National Security Team of Rivals

It's almost sad that pundits are agog at the seriousness of Obama's personnel choices. They are thoughtful and appropriate in skill level, yes, but shouldn't all presidents approach his appointments this way? Look what Bush has done to our expectations. We react with thrilling approval that Obama isn't filling his cabinet with yes men and lackeys.

It just strikes me as weird that "creating sanity" in foreign policy is newsworthy.
I was about to ask how crazy this would make the neocons, but I suppose it would be more appropriate to ask how much more animated this will make the neocon ravings.

"which may have the effect of bringing McCain inside the tent a bit, and away from the neoconservative extremists whom he "palled around with" for the past decade." Joe, that is as close as anyone has come to calling the neocons terrorists. Good for you! No one has terrorized the world more in the last 7 years than those loonies.

"And it would reflect a growing centrist consensus in the foreign policy/national security spectrum that includes most members of the Bush 41 and Clinton teams--in favor of the primacy of diplomacy over militarism, ready to begin talks with those the Bush Administration considered pariahs (the Taliban, Syria, Iran), but not averse to the use of force--against Al Qaeda, in particular--when necessary."

If memory serves most of the members of the centrist cult voted for the war in Iraq. Trying to reclaim reason and diplomacy, for the war mongering, self proclaimed centrists, is ridiculous. Reason is the domain of real liberals.

A Foreign Policy team united by expertise rather than ideology, nice. I, for one, am elated that neoconservative ideologues will no longer be in control-- we made the right choice this election.
.
For those interested, read "Republican realist Brent Scowcroft" on Iraq and combating terror (from Aug 02): http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133.
.
A small excerpt:
.
"Given Saddam's aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power. Whether and when that point should come ought to depend on overall U.S. national security priorities. Our pre-eminent security priority--underscored repeatedly by the president--is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.
.
The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive--with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy--and could as well be bloody."

I'm not saying Hillary isn't up to the task. But I can see her and Obama clashing a lot. NYT ran a great piece yesterday about how the Team of Rivals was anything but great at times. Lots of ego and arguing. Some of them all but stopped attending cabinet meetings because they got so upset with another member. Hopefully this team will gel together better.

...and what wvng said. Kudos Joe.

General Jones enjoys the delicious refreshment of Rumsfeld Hatorade.

A good post to start a discussion. In general agreement. What I am looking forward to is the second tier players who will grow to maturity in the first term and become a valuable reservior of people who can aspire to head of post in the second term. That is my hope! The value in this team (as proposed/reported on thus far) is that Pres elect Obama is not afraid of getting opposing advice from his team. In the end he will determine the thrust and direction. In spite of the usual naysayers I think he will hold his team together.

"historically luscious"

awesome! (or should I say voluptuous)

I mentioned it in another thread, but it's worth repeating. Joe is not remotely alone in his admiration for Obama's selections. Here's Brooks this morning:
.
Believe me, I'm trying not to join in the vast, heaving O-phoria now sweeping the coastal haut-bourgeoisie. But the personnel decisions have been superb. The events of the past two weeks should be reassuring to anybody who feared that Obama would veer to the left or would suffer self-inflicted wounds because of his inexperience. He's off to a start that nearly justifies the hype.
.
Thinking people on all sides of the divide are ecstatic at the obvious return to reason in the White House.

Personally I think this "Team of Rivals" meme is just helping to make sure that book is an all time best seller. What I mean is that its entertaining to look at it as if Obama is following Lincolns lead and everything but this is a much different country than it was during Lincoln's time. And the truth is Hillary Clinton worked her azz off for Obama during the general election campaign. She wasnt off somewhere pouting nor was she tepid in her support for his candidacy. Now there is no doubt that they aren't BFFs but its really a media creation this notion that Bill and Hillary are spending every waking hour plotting Obama's demise. Bill didn't like Obama because Obama beat (not literally) Bill's wife. Ask any man with a significant other and I am sure they understand. But to me getting Hillary at SOS has more to do with political expediency than it does some high brow notion of bringing in a rival. Hillary will always have a rabid following and if she didn't get a position in Obama's administration there would have been a LOT of grumbling from them. Not saying it necessarily had to be SOS but then again it does make just as much sense as putting her in at SCOTUS which is what a lot of people had speculated he would do after taking office. Now I do believe that Obama will seek out people with divergent opinions for advice but what I don't see him doing is bringing in someone like say a Mitt Romney or a Rudy Guiliani or even a Tom Ridge because their beliefs which are mostly inherrently Republican types of beliefs will not line up with his. Its the same reason he won't be intalling Ron Paul as the Treasury Secretary. None of his picks or rumored picks are really all that "startling" or "momentous" so far. Really when you take away all the rhetoric and start looking objectively at his picks they all make sense both politically and practically. What really has the MSM in a tizzy is that Obama is NOT making controversial picks of people with limited experience and opposing philosophies. And by the way keeping the Sec Def in initially when the country is involved in two wars it both practical and good politics. If something happens negative in the prosecution of either war early on in Obama's administration he will have cover with Gates still in as Sec Def that he would never have if he replaces him.

