Reuters

A senior White House official has confirmed that Vice President Joe Biden will take the lead on the administration's next phase China policy.

While the Departments of State and Treasury have held important functional roles in conducting the China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue meetings, raising the bilateral status of US-China relations with ongoing meetings between two senior US Executive Branch officials with two of China's most senior leaders, Vice Premier Li Keqiang and State Councillor Dai Bingguo, there has been a general sense that neither Timothy Geithner nor Hillary Clinton and her team were comprehensively driving US-China policy. 

The White House official made clear that the coming shift in the locus of US-China policy management was not a critique of either Clinton or Geithner's management of the China portfolio -- but rather, the rise of Hu Jintao heir apparent and current Vice Premier Xi Jinping as the likely next President of China created certain practical challenges in dealing with him on a same-status level throughout much of 2012 until Xi's accession to the presidency is formalized.

The view of some of the administration's China-handlers is that management of US-China policy has become so central to a vast array of other policy challenges that the administration's approach needs to be both broad and managed with "a deep and senior bench."  The evolution of many functional offices at the Department of State and Treasury tasked with various line items in the China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue has helped stabilize many aspects of the relationship and has helped to benchmark meeting to meeting progress on core concerns. 

National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon has essentially been holding the China policy portfolio himself since September 2010 when in the early part of that month he and then Obama national economic advisor Lawrence Summers went to Beijing to attempt a reset in a quickly deteriorating US-China economic and military relationship.  For the most part, currency politics aside, Donilon's mission has succeeded -- and he has since preempted either Clinton's China hands, particularly Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, or Geithner's team from taking primacy over US-China policy. 

The shift to a strategy of engagement with Biden at the top, orchestrated by Donilon, allows the US to deal with China's likely next president from a Vice President to a Vice Premier/Next President status -- and to continue both the Departments of State's and Treasury's ongoing engagement with other designated key Chinese leaders.

After President Obama's 2008 presidential win, the original intention of the White House was to focus the Vice President primarily on domestic matters -- telling this writer at the time to remember that Joe Biden had recently been featured in Working Mother magazine.  Part of the concern at the time was that with such personalities as Defense Secretary Bob Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then National Security Advisor General Jim Jones, super-general-in-the-field David Petraeus, CIA Director Leon Panetta, Envoys Richard Holbrooke, former Senator George Mitchell, Stephen Bosworth, and Dennis Ross -- Joe Biden as a roving foreign policy/national security hand wasn't perceived to be stabilizing to a strong-on-divas Obama team.

However, Joe Biden quietly took on national security tasks that were key to President Obama and that needed more off the newspaper front page handling.  These included laying the groundwork for the major nuclear materials summit that the Obama administration hosted in April 2010 as well as lining up the continuity of thinking and policy deployment tying together this nuclear materials and WMD summit with President Obama's Nuclear Posture Review and the Senate passage of the New START treaty.  Biden also played a leading role -- along with Defense Secretary Bob Gates -- in the "Russia reset." 

And whether Iraq's democratic-appearing government survives or not, the person who did more than any other behind the scenes to broker the deals and to play communications envoy between factions of Iraq's fractured political order was Joe Biden.  Biden has worked nearly every day -- and definitely every week of his tenure in the vice-presidency trying to seduce former, bitter enemies to realize that they had more ultimately to gain for their constituents, their nation, and themselves personally if they held together the semblance of a constitutional arrangement rather than ripping it up and devolving into civil war once again.

Biden has checked off the boxes of Iraq, Russia, and nuclear materials -- and his foreign policy slate is largely clear.

While this writer thinks he should be the person who does for US-Afghanistan policy what he did in the US-Iraq case, a topic for another day, Biden's next big task will be the next phase evolution of US-China policy.

-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

In the latest issue of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, former Clinton administration National Security Council staffer and Georgetown University international affairs professor Charles Kupchan has published an interesting essay titled "Grand Strategy: The Four Pillars of the Future." 

