars. Instead, focus on the realities on the ground as they are, not as we would like them to be, and put U.S. diplomatic and material support into building more solid foundations for a renewed peace engagement.   
• See the whole, not the parts. Reports suggest that Obama and Clinton will appoint a collection of special envoys to deal with Iran, Arab-Israeli affairs, and other issues. But that model runs a real risk of losing a sense of the inter-connectedness of the issues.  For example, dealing with Iraq in its regional context requires serious engagement with Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey and the Gulf. But if the special envoy on Iran isn't talking to the special envoy on Arab-Israeli relations (with the Syria file), and neither is talking to the Iraq team, then important opportunities will be missed and policy could end up working at cross-purposes.  Obama should sit down with all the special envoys and make clear their role in his overarching regional vision.  And then the National Security Adviser and the Secretary of State should work closely together to makes sure that the envoys are working off the same playbook with regular, close communication and coordination.  

And now, off to search for the long underwear!