The only people who should be surprised at the path Obama is taking to build his Security team are the people who beleived all the lies that were being told about him during the campaign. Anyone who thought he was anything but a centrist realist was too busy listening to the voices in their head instead of checking the evidence before their eyes.
.
I like waht I said on Karen's thread on the subject so I'll repost it here:
.
I remember my reaction the first time I encountered Obama stickers featuring a peace sign in the "O" I cringed to think that anyone beleived that Obama represented the "Peace Candidate". I always felt that reprenting the "Non-Insane" candidate would be sufficient improvment to make his candidacy worth supporting. I still feel that way.

Besides, if you want to confine your cabinet picks to those who were right on Iraq, you'll end up with me and Natalie Maines. Not exactly realistic.

Obama appears to be choosing people based on his confidence in their ability to solve problems and not their pre-ordained solutions. Amen to that.

If we are indeed seeing the Team, I think it's an excellent one. And yes, Hillary is the ultimate team player

And Paul D., great post. I never saw Obama as anything other than a centrist in all matters and HRC's health plan was more "liberal" than his.

pourme
.
when you say "not their pre-ordained solutions" thats kind of well not true. There are plenty of problems Obama is going to have to solve when he gets into office. And he won't have the luxury of trying two different approaches and then choosing the one that works. So he is going to have to make a judgement call on which path to take. Now when you say they don't have pre ordained solutions then I would point out that Obama spent a substantial amount of time on the stump pointing out that the conservative philosphy of how to run the economy is pretty much bullsh!t. Remember the whole "trickle down" theory. So somehow I doubt he will be naming a conservative in to lead his treasury. So by definition he is going to exclude those who think the free market should have little to no regulation from leadership positions in his cabinet no matter what their personal backgrounds or successes. The same way he wont be naming a person who thinks we should be involved in attacking a country when there is no imminent threat ala the Bush Doctrine to lead him in Military affairs. To think ideology won't matter is going to be a little bit naive.

@sgw - Not what I said. I said he is choosing people based on his confidence they can solve problems. Of course, they've got to pass a baseline compatibility test, but what I see is a leader searching primarily for strong intellectual problem-solving skills.

Put simply, I'd say he's installing a Smartypantsocracy.

The Great American Hegemony Project marches on here.
.
But that is as expected.
.
Course, the fact that some knowledgeable Pentagon people say the armed forces are in disastrous shape may give pause to bellicose.
.
Rome comes to mind more and more often.

Forgot the link:
.
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4404&from_page=../index.cfm

IIRC, I saw Jones give a talk to a general audience when he was commandant, around 2000, and he called for allocating a constant percentage of GDP to military spending. That's hardly a disqualifying view, but it's a little cause of alarm, in my mind, because we shouldn't need to peg defense spending to the same percentage we spent at any point during the Cold War.
-
As to Paul Dirks' "non-insane" point, here's a story I've probably told around here, but it too fits. When I was in college, an expert on Indonesia came and spoke to our class. He spoke highly of Megawati Sukarnoputri, but with few specifics. I asked him about her, and his, vagueness, and he gave an insightful, wry response. "That's like the questions I get from Western journalists," he said. "'Well, what's her position on the middle-class tax cut, and partial-birth abortion?' But she stands for the rule of law. And that's what's important right now."
-
I didn't expect that ever to be the case here, but the last 8 years have been full of surprises.

I'd say he's installing a Smartypantsocracy.
.
IN my family, there is a view that people must choose between being a dumbass and a smartypants. It's not as automatic choice as you might think.

Pourme, your "smartypantsocracy" gave me a great sense of relief. Two joke-free posts in a row had me worried that you were suffering some kind of mental lapse.
And I'm not worthy to fill your shoes. Or cup.

Ha! Leave my cup out of this!

... and away from the neoconservative extremists whom he "palled around with" for the past decade...

Snarky excellence!