The Kupchan essay is partnered in a set considering the future of US grand strategy featuring contributions by Rosa Brooks of the Georgetown University and Law Center and New America Foundation; Truman National Security Project co-founder Rachel Kleinfeld; former Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello; and Duke University professor and co-author of The End of Arrogance: America in the Global Competition of Ideas Bruce Jentleson.  I will be chairing a session with several of these thinkers along with Democracy editor Michael Tomasky from 12-2 on 11 January 2012 at the New America Foundation.  (Those interested, drop me a note, and I'll forward an invitation.)

Kupchan suggests a recipe to rebuild American leadership and power in the world.  His four pillars:

1.  Restore the domestic consensus on national security and rebuild the economy at home

2.  America must judiciously retrench and deal with the problem that its commitments abroad have extended far beyond its interests

3.  The US needs to work with emerging powers (like the BRICS plus Turkey) to create a more representative global order that preserves a rules-based international system

4.  The US should resuscitate a flagging, choking Transatlantic relationship

Kupchan concludes his grand strategy contribution with this graph:

Progressive leadership at home is essential to the nation's political and economic renewal, which in turn is the foundation for progressive leadership abroad.  Since World War II, the United States has been dramatically successful in making the globe more stable, prosperous, and liberal.  The recipe for ongoing success in this mission is no different than in the past:  a solvent and centrist America reliant on a progressive combination of power and partnership to safeguard the national interest while improving the world.

My sense of what America's strategic course needs to be rides closely to Charles Kupchan's thinking -- but his neatly drawn pillars distract I think from the dire situation America finds itself in today.

First, there are no magic wands to remedy the ailments Kupchan has outlined.  Building out the US economy and resuscitating America's social contract with workers and the non-financial sector will require a massive shift in thinking and policy about industrial and domestic innovation policy.  China is is driving realities in the global economic sphere today; not the United States -- and America, to revive its economy, needs to figure out how to drive Chinese-held dollars (along with German and Arab state held reserves) into productive capacity inside the United States while not giving away everything. 

America must knock back Chinese predatory behaviors by becoming more shrewdly predatory and defensive of America's core economic capacities.  Without a shift in America's economic stewardship -- which also means a shift in the macro-focused, neoliberal oriented, market fundamentalist staff of the current Obama team -- the US economy will flounder and on a relative basis, sink compared to the rise of the rest.

Also, while I strongly support Kupchan's call for a principled, centrist, non-partisan approach to foreign policy affairs -- the problem is not one between progressives and conservatives, or Democrats and Republicans.  The problem is that both parties are deeply divided within, split among five and perhaps more camps.  Realists or some version of the school of thought that thinks that America must tend to its stock of power first and judiciously apply its national security and economic capacity in a way that either advances US national interests, or at a minimum, doesn't diminish its power capacity, populate both political parties.  Realists today are one of the buried, subordinate personalities of America's schizophrenic national security psyche today.

The dominant personality of the Republican and Democratic parties runs under two monikers -- but is essentially tied to the notion that the US has a moral responsibility to re-order the internal workings of other nations that constrain the freedoms and rights of their citizens.  The liberal (or humanitarian) interventionist school dominates the progressive foreign policy establishment and more significantly populates the power positions of the Democratic Party today than its rivals; and in the Republican Party, various strains of neoconservatism (there is now competition among the heirs of Irving Kristol, Albert Wohlstetter and other founding fathers) dominate.  Neoconservatives and liberal interventionists put a premium on morality, on reacting and moving in the world along lines determined by an emotional and sentimental commitment to the basic human rights of other citizens -- with little regard to the stock of means and resources the US has to achieve the great moral ends they seek. 

I would put the late Richard Holbrooke in this school of liberal interventionists -- but what made Holbrooke such an outstanding global policy practitioner was his willingness to deal with the devil and to hammer out playbooks that were tenaciously committed to results.  Holbrooke was a Nixonian progressive -- and this is what both the neoconservative and liberal interventionist schools have been too short of, a results oriented global progressivism that assured that US national power grew with its achievements and was not squandered on high cost, low return causes that may have been morally gratifying for policymakers to pursue -- but disasters when it came to the national bottom line.  Think Iraq and Afghanistan.

On his second point, Kupchan is absolutely right.  America must judiciously retrench and strategically re-organize its national security assets.  Isolationism is not the answer here -- but extracting America from commitments that make its allies doubt its ability to help them in times of need or that embolden the ambitions of foes is a vital step. 

