Finally, someone says it.
John Isaacs, the Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, has written a great piece about how much Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton agree on many critical defense and foreign policy issues.
His point about the media is absolutely dead-on correct. The traditional media (and many blogs) put their manufactured drama over substance:
President-elect Barack Obama announced today that he will nominate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) to be Secretary of State. Selecting a former rival for the most prestigious of cabinet positions has unleashed a torrent of media coverage, most of which has focused on grossly exaggerated disagreements during the presidential campaign and behind-the-scenes political maneuvering.
This reporting misses the point. As Lt. General Robert Gard, chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, wrote recently, "It’s not Hillary, it’s the policy stupid!" Reporters tend to exaggerate conflict because it makes for more interesting copy. The fact is, however, that when it comes to foreign policy, Obama and Clinton agree far more than they disagree.
It is exceedingly frustrating to attempt a discussion about simple policy issues when there is so much O'Reilly-style shouting about The Clintons™ and their nefarious plot to get back into government so Hillary can start launching tactical nuclear weapons. The complaints that Obama is "tilting right" are ridiculous; if anyone had been paying attention during the campaign and actually read the foreign policy and defense sections of Obama's website, they would have known that Obama's choice of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State makes perfect sense.
Isaacs carefully, patiently, and methodically lays out Obama's and Hillary's approaches to the issues. He bases his comparisons on voting records, answers to questionnaires, national security discussions in a number of op-eds, etc.
Let's look at Iraq:
Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq has been complex. She joined Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in supporting the 2002 authorization to go to war, and although she has refused to apologize for the vote, she later said, "If I knew then what I now know, I would not have voted that way." As a presidential candidate, Clinton promised, within 60 days of taking office, to begin withdrawing troops at the rate of one or two brigades a month, with the goal of getting most combat troops out by the end of 2009.
In 2002, when he was an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama opposed the war. After he was elected to the U.S. Senate, he and Clinton both voted against early proposals by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and others to set a timetable for withdrawal; now both Obama and Clinton vote consistently in favor of establishing a timetable. Obama's plan for exiting Iraq would, like Clinton's, send home one or two combat brigades a month, with all combat troops out by the end of 2009. However, at an MSNBC debate in September 2007, neither Clinton nor Obama would guarantee that they would have all U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of their first term. Both Obama and Clinton have opposed permanent bases in Iraq.
Now, for Iran:
President Bush has displayed unremitting hostility toward the radical regime dominating Iran, a country that U.S. intelligence sources report had previously been pursuing a nuclear weapons program. He branded Iran part of the "axis of evil" and promoted regime change as the preferred U.S. policy. With a few limited exceptions, the United States under Bush has refused to talk directly with Iran.
Obama and Clinton have delivered messages on Iran that were mixed. Obama promised to open a dialogue with Iran without preconditions to attempt to work out a solution. However, he called Iran "a threat to all of us" and suggested in March 2007 that the military option should remain on the table. At the same time, he said that it "would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran" and condemned the administration's "saber-rattling" on Iran.
Clinton pledged to reach out immediately to Iran, saying, "you don't make peace with your friends. You have got to deal with ... people whose interests diverge from yours." At the same time, she indicated that she remains open to all options, including military ones. Clinton also declared: "We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons." She voted for a controversial amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Lieberman that proposed labeling Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama missed that vote but called the amendment a repeat of the mistakes that led to war in Iraq; however, he cosponsored an earlier bill declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Please note the part that I highlighted in bold at the end. Not many people know about that particular bill that Obama co-sponsored. I would urge you to click all of the links in that paragraph, especially the last one, since it gives a little insight into Obama's thinking on Iran.
Recently, I wrote about the proposed missile defense shield in Europe. Gates is a fan of missile defense, including the shield in Europe. That should make for interesting discussions with Clinton and Obama, because, as Isaacs points out, Clinton and Obama are both wary about missile defense, and rather ambiguous about the European shield:
In 2001, the Bush administration withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and since then has moved swiftly to deploy national missile defense interceptors in Alaska and California. The latest fiscal budget request for 2009 is $12.3 billion for all forms of missile defense.
Obama has been critical of the Bush missile defense plans: "The Bush Administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes." Clinton's position has been more ambiguous. Of three key votes in 2004, she voted in effect for missile defense once and against it twice. However, she criticized President Bush's decision in 2001 to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and both she and Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Carl Levin in 2005 (the last major vote on missile defense) while McCain missed the vote. She also criticized the Bush administration of "focusing obsessively on expensive and unproven missile defense technology." Neither Clinton nor Obama has indicated plans for missile defense.
Missile Defense Site in Europe: Obama has not been clear what he would do with the Bush proposal, but indicated that he would not allow the program "to divide 'new Europe' and 'old Europe.'" It is also unclear what Clinton's position is.
Please read the rest of the piece. Isaacs discusses Obama and Clinton's similar views on nuclear non-proliferation; again, it should be interesting to see how they work with Gates on this one, as he is quite enthusiastic about the Reliable Replacement Warhead, unlike Obama and Clinton, who do not think a RRW ("new nuke") program is necessary.
I would also highly recommend the post to which Isaacs links in the first paragraph, by Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.) and Tom Andrews. The title says it all:
It's Not Hillary, It's the Policy Stupid!
Got that, press? Bloggers?
Good.
Because, as Obama said today:
"During campaigns or during the course of election season, differences get magnified," he said. "I did not ask for assurances from these individuals that they would agree with me at all times. I think they understand and would not be joining this team unless they understood and were prepared to carry out the decisions that have been made by me after full discussion."
"And, you know, most of the people who are standing here are people who I've worked with, and on the broad core vision of where America needs to go, we are in almost complete agreement," he continued. "There are going to be differences in tactics and different assessments and judgments made. That's what I expect; that's what I welcome. That's why I asked them to join the team."
It's time to get to work, and that's what they're going to do.