A blog about politics.

Team of Rivals

The President-Elect indicated to me last summer that he was interested in surrounding himself with the toughest, smartest people he could find in his Administration. People who would argue with each other, who would disagree with him. This seems a wise course of action. Obama has the strength and confidence, I believe, to be able to handle a little contention--and the lack of diverse, pushy voices is, in part, what killed the Administration of George W. Bush.

Last summer, Obama told me that he'd be open to talented Republicans--people like Robert Gates, who may well be asked to remain for a time as Secretary of Defense. That would be a good thing. Gates has been excellent.

But Obama should also be open to people in his own party, people who didn't support him for President. Which brings me to Richard Holbrooke--who is, without question, the finest diplomat in the Democratic Party, but one who supported Hillary Clinton and has been a rival of several of Obama's closest foreign policy advisers, namely Tony Lake and Susan Rice.

No one questions Holbrooke's talent. Stories are told about his ambition and his, well, pushiness. I had the opportunity to watch Holbrooke close up during the Bosnia peace negotiations a decade ago. I spent a week on his shuttle, watching Holbrooke face down Slobodan Milosevic (who needed to be pushed)--and work, very nicely thank you, with the National Security Adviser Tony Lake, who was frequently in phone contact from Washington. Holbrooke put together a first-rate team for that effort--a team of rivals, in fact, including General Wes Clark, Don Kerrick (of the National Security Council, who should be getting consideration for National Security Adviser now) and Christopher Hill of the State Department. It was an incredible show, one of the few clear-cut diplomatic triumphs of the Clinton Administration.

There are others who would be acceptable, perhaps even very good Secretaries of State. I have high regard for Senators Kerry, Hagel and Dodd, General Jim Jones, career diplomats like Nicholas Burns and Chris Hill. But there is only one diplomat who has the skill and track record--historical memory and the working knowledge--to negotiate the deals that will be needed between India and Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Taliban and who will know how to play the game to come with Iran...and that's Holbrooke.

I've known the man for 30 years. He is a friend, and our friendship made me reluctant to make this argument. But this is a difficult moment for our country overseas. We will have great Ambassadors in the President-Elect and Vice President Joe Biden. We also need our very best negotiator on board--and that's Richard Holbrooke.

  • Print
  • Comment
Comments (138)
Post a Comment »
  • 1

    Joe--judging from your entry, it would seem there is a plethora of talent and a deep bench to choose from.
    .
    With that said, however, you can only choose one for a position. People will be disappointed no matter who gets chosen. That said, here's hoping the best people are picked who will work in their chosen slot.

  • 2

    What I find interesting is that Kerry could be the Secretary of State. That just seems...odd. I felt bad for him in 2004, but I wonder if his famous long-winded monologues would serve him well in such a position.

  • 3

    "...open to talented Republicans..."
    .
    At this point, given the demonstrated filth with which Republicans run their campaigns, given the demonstrated incompetence of Republican governance, and given the demonstrated failure of Republican ideals, tendencies and philosophy, I have to question the judgement, sanity and, yes, the talent of any politician that still clings to that party identification.
    .
    There is plenty of room for them in the Democratic Party. The ranks of the DLC could use the fresh blood.

  • 4

    Plus, I agree with Yoshi. Kerry has no place in the Executive Branch. Keep him in the Senate where he can continue to be productive.

  • 5

    Terrapinion, don't demonize the whole of the other party. It wouldn't get Obama anywhere, and it won't get the Democrats anywhere either.

    A lot of people who voted for McCain, believe it or not, did it because they have conservative beliefs that Obama opposes. Switching to the Democrats won't really promote those beliefs.

    We've seen what monolithic ideological legislation has done for the GOP's time in the seat of power.

  • 6

    No to Kerry or Holbrooke. I like Clark, though Hill would be a fine replacement for Condi the H20 carrier.

  • 7

    If the people who voted Obama into office wanted a centrist running the country they would have voted for Clinton instead. Obama better be careful about surrounding himself with nothing but centrists, or right wingers. The majority of his appointees ought to be liberals, because that is who supported him.