Withdrawing from Iraq has already been painful.  Perhaps the political deal-making among Iraq's various hate-thy-neighbor factions that Vice President Biden and his team, particularly Antony Blinken, along with former UN Iraq Representative Ad Melkert will hold, but the Iraq invasion and then nation-building enterprise there was nonetheless a major strategic mistake that helped undermine the US economy while removing the cork in the bottle that is Iran and its growing regional aspirations.  Iraq has cost trillions of dollars and never mattered nearly as much as Iran does -- and today, America is in a significantly worse position to deal with an ambitious and not easily deterred Iran.  Afghanistan needs to be next.

When the Obama administration came into office, I believed that his rhetoric about laying new track where other US political leaders had not gone was correct.  Obama talked about outreach to leaders in Cuba, North Korea, Iran and elsewhere.  But what he mustered on the whole were halfway efforts.  His Cuba policy doesn't surpass that which was in place during the Clinton administration -- and if he goes back and looks at the secret files historian Peter Kornbluh is assembling is of what every US president since Gerald Ford (except G.W. Bush) wanted to do on Cuba, Barack Obama will see that despite his lofty pre-presidential vision for a new US-Cuba relationship, his vision pales in comparison to what they were trying then to orchestrate.

Whether it was with Cuba, or setting solid track on Israel-Palestine peace, Barack Obama had an opportunity to show that he was setting the terms of a new global gravity -- starting with some of the seemingly intractables and solving them.  This could have contributed to the perception of revitalized US power in the world.  It is true that Obama and Joe Biden did successfully reset US-Russia relations.  Also with Biden's back room orchestration, Obama pulled off a key global nuclear materials and WMD summit that is far more important historically and internationally than many have issued credit for.  But at the same time, Obama has repeatedly let Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly embarrass him and show his weaknesses.  When Obama did flex US muscles on one occasion, it was over inane posturing about Futenma Air Station in Okinawa, Japan which eventually knocked out Japan's then prime minister Yukio Hatoyama and undermined Japan's first real test of genuine democracy and transition between political parties.  Obama took out the wrong prime minister.

Thus, strategic, judicious retrenchment only solves part of America's geostrategic mess. Smarter policies, deployed well, must replace what has been a line of mistakes not all of which were inherited from the Bush administration.

Kupchan is right that it would be wise for the US to work with the rising powers -- but history is showing that calamity and shocks are what drive America's limited innovation on global governance.  The shift to the G20 was out of necessity given the global financial crisis -- not smart advance planning.  My sense is that Brazil, Turkey, China, and India are not waiting for the US and the West to cede them seats at the table.  They are taking them through new economic might and a 21st century rationalization of what is right.  America's influence on global problems has diminished rapidly in the last decade -- and the relevance of the rising powers increased.  Striking a new "global social contract" with these powers would be smart and forward-looking but there is little chance of this happening short of the emergence of new crises that focus the mind of warring factions inside Congress and the Executive Branch.

Lastly, on Kupchan's point about reviving Transatlantic relations.  OK.  Sure.  Would be nice. But the bottom line is that Europe is internally dissolving and becoming more fragile, less dependable and a drag on global economic growth and stability.   I hope Europe changes these trends and saves itself -- but Germany has decided to engage in a one-upsmanship with its siblings and has driven a deadly internal mercantilism within Europe that will consume the passions and attention of Europe for a very long time. 

Chalmers Johnson used to lampoon NAFTA by pointing out that an economic alliance including the world's then two largest net debtor nations, Mexico and the US, hardly sounded like a threat to other economic powerhouses at that time.  To some degree, restoring and revitalizing a Transatlantic relationship that produced the world's last great global institutions to which they have been overly devoted to preserving is not a recipe for the kind of change and institutional innovation needed today.

In my mind, getting things right with the BRICS plus Turkey are vital to all national security challenges in the future -- and managing the reality that China matters more than all the rest -- is the vital challenge that matters.  Whether or not the US has a track to restoring the Transatlantic relationship is second tier to this much more important task.

Again, I will be discussing the Kupchan paper and others of the series in a program that will stream live on this site from 12-2 pm on the 11th of January.

