Last week well-known neoconservative Robert Kagan had a column in the Washington Post and Foreign Policy magazine that argued that bipartisanship in foreign policy was alive and well in the Obama administration.  Although, I agree with Kagan’s central argument, I have issues with his rationale about why this came about and his prescriptions for the future.

Kagan writes,

Unnoticed amid the wailing about “broken government,” a broad bipartisan consensus is emerging in one unlikely area: foreign policy. On Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran — the most expensive and potentially dangerous foreign challenges facing the United States — little separates the Obama administration from most Republican leaders in and out of Congress.

Indeed, the fact that President Obama and many Republicans generally agree on the way forward in these major foreign policy challenges – despite sometimes sharp rhetoric to the contrary from both sides – is quite an achievement.  Or perhaps these bipartisan achievements appear noteworthy more so because the debate on domestic issues such as health care and the economy has become so caustic.

Why did this happen?  Kagan argues that it’s because Democrats now have the responsibility of governing and can’t just be critics.  That’s part of it.  The other part, though, is that the second term of the Bush administration was actually much more centrist than the first. This was in response to the dramatic overreach of the first term.  So, on many of the big issues, there was already much more consensus moving forward.

So, many conclude, in foreign policy, what’s the difference between having a Democrat or a Republican in charge?  I can’t say exactly how John McCain would have governed.  Perhaps the outcomes on these three big issues would have been similar.  My argument, however, is that it’s not just the outcomes that we should examine.  We also need to examine process.   In foreign policy, the process by which one reaches a policy decision is quite important and has tremendous ramifications for how the U.S. public and the world perceives that policy. (more…)

On Tuesday, PSA Advisory Board member and chairman of the 9/11 commission Thomas Kean, along with 9/11 commission senior counsel John Farmer Jr., published an op-ed in The New York Times on what must be done in the aftermath of the attempted Christmas Day bombing.  Gov. Kean and Mr. Farmer called the thwarted attack a “systemic failure” to effectively analyze available intelligence.  Therefore, they insist that:

“First, we should dismiss the partisan bickering over the issue. Both parties have presided over security failures and successes; systemic failures cannot be ascribed to the stewardship of a political party.  Any effort to take partisan advantage of this unfortunate event, moreover, can only mask the more serious underlying issues, which President Obama raised squarely in yesterday’s remarks: are lapses in information gathering and sharing like those that occurred here endemic, or fixable?”

What Congress and the administration really must ask themselves, they say, is “whether the system we have in place has reduced the likelihood of human error to an acceptable, if not irreducible, margin.”  Gov. Kean and Mr. Farmer say that finding the solutions to the lingering failures of 9/11 that led to the 12/25 attempted attack require that President Obama and Congress “resist superficial sound-bite solutions and undertake the harder task of reinventing our national security system.”  Human error and an “element of judgment” will always exist in intelligence, but partisanship will only impede the procedural and structural changes necessary to prevent another systemic breakdown like the one that occurred on Christmas Day.

Click here to watch an interview of Gov. Kean
speaking about the importance of bipartisanship

Tonight I will be participating in a bipartisan debate titled “The Hard Path Forward,” on whether the US military presence in Afghanistan should be increased or reduced.  The debate is the first event co-sponsored by the DC Democratic and Republican parties, and should be interesting as much for what we wonky panelists have to say, as for who turns out to listen, and how they interact with us and with each other.  I find it significant and positive that at least on a local level, Democrats and Republicans have recognized that national security and foreign policy is an appropriate subject for productive bipartisan engagement.

Here are the details:

When:  Wednesday, November 18, 7:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m.

Where:  University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clark School Of Law, 4200 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Building 39, Room 21.

Who:  Dr. Assem Akram, Professor, American University, School Of International Service; Matthew Rojansky, Executive Director, Partnership for a Secure America; Malou Innocent, the Cato Institute (standing in for Michael Darner from Rep. Conyers’ office, a PSA Congressional Fellow); Mackenzie Eaglen, Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation.

