Obama’s Lack of Strategic Vision
Yesterday’s New York Times story on Sen. Obama’s foreign policy advisers does not bode well for the Obama campaign or his administration, if elected. Most of the people mentioned in the story are very bright, but few have any record of serious strategic thought (Philip Gordon, Ivo Daalder, and Michael McFaul being clear exceptions). What is most disturbing is that his six “core” advisers lack such a record. Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert have extensive Capitol Hill experience, but it is hard to legislate strategy. Gregory Craig and Richard Danzig are lawyers, and their respective State and Defense department experiences did delve into strategic questions. That leaves Susan Rice and Anthony Lake. Rice is a top-rate diplomat, and her service on mediation in Africa (after her poor conduct on Rwanda) is praiseworthy, but she is no strategist. Likewise, Lake is conceptually smart but both his record during the first Clinton administration is dismal. His strategy was more rhetorical than principled or pragmatic.
“Grand strategy” in its broadest form represents the integration of a country’s security aims with other policy tools and priorities. It involves the balancing of ends and means at the highest level. And it outlines how and when military force will be used to achieve political ends. The lack of strategic vision produces an incoherent foreign policy (the Clinton administration) and a flawed strategic vision produces a damaging foreign policy (the current Bush administration).
In the campaign, a grand strategy will shape how the candidate addresses and responds to a range of international affairs questions. If that vision is sloppy, the candidate will appear confused and contradictory. In a close election, Obama cannot afford to campaign without having thought through a grand strategy. With the core team in place, it looks like he will be muddling through at best.
