Marin Forum

Barack Obama wants current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, to continue at his post. Gates has yet to accept although most sources say that it is highly likely that he would accept the offer at least for a temporary amount of time. Sources say that Gates may hold onto the job for another year which would be up to 2010. Clearly the Obama team wants to keep Gates at the Pentagon as long as a sizable contingent of US troops are stationed in Iraq.

The Left will be disappointed with this appointment as it signals that Obama will not immediately withdraw troops from Iraq. Yet, this is a good thing. A significant failure in Iraq due to hasty changes in policy would possibly cripple Obama’s presidency. Obama wants a gradual withdrawal of US forces but he also wants US forces out of Iraq as soon as possible. Keeping Gates at the Pentagon does not prevent that objective.

Over the next few years (basically Obama’s first term) the Pentagon’s main concern will be Iraq and Afghanistan. Since Gates entered the Pentagon in 2006, things on the ground in Iraq have improved. It might be too much to attribute many of this to Gates, but he did represent a new direction in US-Iraq policy. Under Obama it is quite possible that he will have a freer hand at looking at other alternatives. Furthermore, he has done a pretty good job while in the Pentagon and has earned respect from both parties.

Iraq is not Vietnam in the sense that it will collapse if we withdraw like South Vietnam. It has a democracy and the people want democracy even if it’s a form that we may look down upon. Thus, it is still possible to make something good out of the Iraq fiasco before we leave. Gates would connect the successes of the surge to any Obama plan. He provides the necessary transition that might aid in bringing some stability.

Under Obama we will be in Iraq for a little while longer. Out attitude will change, our patience will be much thinner, but we are going to be in Iraq at least through 2010. Due to our continued presence, Obama needs someone in his cabinet or close group of advisers who has connections to the leadership since the surge. What better person for such a position then the man himself who oversaw the surge and associated policies. In regards to Iraq, stability is paramount and Gates provides that stability.

The answer is that there is nothing wrong with being a Washington insider. Both parties in the 2008 election emphasized the difference between being a Washington insider and being an outsider. As an instrument of change Barack Obama emphasized how he’s going to reform Washington. Joe Biden leaves Washington by train every night. John McCain is a maverick who fights the entrenched Washington insiders such as lobbyists. Sarah Palin lacked any connection to Washington. The Republican right-wing elements further distanced themselves from Washington by fueling anti-intellectual and anti-media sentiments. Washington is bad; the periphery is good. This feeling has been around in politics for decades. The easiest way to increase support is to distance oneself from the “mess in Washington,” especially when Washington is receiving very low approval ratings.

The latest manifestations of anti-Washingtonism is taking the form of attacks on Obama’s cabinet selections. Obama selected Thomas Daschle to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services. Immediately Dascle was attacked for being a Washington insider. Many of the attacks focused on his wife who is a lobbyist. Immediately there is a contradiction. People want the most experienced person possible to head a government department, but they also want someone with no association with Washington.

Often the most experienced people for high level government positions are people who have spent decades in Washington. They rose through government by working the system; thus, they have lots of experience in how the system works. Experience in how the system works is invaluable for a cabinet member and presidential adviser.

There’s a fear that government insiders will represent the interests of Washington rather than the people. There are a couple things wrong with this statement. First, regardless of the person’s background, cabinet secretaries often end up representing their agency’s point of view. Thus, an outsider from Alaska could just as easily take up the cause of the Department of Education as a Washington insider. Second, cabinet members are extensions of the bureaucracy. Bureaucrats are unelected officials and are institutionally designed to not be accountable to the public. A Bureaucrats’ job is make sure that government functions regardless of public opinion. Under this definition bureaucrats (cabinet members) are supposed to reflect the interests government. Thus, it doesn’t matter if the person is a Washington insider or not. As soon as anyone accepts a cabinet position, they become a bureaucrat and a Washington insider. As the official elected by the people and accountable to the people, it is the President’s job to make sure that the government’s priority is his and by extension, the people’s agenda not Washington self-interests.

