Two very interesting articles were just written that describe tension and disagreement within the Obama administration. The first is about anti-terror policies, and the second is about our relationship with Israel. From the first article:
“Beyond the technical legal issues, this debate is about the fundamental question of whom we are at war with,” said Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor who specializes in war-power issues. “The two problems most plaguing Obama in the war on terrorism are trials for terrorists and taking the fight beyond Afghanistan to places like Pakistan and Yemen. This issue of whom we are at war with defines both of them.”
As we’ve said here, defining the war is a crucial part of how we fight it. From the second article:
Sources say within the interagency process, White House Middle East strategist Dennis Ross is staking out a position that Washington needs to be sensitive to Netanyahu’s domestic political constraints including over the issue of building in East Jerusalem in order to not raise new Arab demands, while other officials including some aligned with Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell are arguing Washington needs to hold firm in pressing Netanyahu for written commitments to avoid provocations that imperil Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and to preserve the Obama administration’s credibility.
Disagreement and debate can be very good, as they can lead to stronger decisions. One problem with this administration, however, is that they don’t seem to have made clear decisions on some issues of foreign policy and national security. These are decisions a president must make and then generate buy-in from the team to implement. A team of rivals this administration is apparently not. Rather, they seem like a team with extremely varied ideological views, including liberal views that even President Obama knows better than to adopt if he wishes to not restrain himself in protecting the country.
That this administration struggles to communicate clear policies on these issues hasn’t been surprising, considering the lack of Obama’s previous experience in these areas and his non-serious views on the policies he actually did try to communicate during the campaign. That doesn’t make the administration’s ineptitude any less concerning. The president is elected to make decisions, but when reporting on the complicated issue of wartime detention, the NYT offers only this tidbit of Obama’s input:
And at a White House meeting, Mr. Obama weighed in, declaring that he did not want to invoke unrestrained commander-in-chief powers in detention matters.
No one is suggesting that the executive branch invoke unrestrained power, so this offering is pretty much worthless. I would hope that President Obama has more to say than that. It’s easy to question whether or not he does though, as his rhetoric about these policies has often been inconsistent with his positions. The public is mostly unaware of the positions this administration has been taking on war issues, and no one has a clue what the policy is towards Iran these days. We hear tough talk to Israel, but not much explanation of how our partnership can help stop the Iranian threat.
The Obama administration has only been clear about few initiatives for these issues, and many weren’t realistic. Pulling out of Iraq was never going to happen, nor was leaving Afghanistan early. We know how difficult it has been to close Guantanamo, and now that decision has only become tougher. Actually, maybe it has become easier to reverse, as two big stories came out last week that suggest keeping Gitmo open may be the best option.
First, a judge ordered the release of 9/11 conspirator and Mohamed Atta recruiter Mohamedou Slahi. Second, a former Gitmo detainee who was transferred to Afghanistan has since returned to the ranks of the Taliban. Examples like these suggest we handle detainees in a way that allows us to hold them until we can figure out something better to do with them. A law enforcement approach only increases the chances these people have of returning to the battlefield. President Obama likely knows this, which is probably why he hasn’t adopted some of the liberal views of his administration. But he hasn’t publicly endorsed the Bush policies he has held onto either, sending a mixed message about what his policies are on such matters.
I suggest the president take advantage of the debates in his administration to strengthen his policies. It would be a lot easier for the administration to communicate and implement their policies once they have settled on positions that have been debated and agreed to.
UPDATE: State Department legal adviser Harold Koh offered some explanation of the administration’s war positions in a recent speech to the American Society of International Law. This was picked up by the bloggers at Opinio Juris, so H/T to them. There are two additional points that I want to make.
One is that while Mr. Koh explains that the administration does believe we are at war with al Qaeda, the disagreement over how we define the enemy is still significant. Our ability to gather intelligence, capture, kill, interrogate, detain, and prosecute all depend on how we define the war. It’s important not to downplay the significance of the disagreements over this issue, as a lack of clarity can lead to inconsistent positions. The handling of KSM, the Underwear bomber, and other Gitmo detainees suggests that not everyone in this administration is on the same page, and that the consequences of not settling these important policy disagreements can lead to mistakes like we’ve seen.
The second point I want to make is that it’s clear this administration does not want to sell these policies to the public (and it’s understandable why not). While it’s helpful for Mr. Koh to articulate the administration’s approaches, the White House has not made this a priority. In fact, the president has criticized many of the policies he has mostly adopted, and I believe that the inconsistency between rhetoric and action has contributed to difficulties in handling related issues.
