LAMBRO: Cabinet cachet

COMMENTARY:

President-elect Barack Obama had to sign a lot of prenuptial agreements before he was able to put together the national security team he announced this week.

Before Hillary Clinton agreed to be his secretary of state, she wanted assurances she would have unimpeded access to him and be included in all White House foreign policy deliberations. And she wanted to pick her own team at State. She got both.

Mr. Obama entered this once-unlikely partnership between the two political rivals with some demands of his own. Former President Clinton would first have to reveal the names of the donors to his nonprofit global foundation to guard against conflicts of interest. His well-paid speeches abroad had to be vetted as well. The Clintons readily agreed.

Ret. Marine Gen. James L. Jones was reluctant to accept the post of presidential national security adviser. Previous people in that job found their advice constantly undercut by secretaries of state and defense. Mr. Jones knew that going up against a powerful political infighter like Hillary Clinton would be no easy task. If Mr. Obama was putting together a “team of rivals,” he wanted to be on an equal plane with them.

To nearly every problem, Mr. Jones raised, Mr. Obama would say, “I can fix it.” He was given the Cabinet rank he sought and the pledge that he would be the administration’s chief security adviser and conduit.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ decision to remain in his job presented different challenges. He had been the chief proponent of President Bush’s surge that rescued the Iraq war from certain defeat and gave the Iraqis time to train their military. He opposed Mr. Obama’s troop withdrawal timetable and said so publicly and still believes the Iraqis need more time before they can go it alone.

Mr. Obama gave him assurances that as the lone Republican on the team he would be in on all national security decision-making and the future of the Iraq war. At the same time, Mr. Obama assured Mr. Gates that his own 16-month pullout timeline was not set in concrete, that the United States would not leave the Iraqis high and dry and that he was willing to seek a compromise on any future withdrawal.

He acknowledged Monday that the policy terrain regarding the length of time that combat troops would remain in Iraq had already changed as a result of the Bush administration’s security agreement with Iraq that called for U.S. troop withdrawal in three years.

There is a lot of room for compromise between 36 months and 16 months, and Mr. Obama was sending signals this week that he was prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq longer than he envisions if his military commanders say they need more time to secure the country.

Thus, the man who made pulling out of the Iraq war his No. 1 foreign policy campaign issue now says the U.S. will have “to maintain a residual force to provide potential training for the Iraqi military, logistical support to protect our civilians in Iraq.” That was the behind-the-scenes advice his Iraq war advisers gave him early this year and apparently he is taking it.

Notably, Mr. Obama now says his “No. 1 priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase and that the Iraqi people are well- served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security.”

“I will listen to the recommendation of my commanders,” he reaffirmed Monday.

Not surprisingly, all of his wiggle-room talk is making his party’s hard-line, antiwar base very unhappy and there is growing anger in the leftist blogosphere. It is suddenly dawning on them that we are going to be in Iraq a little longer than they had been led to believe.

Two things strike me about Mr. Obama’s national security team that tells us a lot about how much change he will really bring about - or perhaps more likely how little things will change.

Story Continues →