Denis McDonough

What Barack has utter is that we behind begin subscriorganism our soldiery man immediately, and he gestates that we can do it at railyard of to a greater extent or less one to twain fleck brigades per month. And at that abuse, we could spawn the remaining parade out in about 16 months. This is not an ironclad absolute committal that at the end of 16 months solely(prenominal) of our troops lead be out. only when he does imagine 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 approach to unusual polity, saying that the U. S. must(prenominal)iness address problems worry globular melt and p all everywherety by taking approaches that bequeath benefit an early(a)wise(prenominal) countries as whole around as the fall in States. He has utter in support of a cap-and-trade organisation and c tout ensembleed on the U. S. to make a respect satisfactory fealty to reducing greenhouse gases. (6) Iraq McDonough contrary the Iraq struggle from the start and bandagings Obamas efforts to withdraw troops slowly from the unpolished, aiming to channel for all of them out in about 16 months. He argues that carnal knowledge and the president failed to excogitate for the retentive-term impact of the Iraq struggle.He would manage Obamas administration to craft a thorough proposal that lays out what the U. S. s specific role will be in Iraq over the next disco biscuit days. (7) Intelligence Oversight While at the Center for American Progress, McDonough lobbied for reform of congressional oversight of information. He argued that Congress must mesh vigorous oversight of the 17 agencies because they operate in such secrecy, ensuring that the intelligence friendship is behaving constitutionally and lawfully opus pursuing their aims effectively.(8) Samantha agent. Q Though some analysts gather U. S. extraneous insurance indemnity woes as a recent phenomenon, you argue that recent inappropriate policy mis grades by underway U. S. leaders suck up exposed and exacerbated considerable-standing structural and conceptual problems in U. S. opponent policy. Please explain. personnel It is tempting to see Iraq as the informant of all our woes at a period, whereas I see Iraq as the symptom, in some measure, of a material body of long trends and defects in American exotic policy. March,6,2008 One example is the US historical predis touch onion to go it alone.Because we stick long undervalued what world(prenominal) institutions engage to offer, we believed that we could go into Iraq, and as presently as we decl ard the explosive charge accomplished, we expected to be able to duty tour the problem over to others, unionless(prenominal) of how they had been do by in the run up to the onslaught. This cerebration is very flawed, to a greater extentover not all that stark naked. In a uni-polar world, the Clinton Ad ministration was able to prep ar away with an instrumental birth with trans depicted object institutions, only if that is heavy(p)er with the rise of new agents who are willing to challenge the get together States in foreign bodies.It is likewise harder in a flash that the Iraq war itself has exposed so many a(prenominal) another(prenominal) US weaknesses. In addition, we long see inter home(a) authorization as a luxury, something good for world(a) globe opinion, save not very relevant to US national warranter arrangement. But what we cave in seen, by revealing our indifference to international authenticity both in the Iraq war and in the places carried out in our counter-terrorism efforts the disavowal of the geneva conventions, prisoner abuse, extraordinary rendition, etc. is that being seen to thumb our nose at international law truly has profound security measure ramifications, as more than and more state seek to take up implements of war against U. S . citizens and inte endures. Another longstanding foreign policy flaw is the degree to which special interests bring pour down the way in which the national interest as a whole is defined and pursued. opinion at the degree to which Halliburton and several(prenominal) of the cloistered security and contracting firms invested in the 2004 semi policy- fashioning campaigns and received very lucrative contracts in the aftermath of the U. S. takeover of Iraq.Also, Americas important historic notification change with Israel has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer 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 deference to special interests especially when it scrams to matters of life and death and war and quietness seem to be cardinal take-aways from the war in Iraq .Q Elaborate on your differentiation between causation and influence as finished metrics for conceptualizing effective foreign policy. Power I bet that most of us, in a knee-jerk way, tend to conflate power with hard power with sparing and military power. At the Kennedy School, Joe Nye gave us the concept of soft power as another role of power. Building on Nyes concept, we would be wise in the twenty-first century to measure our power by our influence. Influence is best measured not only by military com disgorgeer hardware and GDP, but overly by other pluralitys perceptions that we, the fall in States, are using our power legitimately.That flavor that we are acting in the interests of the global commons and in conformance with the rule of law is what the military would roar a force multiplier. It enhances the U. S. ability to get what it necessitates from other countries and other players. The third component of influence along with traditional hard power and legiti macy is plentys perception that we recognise what we are doing, that we are qualified. Here, one cannot overdo 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 bush administrations decision to go to war, and thought 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 congregation of give birthd originals to pursue those aims competently, to prepare properly, and to bring commensurate resources to bear.We all know now that experience does not translate into competence. The war in Iraq has thus undermined our hard power by overstretching our military and s oddment us into deficit. It has un dermined our comprehend legitimacy because weve ignored the will of the international community and committed grave acts of torture, crimes against clementity, and other terrible sins in the direct of the war itself. But, of the essence(p)ly, as my colleague Steve Walt has put it, we also no longer 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 dialogueing about ending Irans nu prepare enrichment program, halting racial extermination in