  • 8

    I am fascinated by the mix between "knowledge" and "skills" in these cabinet selections. It's not something I'd given much thought to in the past. Typically, you hear a lot about knowledge - expertise and advice. In recommending Holbrooke for Secretary of State, you talk a lot about skills - actual talent at negotiating. It pinned my ears back a little, because I don't really think about many other cabinet positions in terms of a sliding scale of ability at a discrete skill. I bet I should.

  • 9

    terrapinion,

    He got elected on the platform of bi-partisanship and running on conservative ideals. If he does not pick some members represent those conservative ideals he will go over like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. We see what fabulous numbers they have racked up for the Dem controlled congress.

    Didn't they get to single digits in July? Look dems can beat their dead horse George W Bush but, elections are two years away and if they don't show more promise than they have in the previous two I think you are going to see a backlash.

    Pelosi and Reid said they where going to run bi-partisan and still got away with being able to blame their whipping boy, however that time is coming to a close. Now the dems will start to be held accountable. So lets hope they are smart and try a new tack of being bi-partisan instead of talking about it.

  • 10

    judgementz:
    .
    But last week, you said he was too liberal.
    .
    You wouldn't be, uh, flipflopping, now, would you?

  • 11

    Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate. That is what McCain kept saying. That is why he was elected. He owes the centrist cult nothing and it would be foolish of him to burn all his bridges with the Left, now that he has power. He will need their support in another 4 years. His choice for chief of staff is already a slap at the Left.

  • 12

    Derek, give the man a chance, for cat's sake. Rahm's job is to be an enforcer, and that starts with the transition itself.

  • 13

    I'm hearing a faint rumbling about Fareed Zakaria for Secretary of State? The prospect thrills me. On the off chance that he was offered it, would he take it?

  • 14

    The media shouldn't be joining in on the center-right thing. The same people who said Obama was running as a socialist, can not be allowed to say that he ran as a centrist after he won without being challenged.

    Instead of being challenged, the media embraces the talking point. That is just horrifically wrong.

  • 15

    zakaria would be great

  • 16

    How is it possible for so many people to live through a 2 year campaign run by a non-ideological candidate and come away thinking he's a progressive, a centrist, or a conservative. The man is a pragmatist, one I might add, who has been telling us for 2 years that he detests labels because they are counterproductive and he is right. Obama wants people who have the skill set and the drive to get the job done. You want to know what's wrong with Washington - it is that everyone comes from the same schools, the same backgrounds, and regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation, they think a like because they have come through a similar set of experiences. And this happens on both sides of the aisle. Obama wants to eliminate group think by surrounding himself with diversity of thought not just diversity of race and gender -- but clearly a few days after the election everyone wants to retreat to their comfortable label driven corners and demand that Obama join them. I don't know if Holbrooke is the man but if he has the necessary chops and there is no one else anywhere that has better abilities then he should be the man I don't care what side he is on or who he use to support. The country is in trouble and if we don't put up our A game it could very well go down the tubes. So I say the Obama scouts ought to be looking at any body who has got some serious game.

  • 17

    Democratic Wilsonians potentially open the door for neocons. Ken Adelman is already sniffing around to see if there's a way in.

    There are some obvious criteria to seek at State: diplomatic smarts, well-established relationships with foreign leaders, but also the sense that there's no game of telephone between the SecState and the White House. Holbrooke's interesting, and hard to label, though I'm guessing that Obama still talks to Sam Power -- she may be offered a job, but probably not an outward-facing one where her temperament might cause problems -- and her relationship with Holbrooke is fairly spiky on certain issues.

    Did you read Brady Kiesling's book, Joe? Or David Jones' piece in the AFSA journal earlier this year? One of the chief inward-facing tasks of the new SecState is to rebuild and retool the Foreign Service -- remember, the US has more military band members than diplomats -- while taking a hard look at the mechanisms of force projection. So that has to be weighed up as well. Holbrooke has the experience to rebuild State, but I'm not certain that he has the vision. Steve Clemons has a similar perspective: he's worried about a Clinton III Cabinet, and I have to agree with him. He likes Hagel as a pick for outward-looking realism, which would slam the door on neoconnerie, but Hagel hasn't explicitly signed on to Obama's for-pol goals, which I think is a problem, and would need to be backed up by career State types to head the internal reform.

