"Events, my dear boy, events"

By Steve Biegun

As President Obama takes office, his ability to construct a successful foreign policy over the next four years will be a function of the earliest decisions he makes. Beyond the choice of personnel, (which appears thus far to be an orderly process that has drawn in highly talented and accomplished officials at the senior levels), he must also set priorities for his team to engage. Unlike the campaign, where a slogan of "Change" could be seen as an acceptable answer to how things will be done differently, the Obama administration must sort through and prioritize where it will use its capital, influence, and energy to achieve said change.

New administrations inevitably come into office with broad sets of goals.  The Obama administration is no different in this respect, though with the added weight of a serious, domestic and international economic downturn to overcome. In the limited amount of time that the new President will have for foreign affairs -- while grappling with serious economic issues -- it will be essential to prioritize among the many proposals. And, while the most productive way forward is to accept the world as it is on January 20, 2009 and move ahead, inevitably there will be a sorting through of what the previous administration had done.

When the Bush administration took over from the Clinton team in 2001 there was a self-satisfying feeling among many Republicans that the adults were back in charge. Discipline and experience would rule the day, and a more measured and humble policy led by the professionals would steer the ship of state on a true course. The advice of the Clinton team was seen as unnecessary, and divisiveness was the predictable outcome. Unfortunately, for Republicans this harvest was reaped when the realities of the world, the frailties and rivalries of senior officials, and events (credit due to Harold Macmillan) intervened.

There was a widely held view among Democrats that the early days of the Bush administration were in effect an exercise in doing the opposite of whatever the Clinton administration had done, as Peter discusses here. Likewise, there was a hypersensitivity that the Bush administration was quick to blame any early challenges it faced on the shortcomings of the previous administration. While both of these impressions were exaggerated beyond reality, as a result, many Democrats adopted a knee jerk opposition to anything the Bush administration did. Yet, especially in the early years of the Bush administration, Democrats would usually fall into line when their hand was forced, making them appear strident and weak at one and the same time.

There should be little doubt that similar tendencies will be a temptation for the incoming Obama team, and similar sensitivities will be exhibited by Republicans now that the shoe will soon be on the other foot. Pitfalls await both sides.

So, what will change with the next administration? Will U.S. troops be out of Iraq any quicker than the current trajectory? Will the United States lean on Israel to ignore Hamas rocket attacks on civilian centers? Will the United States push a peace process faster or broader than the democratically elected government of Israel would desire? Will Iran and North Korea really succumb to persuasion and end their nuclear ambitions? Will the oceans cease to rise?

Or, perhaps the Obama team, like the Bush team that preceded it, will self-satisfyingly believe that once again it will all be in the execution; that in their turn, the professionals will take over; that the adults will again be in charge; and that a humble and measured approach to the world will in and of itself be all that is necessary to steady the ship of state.

We will see. But beware the intervention of realties, the frailties, the rivalries and events -- above all events.