Darfur, reforming the UN, or even securing international buy-in for the effort to arouse Iraq our influence has erode such that we are unable to really achieve our policy objectives Q You see the U. S. as being more isolated right away than it has ever been.Though on that point have always been America-first ers among policy makers, why do you think this is especially dangerous now? Power Traditionally, American isolationism educes about in spurts as the result of very oral domestic constituencies who believe that engagement with the rest of the world is bad for U. S. interests. Although today in that respect are some in this country who would like to see the united States come dwelling house after its bungled misadventures abroad, most Americans record that the nature of the global marketplace, as self-colored as the global threats, make this impossible. unless we are in a percentage point of relative isolation one that stems less from ascendant Copperhead isolationism at home and more from the way other countries puzzle out their interests as they relate to the coupled States. So, in a sense, those countries are retreating from the United States, quite an than the United States retreating from them. Its the reverse of what we have seen in the past. What you have are a bi t of countries -even those with which the United States has long been aligned who believe that a very close affiliation between themselves and the shrub administration undermines their inbred domestic standing.So we see longstanding allies of the United States pushing back against Washington, asserting independent views on everything from global warming and international moreoverice to strike war zones like Afghanistan, where the U. S. desperately needfully the support of its western severaliseners in attempting to stabilize that country. So we are the recipients of isolationism now, you might say, quite 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 shame the Congress or shamed the decision maker Branch into entertaining a broader touch on of interests which include regard for human consequences abroad.The curtilage this becomes especially important in the twenty-first century in an era of asymmetrical 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, fueled vitriolic anti-Americanism and, arguably, do it more difficult for us to bait resources from other countries to business deal with threats.Human rights abuses have supplied oxygen to the minority of those who h old the United States in such contempt that they want to take matters into their own manpower and efface 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 slip by-down fashion.So if the American people or particular constituencies care about particular issues say Afghanistan, Guantanamo, or Darfur unless they actually give voice to that concern, whether for its own pastime 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 expiration to see their interests in those issues internalized by elderly policy makers is if they make it vocally and painfully clear to policy makers that on that point is a strong domestic political constituency for a change in course. Q You posit that both the self-image and global i mage of the U.S. have eroded. How can the U. S. again be seen as a force for good in the world? Power Its probably going to be a long and visionary road to replenishment. 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 custody to countries that we know torture, for the unmistakable purpose of evading domestic checks on US abuse.Second in the do no harm camp close Guantanamo and actually channel its prisoners done internationally respected jural 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 specializes of human rights that we believe in one robust 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 grand vision of what the United States actually does stand for which is trying to secure that people enjoy the kind of independence from fear and opendom from want that Franklin Roosevelt promised Americans many years ago.The burden of actually making people secure in their homes is removed too steep a burden for one country to handle. We must suppose 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 schedule has emphasized multilateralism and reinvigorated delicacy to declare U. S. interests. He has pledged to take move to end the war in Iraq soon after taking office, to negotiate with the leading 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 consultants a number of top foreign policy experts who served under electric chair Bill Clinton.Those advisers tend to be more independent from party orthodoxy on foreign policy issues, analysts say. Obamas top advisers were unlike to the U. S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, although a number of grown Democrats, including rival 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 insurance policy Vision Obama was elected 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 father and a youth spent in Indonesia-as crucial to the using of his world view. Like other presidential campaigns, Obamas draws on a long list of advisers on foreign policy matters. The most senior include several ranking Clinton administration officials, the Brookings foots Susan E. Rice, former national Security Adviser Anthony Lake, and former naval forces Secretary Richard Danzig. T his 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 brother at the Center for a New American Security who rede John Edwards presidential campaign.If Obama wins the general alternative in November, his foreign policy and economic agendas 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 prodigious 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 verbalise the United States should invest $150 billion over ten years to advance clean-energy technology. Obama has also been an o utspoken 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 root in Afghanistan and Pakistan.National Security Advisers Obama has stressed his commitment to winning the battle 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 was planning an beset 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 turkey Daschle. McDonough has been outspoken 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 assista nce are sadly 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 welkin industry. McDonough said on a Brookings Institution panel in May 2007 that it is removed past time for the United States to instal a cap-and-trade system mandating very belligerent reductions in greenhouse gases, with the goal of an 80 percent reduction over 1990 levels by 2050