Denis McDonough

What Barack has verbalize is that we can begin withdrawing our armament personnel immediately, and he believes that we can do it at pace of ab pop out nonp aril to twain combat brigades per month. And at that pace, we could get the remaining troops out in about 16 months. This is non an ironclad absolute load that at the block up of 16 months any of our troops exit be out. But he does believe that is the kind of pace that we can do responsibly and safely. (Interview with NPR, June 2008. ) McDonough has argued for a common-good commence to unlike polity, saying that the U. S. must accost problems like globular con 10dming and poerty by winning approaches that will benefit separate countries as well as the fall in States. He has spoken in support of a cap-and- sight system and screamed on the U. S. to polish off a serious commitment to reducing glasshouse gases. (6) Iraq McDonough opposed the Iraq contend from the start and moxies Obamas stews to withdraw troo ps slowly from the acres, aiming to have all of them out in about 16 months. He argues that inter frame and the chairman failed to plan for the long-term impact of the Iraq war.He would like Obamas disposition to craft a thorough proposal that lays out what the U. S. s particularised role will be in Iraq over the next ten years. (7) Intelligence Oversight While at the Center for American Progress, McDonough lobbied for repair of Congressional oversight of intelligence. He argued that Congress must pursue tranquilityless oversight of the 17 agencies because they operate in such secrecy, ensuring that the intelligence familiarity is behaving constitutionally and policefully while pursuing their aims effectively.(8) Samantha exp iodinent. Q Though some analysts fulfil U. S. remote policy woes as a new-fangled phenomenon, you argue that recent extraneous policy missteps by current U. S. leaders have assailable and exacerbated long-standing structural and conceptual probl ems in U. S. foreign policy. Please explain. function It is allure to look at Iraq as the source of all our woes now, whereas I see Iraq as the symptom, in some measure, of a number of longstanding trends and defects in American foreign policy. March,6,2008 One example is the US historic predisposition to go it alone.Because we have long undervalued what globose institutions have to offer, we believed that we could go into Iraq, and as short as we declargond the mission accomplished, we expected to be able to liberate the problem over to others, unionless of how they had been treated in the run up to the invasion. This thinking is truly flawed, hardly not all that new. In a uni-polar reality, the Clinton Administration was able to get a sort with an instrumental relationship with internationa constitute institutions, but that is harder with the rise of new powers who atomic number 18 willing to challenge the unite States in international bodies.It is overly harder now that the Iraq war itself has exposed so numerous US weaknesses. In addition, we long saw international sanction as a luxury, something good for world-wide macrocosm opinion, but not very relevant to US national hostage. But what we have seen, by revealing our indifference to international genuineness some(prenominal) in the Iraq war and in the practices carried out in our counter-terrorism efforts the disavowal of the Geneva conventions, prisoner abuse, prodigious rendition, etc. is that being seen to thumb our nose at international law rattling has profound security ramifications, as more than(prenominal) and more great deal seek to defecate up arms against U. S. citizens and interests. Another longstanding foreign policy flaw is the degree to which special interests dictate the way in which the national interest as a whole is defined and pursued. Look at the degree to which Halliburton and several(prenominal) of the private security and contracting firms invested in the 2004 governmental campaigns and received very lucrative contracts in the aftermath of the U. S. return keyover of Iraq.Also, Americas authoritative historic relationship with Israel has much led foreign policy decision- take a leakrs to dodge reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive. So greater regard for international institutions along with less automatic esteem to special interests especially when it comes to matters of life and death and war and relaxation reckon to be two take-aways from the war in Iraq.Q Elaborate on your eminence between power and influence as accurate metrics for conceptualizing effective foreign policy. mightiness I think that more or less of us, in a knee-jerk way, tend to blend power with hard power with economic and soldiery power. At the Kennedy School, Joe Nye gave us the concept of soft power as anothe r component of power. Building on Nyes concept, we would be wise in the 21st nose candy to measure our power by our influence. Influence is best measured not only by legions hardwargon and GDP, but as well by other bulks perceptions that we, the get together States, are using our power legitimately.That article of faith that we are acting in the interests of the global commons and in accordance with the rule of law is what the military would call a force multiplier. It enhances the U. S. competency to get what it wants from other countries and other players. The tertiary component of influence along with traditional hard power and legitimacy is peoples perception that we know what we are doing, that we are qualified. Here, one cannot overstate the devastating one-two punch of Iraq and Katrina in undermining the global publics and the American peoples faith that the U. S. is a competent prosecutor of its own objectives. Even if you disagreed with the render administra tions decision to go to war, and supposition it would do more harm than good, many people assumed that this administration, in pursuing this war, would