The strength of the President is the most important factor. A strong President will be able to listen to his cabinet for advice coming out of the various agencies, but ultimately he has to be the one pushing his agenda. The argument should not be about whether someone is an insider or an outsider, but whether they are the most qualified person for the job. If the most qualified person is an outsider then give them the position and the same is true for an insider. The fact that Obama is filling his advisors with Washington insiders most likely suggests that those people are the most qualified people to help carry out his agenda. When the president is in the control, there should not be anything to fear from the “Washington elite.”

The Great Lakes region of central Africa has long been a contentious area. The current outbreak of violence is really a continuation of a conflict that began in the early 1990s. The core issue is the operation of militia groups in the region.

Mobutu Sese Seko, always fearful of his loss of power, backed the Hutu government in Rwanda. When genocide broke out in Rwanda, Mobutu continued to support the Hutu militias and the Interahamwe. The Interahamwe and other associated figures fled to eastern Zaire (Democratic Republic of the Congo) after the Tutsi took control of the country. However, the fighting did not stop and the Hutu militias not only launched attacks on DRC Tutsi but carried out attacks across the border into Rwanda and Uganda. In response Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi launched a campaign across the border and supported rebel Laurent Kabila. Mobutu was easily toppled but Kabila’s new government soon turned on its former backers. With Rwandan and Ugandan soldiers stationed in the DRC, Kabila began to fund Hutu rebel groups to undermine Rwanda. War broke out as Uganda and Rwanda supported their actions by their need to protect their national security interests. In the early 2000s a cease-fire was reached the major sticking point as been the presence of Hutu and Tutsi rebel groups operating within the DRC’s borders.

Negotiations in the conflict have always been associated with the demobilizing of the militia groups. Mediators felt that by disarming all rebel factions tensions between the DRC and Rwanda/Uganda would be significantly reduced. Efforts included increased transparency gradual disarmament reciprocated by all parties to the conflict. Besides the historical context why are militia groups important?

The DRC “needs” the militias to protect its security near the eastern border. Initially, Kabila’s primary military backers were the Rwandan and Ugandan armies. When he turned on those two countries, he was left with the ragtag DRC army. He only had military control over Kinshasa. In order to exert control over the rest of the country, he relied on the Hutu militias. Likewise, Uganda and Rwanda soon turned to rebel Tutsi groups combat the Hutu militias. States turn to militias because they fail to exert military hegemony with their own government forces. However, since these groups are independent (besides some state funding and logical support) of the state they often have their own agenda. The resource rich Great Lakes region is a gem for all the factions operating in the DRC.

Ironically, by supporting the Hutu militias Kinshasa to protect its short term security interests, it is undermining its sovereignty and long term security. During the outbreak of violence in the late 1990s Rwanda cited that it would keep its military forces in the DRC as long as the Hutu militias were active. It seems that by simply demobilizing the Hutu militias, Rwanda and Uganda would have no reason to operate in the DRC.

Of course this is naive. First, Rwanda would like access to some of the resources in eastern Congo. Throughout the conflict all sides have been accused of plundering. Second, the Tutsi militias such as those led by Laurent Nkunda, are supported by Rwanda but are ultimately independent. Nkunda claims that he protects the Tutsi minority in the region form Hutu aggression. The DRC lacks an effective military to combat the Tutsi militias. Thus, Kinshasa relies on the Hutu militias to combat domestic insurgencies.

The solution? To begin with there needs to be trust building between the state actors. Rwanda must keep its forces within its own borders and the DRC needs to prevent cross border raids. Second, there needs to be a respect for human rights especially among the Tutsi minority. Nkunda gains some support for his image as a protector of the Tutsis. Third, all militias must be demobilized. This step has to come after the first two otherwise there will be little incentive to remove support for the militias. International mediation will be required as will a far larger peacekeeping force. Finally, the government in Kinshasa must be strengthened in order to fill the power vacuum in the eastern Congo. The replacement of the militias with the DRC government and military will make all future clashes be between state actors which can be more easily mediated through the international system. The political element also includes developing a better resource distribution system. This last step is a long term solution and the resource element will be impractical as long as Kinshasa is able to exploit the region. However, it is conceivable that a removal of militias and a stronger government presence would enable a more fair distribution of resources.