(more…)

Ted Sorensen, former White House Special Counsel to President John F. Kennedy, came to Washington last week to meet with PSA Congressional Fellows and speak at a briefing on Capitol Hill. Sorensen kicked off the PSA Congressional Fellowship Program alumni series with a private lunch for Fellowship alums, where he spoke about his personal experiences as a young Hill staffer in Washington. Sorensen explained the need for PSA’s Fellowship program, saying that “showing young staffers new to Washington that the other side is not necessarily the enemy, they don’t wear horns, they can be nice folks and come to agreement on issues that are important to the country as a whole; I think that’s very important.”

Later that afternoon, Sorensen appeared on a panel with Ambassador Thomas Graham at a Security for a New Century briefing on nuclear non-proliferation on Capitol Hill. Both Sorensen and Graham expressed the need for a significant reduction in nuclear arsenals around the world.

Prior to the briefing, Mr. Sorensen sat down with PSA for an interview where he spoke about the impact of bipartisanship over the course of his long and distinguished career in Washington:

Reinvigoration of US policy in Southeast Asia is an early hallmark of the Obama administration’s foreign policy.  Besides the “soft power” boost from Obama’s boyhood ties to the region, there is considerable low-hanging fruit to gather.  The administration’s commitment to multilateralism; willingness to engage former enemies or antagonists; signing the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation; and a vow that the Secretary of State would attend the annual meetings of the ASEAN Regional Forum – the last a dig at Condoleezza Rice, who missed two of the four ARF meetings – all contrast favorably to Southeast Asians’ impressions of second-term Bush administration policies.

In addition, the administration has announced an early menu of more specific innovations and adjustments.   To strengthen US relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Obama will participate in the first-ever meeting of a US President with leaders from all ten ASEAN member states, to be held on the margins of this week’s APEC meeting.  The US Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs will no longer be based in Washington but will move to Jakarta, where the ASEAN Secretariat is located.   A new initiative in the Mekong region and the decision to lift OPIC restrictions on Cambodia and Laos shore up the US presence in the smaller, poorer countries of Southeast Asia that the United States had all but ceded to China in the past decade.  But in terms of international attention, the sum of these policy shifts is overshadowed by the administration’s 45-degree turn in Burma policy, to pursue longstanding objectives of promoting political openness there by adding engagement to a sanctions-heavy policy.

(more…)

Just about a week ago a bipartisan breakthrough happened on climate change legislation.  Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kerry (D-MA) came up with a bipartisan blueprint that could be a model for what could emerge out of Congress this year.  There certainly were compromises made by both sides and the end result is a set of reforms that, if taken as a whole, could achieve broad bipartisan support.

The quest for bipartisan consensus on this issue has been highlighted by many groups including the Partnership for a Secure America which recently released a statement that emphasized that, “We must transcend the political issues that divide us – by party and by region – to devise a unified American strategy that can endure and succeed.”  It was signed by 32 prominent Democrats and Republicans.

Many Democrats may be dismayed at the thought of compromise considering that they hold the presidency and majorities in both the House and Senate.  However, with such a major change to the US economy, they’d be smart to ensure that what passes is not just a Democratic bill.  In my mind the compromises proposed by Kerry and Graham are ones I can live with. It also mirrored some of the compromises suggested by Senator Lieberman (CT) in an event held by PSA. (more…)

This morning’s Politico was all over the political map, at least when it comes to the issue of bipartisanship in Washington.  As several colleagues on Capitol Hill have pointed out to me, an “Analysis” piece by Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen appears on the front page under the title: “The Great Myth: Bipartisanship,” which pretty much says it all.  Yet on the very same front page, leading off a “Special Section” on transportation policy, is a piece all about how indispensable Secretary of Commerce and former Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL) is to Team Obama, because he “lends credibility,” “can provide invaluable insight” into the Republican side, and can tap into his network of Republican friends and former colleagues to win backing for the President’s agenda.

(more…)

The more things change the more they stay the same; as in the military-industrial congressional pork barrel. As evidence one need only look at the current debate over Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ decision to stop producing the F-22 fighter. Gates and President Obama have threatened to veto Congress’ entire 2010 defense spending bill if it contains a single F-22 over the 187 now authorized.