at least know what it was doing. Whatever its objectives were again, objectives many of us found suspect or insufficient to warrant the use of military force we expected this group of reckond professionals to pursue those aims competently, to prepare properly, and to tote up adequate resources to bear.We all know now that experience does not sympathise into competence. The war in Iraq has thus undermined our hard power by overstretching our military and sending us into deficit. It has undermined our sensed legitimacy because weve ignored the will of the international community and committed grave acts of torture, crimes against mankindity, and other terrible sins in the turn out of the war itself. But, crucially, as my colleague Steve Walt has put it, we also no longish look like the country that put the man on the moon.Nor does the rest of the world see us, currently, as the country that liberated Europe from two world wars, that devised the Marshall Plan, that helped bring down the Wall. As a result, our ability to get what we want whether were talking about ending Irans nuclear enrichment program, halting genocide in Darfur, reforming the UN, or even securing international buy-in for the effort to stabilize Iraq our influence has eroded such that we are unable to actually achieve our policy objectives Q You see the U. S. as being more spaced directly than it has ever been.Though in that location have always been America-firsters among policy makers, why do you think this is especially dangerous now? Power Traditionally, American isolationism comes about in spurts as the result of very birdsong domestic help constituencies who believe that engagement with the rest of the world is bad for U. S. interests. Although today there are some in this country who would like to see the United States com e home after its bungled misadventures abroad, most Americans understand that the record of the global marketplace, as well as the global threats, make this impossible.withal we are in a period of relative isolation one that stems less from ascendant Copperhead isolationism at home and more from the way other countries calculate their interests as they relate to the United States. So, in a sense, those countries are retreating from the United States, rather than the United States retreating from them. Its the reverse of what we have seen in the past. What you have are a number of countries -even those with which the United States has long been reorient who believe that a very close association between themselves and the Bush administration undermines their internal domestic standing.So we see longstanding consort of the United States pushing back against Washington, asserting independent views on everything from global warming and international justice to troubled war zones lik e Afghanistan, where the U. S. urgently needs the support of its western partners in attempting to stabilize that country. So we are the recipients of isolationism now, you might say, rather than the crafters of it. Q The focus in discussions of U. S. foreign policy is often on the executive branch, but you place great responsibility on Congress and journalists, and even the public, in relation to U. S. foreign policy. Why? Power The longstanding habit of governments is to pursue their national interests to pursue their economic and security interests. That is what governments are for. That is what states are for. The only occasions in which regard for human rights and human consequences are injected into foreign policymaking historically are occasions when the Congress has insisted upon it or when the press has either sheepish the Congress or shamed the Executive Branch into entertaining a broader set of interests which include regard for human consequences abroad.The reason this becomes especially important in the 21st century in an era of asymmetric threats- is because our systematic neglect of human rights in the formulation of our foreign policy over the years has engendered great resentment. Our abuses in the conduct of the so-called war on terror, too, have enhanced terrorist recruitment, provide vitriolic anti-Americanism and, arguably, make it more difficult for us to summon resources from other countries to deal with threats.Human rights abuses have supplied oxygen to the minority of those who hold the United States in such contempt that they want to take matters into their own hands and kill Americans. Its very important, for our national security in the long term, and of course on principle, that human consequences be integrated into our foreign policy, but its very unlikely historically that this will be done in a crownwork-down fashion.So if the American people or particular constituencies like about particular issues say Afghanistan, Gua ntanamo, or Darfur unless they actually give interpretive program to that concern, whether for its own sake or because they believe that those crises will come back and haunt the United States if they are not dealt with, the only way that the public is going to see their interests in those issues internalized by higher-ranking policy makers is if they make it vocally and painfully clear to policy makers that there is a salubrious domestic political constituency for a change in course. Q You posit that both the self-image and global image of the U.S. have eroded. How can the U. S. again be seen as a force for good in the world? Power Its belike going to be a long and windy road to rehabilitation. A crucial step for the United States is to really begin to think in terms of do no harm and actually ending some of the more egregious aspects of its approach to counter-terrorism. First, in the do no harm camp end the practice of extraordinary rendition, where US agents willfully ship terrorist suspects in our bondage to countries that we know torture, for the explicit purpose of evading domestic checks on US abuse. bite