The presence of militias is a sign that the state does not have complete sovereighty. States turn to militias to extend their influence but in the process they undermine their sovereignty by creating a faction that competes with the state’s military hegemony. Colombia and its support of the paramilitaries is a perfect example. It is significant that no stable democracy (with the notable exceptions of Spain and the United Kingdom before the 1990s) has a salient militia group operating within its borders. Militias only undermine the state; thus, a solution in central Africa must involve the demobilization of all militia groups.

Eight o’clock Pacific time on November 4th will be one of the most historic moments in United States history.  When the polls closed on the West Coast, California, Oregon, and Washington put Barack Obama past the 270 threshold, but really the race was over an hour earlier. At around 6:45 CNN called Ohio for Obama and it became realistically impossible for John McCain to win. Even earlier it seemed McCain had lost all chances of winning. Obama’s large victory in Pennsylvania showed that McCain’s last campaign effort in the battleground states had failed. As the hours passed it appeared that Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida would fall to Obama. Missouri seemed within reach and Montana wasn’t out of the question. In fact Obama ran competitively in many states that he ultimately lost. The landslide victory only made the results more satisfying. But the historic aspect of the election goes beyond the concrete results.

Obama’s victory last night was unprecedented (a gross understatement). On one level there is the race issue. After nearly 400 years since slavery began in the United States, 223 years since Independence, 143 years since the end of the Civil War, and 40 years after Martin Luther King Jr’s assassination an African American has reached the highest political office in the United States. To many Americans it was an emotional experience. To the world it is a symbol that America has changed itself.

But perhaps the more striking part of the election was the events that followed immediately afterward. Across the country people took to the streets to celebrate Obama’s victory. In the major metropolises thousands congregated outside. Here in Berkeley students celebrated in the streets for hours. These acts of celebration following a presidential election have not occurred in US history and it seems unlikely that they will occur again anytime soon. It really is quite impossible to explain the situation on the ground in the middle of those celebrations.

Even more amazing was that the celebrations expanded to outside the United States. Every corner of the world celebrated Obama’s victory. Even people in Iran expressed jubilation. European leaders heaped praise on Obama, Paris celebrated like Washington DC or San Francisco. So why has the world focused its attention on Obama and stopped their work to follow the election?

To the world Barack Obama is more than a man as he has become a symbol. Obama represents change which is something that everyone can relate. In Europe there is hope that Obama will repair US-Europe relations. In Africa there is hope that there will be a greater focus on fighting poverty and starvation. In Iran there is hope that there will be changes to Iranian politics. The fact that one man can bring out those emotions is spectacular. The fact that he has unified so many people behind a common symbol is unprecedented for one man. Wednesday night was a night of unity.

The grave danger, however, is that people are placing too much hope on Obama. He can’t change the world by himself and he cannot immediately address every issue. People’s expectations are so great that there are bound to be many disappointments. Furthermore, American is still deeply devided. McCain’s campaign unearthed an ugly side of American politics and culture. The question is what side of America will prevail for the next few years. That being said, Obama will find himself in a unique position. He has enormous international political capital that can be turned into a significant change in the United State’s position in the world. No president since Harry Truman has had that opportunity to change the world. But he most show concrete results to keep that momentum.

What we are witnessing is something more than a presidential election. It is thre victory of a way of thinking that is devoid of racism, classism, ultra-nationalism, or fear. It’s change. Unfolding events will tell whether it is a lasting political revolution. The world wide celebrations and the immediately sell out of every major print newspaper on Wednesday morning attests to that fact. The toughest task for Obama will be living up to the symbol he has become. But if he can meet some of the expectations he has the chance to change the political sphere in unprecedented ways. For the world’s sake lets hope he turns his rhetoric into concrete results both domestically and internationally. We are at a point of amazing opportunity that is waiting to be seized.