This should not be a hard decision. After all, how often does the Pentagon actually try to kill a program it does not need? Keeping unnecessary weapons in the military budget is usually par for the course, thanks to the influence of weapons manufacturers and senators and congressmen who receive credit in their home states and districts for managing to save some jobs for constituents. Usually the Pentagon goes along because it is more trouble to fight it than it is worth.

But on the rare occasion that the Pentagon does not want weapons that it did not ask for it is clear that something stinks to the high heavens; higher even than the F-22 can fly.

Gates’ decision was in response to votes by the House and Senate armed services committees last month to spend $369 million to $1.75 billion more to keep the F-22 production line open were propelled by mixed messages from the Air Force; including a quiet campaign for the plane that includes snazzy new Lockheed videos for key lawmakers and intense political support from states where the F-22’s components are made. The full House ratified the vote on June 25.

But, contrary to the claims made by the various legislators on the Lockheed Martin payroll there are many excellent reasons to kill it. As the Washington Post reported earlier this month, the F-22 -22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show. The aircraft’s radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged.

The F-22 was created for a world that no longer exists. It was designed during the early 1980s to ensure long-term American military dominance of the skies andconceived to win dogfights with advanced Soviet fighters that Russia is still trying to develop. (more…)

Here at PSA we’ve been working hard to create a program for Congressional staff that adds value in the oftentimes crowded programmatic environment of Washington, D.C. The PSA Congressional Fellowship Program aims to bring together House and Senate staffers from both parties to socialize, debate, and learn together with the goal of enhancing bipartisanship in their daily jobs. The most recent event with the Summer 2009 Fellows was a dinner with 9/11 Commission Chairman and former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean, and Politico sent a reporter to cover the event. The resulting article, “Bipartisanship, in three courses”, published this morning, highlights many of the most important aspects of what we do at PSA.

“Whereas members of Congress at least have the opportunity to work together if they choose to do so,” the reporter writes, “staffers are rarely forced to remove their partisan blinders. Until now.” She quotes PSA Fellows Pablo Duran of Sen. Tom Udall’s (D-NM) office and Brandon Andrews of Sen. James Inhofe’s (R-OK) office lamenting the rarity of meeting staff from across the aisle. “‘I don’t know that anyone makes a concerted effort to not do it,’ Andrews said. ‘I just think it doesn’t happen, because people travel in different circles.’”

We will be visiting the White House to meet with President Obama’s chief national security speechwriter, Ben Rhodes, this week and going on a weekend Retreat after that. It’s been an exciting summer so far, and we appreciate Politico’s interest in the work we do here at PSA.

For those who are interested in applying to be a Fellow in the Fall 2009 session, information can be found on our website here.

PSA is excited to welcome a new class of Fellows to its Congressional Fellowship Program next week. The initial group of 27 Fellows includes highly motivated and accomplished staff from 14 Democratic and 13 Republican offices, with 16 from the House and 11 from the Senate. The Program, taking place from June to October 2009, will help these young leaders build relationships across the aisle and gain skills and knowledge necessary to bridge the partisan divide and build consensus on critical issues.

They bring impressive backgrounds to the Program, including active duty military service, legal practice, scientific research, political campaigns, community service, think tanks, and media. Building on these diverse backgrounds, Fellows will participate in critical analysis of U.S. foreign policy guided by former senior foreign policy officials. Following the completion of a series of five events geared toward enhancing effective bipartisan dialogue, Fellows will complete a Final Project aimed at resolving real world challenges on Capitol Hill. The full list of Fellows can be found on the PSA website.

The Congressional Fellowship Program will fill a crucial need on Capitol Hill for the promotion of bipartisanship in a long-term context. Too often, contacts between Members and staff from opposite parties are temporary, made on an issue-by-issue basis. We believe that relationships formed in the earlier stages of a career can help forge a more bipartisan atmosphere and process in Congress across the range of foreign policy challenges faced every session. No one party has a monopoly on wisdom, and by bringing together these Fellows now, they will be able to get to know each other and share ideas and experiences that will pay dividends in future policy debates. We look forward to working with the Fellows and to a great summer.