in the do no harm camp close Guantanamo and actually assembly line its prisoners through internationally respected legal processes. And third, restore habeus corpus to those detainees who are in US custody. To strip a group of individuals no matter what blood some number of them have on their hands of the most fundamental constitutional rights sends a signal to the rest of the world that there are two sets of human rights that we believe in one rich set that Americans get to enjoy, and another much diminished set that those perceived as hostile to us get to enjoy.There are also two sets of individuals tortureables and untorturables. So a first step in our rehabilitation is to rid our conduct of these colossal blemishes on the American character. The second is embedding U. S. antipoverty, anti-disease and democratization policy initiatives within international institutions as part of a wondrous vision of what the United States actually does stand for which is trying to ensure that people enjoy the kind of freedom from fear and freedom from want that Franklin Roosevelt promised Americans many years ago.The burden of actually making people secure in their homes is far too steep a burden for one country to handle. We must articulate a vision for human security and then channel US resources through international institutions, which themselves must become more rigorous and accountable. This will over time enhance US standing, but more importantly, it will force other countries who have delighted in Bushs misfortunes but put little on the line themselves to patrol the global commons to pick up the slack.Introduction Sen. Barack Obamas (D-IL) foreign policy order of business has emphasized multilateralism and reinvigorated diplomacy to advance U. S. interests. He has pledged to take steps to end the war in Iraq soon a fter taking office, to negotiate with the leadership of U. S. adversaries like Iran and Cuba, and to revamp the U. S. approach to free trade to bolster labor and environmental protections. Obama has attracted as advisers a number of gain foreign policy experts who served under President Bill Clinton.Those advisers tend to be more independent from party orthodoxy on foreign policy issues, analysts say. Obamas top advisers were opposed to the U. S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, although a number of prominent Democrats, including come to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), supported the action at the time. Obamas advisers generally appear to agree with his belief that it is important for the United States not just to talk to its friends but also to talk to its enemies. A New Foreign Policy Vision Obama was take to the Senate in 2005 and serves on the Foreign Relations Committee.Prior to that, his professional experience was primarily confined to Illinois, where he served as a state legislator representing a Chicago district, and before that, a community activist. He has cited his personal background-his Kenyan-born acquire and a youth spent in Indonesia-as crucial to the development of his world view. Like other presidential campaigns, Obamas draws on a long list of advisers on foreign policy matters. The most precedential include several ranking Clinton administration officials, the Brookings intros Susan E. Rice, causation National protection Adviser Anthony Lake, and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig. This is a team thats very reflective of Obama, who has made it pretty clear in his speeches and statements during the campaign that he believes that diplomacy has been undervalued over the past few years and that the United States shouldnt fear to negotiate, says Derek Chollet, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security who advised John Edwards presidential campaign.If Obama wins the general election in November, his foreign policy and economic age ndas will surely break with the legacies of the Bush administration, experts say. Whether its our approach to torture, or climate change, or how were dealing with Iran, to Iraq, to the Middle East peace process youre going to see significant changes, says Chollet, who is not connected to the Obama campaign. Obama advocates a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, and has said the United States should invest $cl billion over ten years to advance clean-energy technology. Obama has also been an candid critic of the Iraq war, which he opposed from its outset in 2002. He has said he will withdraw troops from Iraq and refocus U. S. military efforts against home in Afghanistan and Pakistan.National Security Advisers Obama has stressed his commitment to winning the involvement against Taliban forces in Afghanistan. He has also vowed that he would pursue al-Qaeda elements into Pakistan, with or without government permission, if he had strong intelligence the group w as planning an round out on the United States. Obamas leading national security advisers include Denis McDonough , senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, is the national security coordinator for Obamas campaign. McDonough was foreign policy adviser to former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. McDonough has been straight-from-the-shoulder on energy and environmental policy.In June 2007, McDonough urged the Group of Eight (G8) to take action to combat climate change, and warned that current levels of development assistance are woefully insufficient to help underdeveloped nations deal with climate change. McDonough has also said that the United States should do more to promote the development of our domestic clean energy sector industry. McDonough said on a Brookings Institution panel in May 2007 that it is far past time for the United States to institute a cap-and-trade system mandating very aggressive reductions in greenhouse gases, with the goal of an 80 percent re duction over 1990 levels by 2050