Commentary Magazine


Contentions

All Just Cover?

This story in the New York Times posits that the President-elect’s new, decidedly right-of-center national security line-up is, in effect, a “cover” for a new departure in foreign policy:

The shift would create a greatly expanded corps of diplomats and aid workers that, in the vision of the incoming Obama administration, would be engaged in projects around the world aimed at preventing conflicts and rebuilding failed states.

Goodness knows if this is really what the Obama team is up to. Are we about to see a “shift,” or instead merely some additional non-military resources based on the demands of events in the real world? Oh yes, the real world. There, it seems, even the Gray Lady would concede, the priority is for a substantial increase in military forces in Afghanistan. And “rebuilding failed states” — which states precisely are those? Perhaps Iraq, where Secretary Gates has warned against a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. military forces.

It may well be that we’ll see more diplomatic scurrying about and more foreign aid (India should be at the top of the list, if we’re looking to bolster allies). Some of this may be helpful (especially if we can assist allies through mutually beneficial free trade agreements). Some will be a waste of time (e.g the Middle East “Peace Process”). And still others will be a dangerous distraction from growing threats (e.g. yet another endless round of negotiations with Iran as it proceeds with its nuclear development).

But the notion that all of this is going to replace the need for a robust military or become the mechanism for combating violent aggression of the type we witnessed in Mumbai is misguided in the extreme. Shifting from “hard” to “soft” power is the sort of thing that the New York Times thinks is a swell idea, but which bears no relation to the threats we face.

But the Left is frankly desperate to put a happy face on the Obama roll out of distinctly non-Left national security advisors. We’ll see if Hillary Clinton, James L. Jones, and Robert Gates are the sort to “have embraced a sweeping shift of priorities and resources in the national security arena.” Even if they wanted to, the real world has a funny way of intruding and calling upon American military force. In a year or so we’ll see just how much “shifting” we did and just how much continuity there is. And if we are able to “shift,” it will, I suspect, be as a result of some very successful military action of the type currently delivering peace and stability to Iraq.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.