  • 18

    How is it possible for so many people to live through a 2 year campaign run by a non-ideological candidate and come away thinking he's a progressive, a centrist, or a conservative. The man is a pragmatist, one I might add, who has been telling us for 2 years that he detests labels because they are counterproductive and he is right. Obama wants people who have the skill set and the drive to get the job done. You want to know what's wrong with Washington - it is that everyone comes from the same schools, the same backgrounds, and regardless of gender, race or orientation, they think a like because they have come through a similar set of experiences. And this happens on both sides of the aisle. Obama wants to eliminate group think by surrounding himself with diversity of thought not just diversity of race and gender -- but clearly a few days after the election everyone wants to retreat to their comfortable label driven corners and demand that Obama join them. I don't know if Holbrooke is the man but if he has the necessary chops and there is no one else anywhere that has better abilities then he should be the man I don't care what side he is on or who he use to support. The country is in trouble and we need to put up our A game. I say the Obama scouts ought to be looking at any body whose got some serious game.

  • 19

    53_3,

    I have posted little in the last few months just because of the climate around here and many of the fixtures here resorting to name calling and labeling instead of actually debating.

    His campaign and rhetoric was but, he is shaping up to be a lot more moderate than he was on the campaign. So who is actually going to emerge that guy from the campaign trail or the guy of the last 3 days?

  • 20

    Holbrooke might be fine for the top job, don't know. I'm going to say something that is impolitic, but I'm going to say it anyway:
    .
    I think it would be valuable for our main diplomats involved in our Middle East efforts from Israel to Pakistan to be non-Jews. Specifically, secularists or non-dogmatic Christians. I think that symbolically it makes it easier for the U.S. to play mediator.
    .
    This is the biggest issue in Israel of course, where it seems for decades now, when we seek to play "honest broker", we send Jewish diplomats.
    .
    But it's also an issue in dealing with Arab countries or with Iran. Symbolism is important in diplomacy, and they're not religion-blind so its silly for us to pretend its not an issue.

  • 21

    judgementz, I think he was pretty moderate on the campaign trail.
    .
    I think it was the Right who keep talking about how liberal he is (i.e. socialist) until people believed it.
    .
    He's never sounded like anything so much as a pragmatist to me. Which is why I voted for him. When there are many big problems to be solved, a little pragmatism can't hurt.

  • 22

    The new motto of the Right "To the vanquished go the spoils."

    A few days ago they were calling him a commie and friend of terrorists. Now they are complaining that he isn't appointing more of them to cabinet positions.

  • 23

    John Edwards ran quite to the left of Obama. Dennis Kucinich ran very far to the left of Obama. Yet, if you listened to Fox noise, you would have believed that we would have Leon Trotsky discussion groups going on in the White House if Obama won.

    Obama is not that liberal. I just object to allowing the blowhards who accused him of being a commie to flip-flop the next day and say he ran as a Reagan democrat. They shouldn't be allowed to be so dishonest.

  • 24

    @terrapinion: The ranks of the DLC could use the fresh blood.
    '
    Hmm. Makes me wonder if we'll see a case of "fight from the inside." Will we hear, sometime in the future, how the Repugs sent younglings to the Democrats to infiltrate the party, and foment discord from within, to destroy the enemy?
    '
    Not that the Dems need any help self-destructing...

  • 25

    @trifecta: They shouldn't be allowed to be so dishonest.
    '
    I agree. Let's line 'em up and shoot 'em.
    '
    Seriously - how do you get rid of a Carney, or a Scherer?

Add Your Comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Swampland Daily E-mail

Get e-mail updates from TIME's Swampland in your inbox and never miss a day.

Quotes of the Day »

Get & Share
JAMIE O'BRIEN, a competitor in the Eddie Aikau surfing competition in Oahu, Hawaii, on surfing the rare 40-foot waves that hit the island this week