The lingering damage of ABC

Posted By Peter Feaver Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 4:39 PM Share

By Peter Feaver

Another failure of the Bush administration, as promised here: 

Starting out with an ABC (Anything But Clinton) mentality. Like every challenger, candidate Bush drew as sharp a contrast with the incumbent in the 2000 campaign as he could. More so than most victors, however, the contrast mentality carried over to the first couple years of governing, so Bush policies were framed as dramatically different, even when they were not (for instance, the recognition that promoting democracy abroad reflected our national interests and not merely our national values). 

Apparently -- and I say apparently, since I was not inside at the time, so I do not know for sure -- these rhetorical flourishes were compounded with a systematic failure to consult with the previous administration (or at least a perceived systematic failure). Clinton era experts were dropped from bipartisan or non-partisan councils and the informal courtesies that nourish bipartisanship in national security were ignored. 

Part of my explicit mandate when Steve Hadley hired me in 2005 was to undo some of the damage that was done in this area, and I will let others judge whether we did a better job of reaching out across the aisle in the second term. But by then, as one very influential Democrat with a key role in the new Administration told me at the time: "I know what you are trying to do, Peter, and it is too late for that." We missed the chance to have stronger Democratic support for key policies like the continuation of the Clinton policy on rendition. And when some of the changes we did try to implement came a cropper, the schadenfreude from the bench was needlessly exacerbated.

So far, the Obama team followed the Bush playbook during the campaign, wildly exaggerating the degree to which "the last eight years have been a failure" in foreign policy. But they have wisely dropped the playbook, at least during the transition, and seem more sincere in their effort to adopt the best ideas, policies and personnel, whatever the branding.

EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, BUSH ADMINISTRATION, BUSH'S LEGACY
 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

BGARST

4:50 PM ET

January 6, 2009

Not at CIA...

How else do we explain the recent CIA appointment by Obama except as an "anyone but Bush" pick? His supporters have actually been going around saying they just couldn't choose anyone who had been involved in intelligence over the last 8 years. This does not give me confidence they are interested in the "best ideas, policies and personnel," but just the best politics.

 

DJCARPEN2

10:29 PM ET

January 6, 2009

Torture

BGarst, I understand the concern, but I think the legalization of torture and abject failure to relay correct intelligence concerning Iraq by the Bush Administration makes an unconventional pick to head the CIA warranted.

This is about more than just politics. In many ways, it is about principle. After all, look at the objections of Feinstein and Rockefeller to this pick. This, if anything, was a risky political move.

Am I wrong?

 

BGARST

1:52 AM ET

January 7, 2009

At best that argument

At best that argument suggests a pick who did not support those policies. There are plenty who also know something about intelligence itself. Finding such a person hardly requires wandering into the proverbial wilderness and grabbing the first loyal democrat you run into, which is apparently what Obama did.

 

DJCARPEN2

8:44 AM ET

January 7, 2009

Again, I understand your

Again, I understand your concerns. It seems to be a strange idea to put a person who has never been in the intelligence bureaucracy at the head of that same bureaucracy. Just to add to my previous comment concerning torture and failed intelligence (which to an extent both had their genesis in the failed structure and history of the intelligence agencies) I would add the commentary of some very intelligent people. For example, here is Paul Pillar, a professor at Georgetown University and former CIA officer, commenting on the appointment:

I think he'll do fine. ... The director is not a line officer; he's not running cases and doing detailed analyses. He has to rely on many people in organization at various levels below him who are doing that- he has to exert leadership, he's not supposed to micromanage. Even someone coming up through the ranks is not going to be in a position to directly apply [his experience]; if it's experience from years ago, it might even be out of date.

Of course, not having served at the lower levels, you don't know the certain ways that the organization happens to operate and the ways intelligence officers react to things and do on junior or senior level. But even Robert Gates, who's often described as rising through the organization from the junior level, skipped over and parachuted to the upper levels as result of [former CIA director] William Casey. ...You have to have the ability to question and ability to make judgments, uphold standards of integrity, and not do the other person's job.

And here is Gregory Traverton, an intelligence analyst at RAND:

There are costs and benefits to not being an insider. On principle--especially if your main concern is credibility and oversight--having an outsider is a good thing. You need a fresh look at the business, someone who comes to the whole process of accountability and oversight afresh. ... Someone who's been chief of staff carries some advantages. The clandestine service would probably prefer one of their own. But the analytic side ought to be intrigued by the choice, because he knows what presidents need and like.

The downside--now that the CIA is even more dominated by the clandestine service than before--is that operational issues have a steep learning curve. An outsider who tries to make changes may become too reliant on his sherpas, get coopted, and pretty soon he could become a prisoner of the status quo.

Notice that Traverton argues that credibility and oversight will be one of the benefits to this pick. For a person who is concerned about the unbounded policies under the Bush Administration, this is a welcome development.

I took both of those quotes from The New Republic: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/01/06/is-panetta-experienced-enough.aspx

I would also take issue with your argument that Obama just grabbed

the first loyal democrat [he ran] into.

What is the evidence for that? Is Panetta known has especially hackish?

The comments on this Josh Marshall post are also very interesting:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/01/really_a_mystery.php

 

BGARST

10:02 PM ET

January 7, 2009

I don't think he's hackish

I don't think he's hackish (yet). Loyal was not meant to be an insult. Rather, it is the defining quality which defenders of the pick (including Obama surrogates) have promoted. I'm taking them at their word on that. I have no evidence that he just grabbed him, it was an obvious throw-away line. Though it does at times seem as if he's just pulling out random names of former Clinton officials from a hat.

I came across Pillar's take the other day and admittedly it did reassure me some, but I'm not convinced that this pick is congruent with Obama's previous criticism of politicalization of intelligence.

 

DJCARPEN2

9:34 PM ET

January 6, 2009

Please...

I would just like to highlight one line from this post:

We missed the chance to have stronger Democratic support for key policies like the continuation of the Clinton policy on rendition.

This implies that rendition policy stayed the same under the Bush Administration. This is simply false. Jane Mayer in The New Yorker:

Rendition was originally carried out on a limited basis, but after September 11th, when President Bush declared a global war on terrorism, the program expanded beyond recognition -- becoming, according to a former C.I.A. official, "an abomination." What began as a program aimed at a small, discrete set of suspects -- people against whom there were outstanding foreign arrest warrants -- came to include a wide and ill-defined population that the Administration terms "illegal enemy combatants."

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6

 

MIKE_K

9:19 PM ET

January 7, 2009

failure to consult with the previous administration

I would submit that the decision to retain Tenet at CIA was a major error and an example of Bush's willingness to keep Clinton appointees in place. He also left many Clinton appointees at Justice and got the Plame scandal in return. He belatedly tried to get control of CIA with Goss but then did not stand behind him when the CIA bureaucracy rebelled. That seems to be Obama's motive in appointing Panetta. I'm afraid I don't see it your way from outside.

Richard Clarke has loudly proclaimed your point but he seems awfully self-serving.

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More