-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner is done with 2011. Buddy and Annie still have a little left for the next few days.

(Click image for larger version.)

-- Steve Clemons

This is a photo I accidentally took with my new iPhone from inside a house on the Chester River on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Just struck me as beautiful and wanted to share.

Click image above if you would like a larger version. Always interested in your pics as well. Happy New Year in advance!

-- Steve Clemons

Iraq surge architects Frederick and Kimberly Kagan have published an informed, provocative, yet thoughtful commentary, "Is Iraq Lost?", in the latest Weekly Standard.

The authors open with a blast at what they characterize as a self-congratulating Obama administration.  They write:

With administration officials celebrating the "successful" withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, thanking antiwar groups for making that withdrawal possible, and proffering outrageous claims about Iraq's "stability," "sovereignty," and the "demilitarization" of American foreign policy even as Iraq collapses, it is hard to stay focused on America's interests and security requirements. Especially in an election year, the temptation will only grow to argue about who lost Iraq, whether it was doomed from the outset, whether the current disaster "proves" either that the success of the surge was inherently ephemeral or that the withdrawal of U.S. troops caused the collapse. The time will come for such an audit of Iraq policy over the last five years, but not yet. For the crisis in Iraq is still unfolding, and the United States continues to have a huge stake in the outcome. The question of the moment is not "Who lost Iraq?" but rather "Is Iraq definitely lost?"

The Kagans share their granual understanding of the conflict and deal-making between various factions in Iraq's political ecosystem. 

They suggest, and I agree, that the US troop withdrawal has impacted the previous equilibrium and changed the calculations of power players in the government -- and that President Nouri al-Maliki is moving to consolidate his control over the state, working to move Sunni rivals out of their positions -- and has used the pretext of an alleged plot against his life by Vice President Tariq al Hashimi to make his moves.

The Kagans write:

The withdrawal of all American military forces has greatly reduced America's leverage in Iraq. U.S. military forces were a buffer to prevent political and ethno-sectarian friction from becoming violent by guaranteeing Maliki against a Sunni coup d'état and guaranteeing the Sunnis against a Shiite campaign of militarized repression. The withdrawal of that buffer precipitated this crisis and removed much of our leverage. The withdrawal is complete and unlikely to be reversed. Still, the United States maintains some leverage in Iraq and considerable leverage in the region. The Obama administration will have to use all of its skills to maximize the impact of what leverage it retains.

I agree with most of the observations by Kimberly and Frederick Kagan about the fragility and downward course of political trends inside Iraq. 

That said, I believe that a combination of creative diplomacy and deal-making behind the scenes orchestrated and directed by Vice President Joe Biden and his national security adviser Antony Blinken -- in addition to the good work done until his departure by UN Senior Iraq Representative Ad Melkert -- held together a fractious political mess of rival groups that aren't yet fully sure that a democratic order best serves their interests.  But Biden, Melkert, and others made something work that was a complete mess previously and helped many powerful Iraqis realize that there was the possibility of a stable democratic political order rather than a future of convulsive, sectarian civil war.

That said, US forces withdrawing have changed the equation.  One senior White House official recently said that the US "can't midwife Iraq for 18 years; the baby is born and now we have to move back and see what comes of this country."

The point of disagreement I have with the Kagans about the audit they suggest is coming about who has been responsible for success or failure in Iraq has to do with how they frame responsibility for key decisions.  They write:

We can relitigate the wisdom of the invasion, the course of the war, the success of the surge, and other important questions endlessly, but one thing should be perfectly plain. From the moment U.S. forces left Iraq, President Barack Obama owned the policy and its outcome.

From my perspective, President Obama and particularly Joe Biden took a miserable part of the US foreign policy portfolio -- that had already greatly sapped American power and prestige and undermined US credibility -- and improved matters in a way that would not have been achieved without their efforts.

The daily negotiations Biden engaged in between Barzani, Talabani, al-Maliki, al-Hashimi and others -- who to this day have difficulty speaking directly to each other -- allowed for an elemental level of trust-building in the Iraq national enterprise among these rival individuals an groups they represented.  Maybe this will hold and maybe not.  But it's wrong-headed to think that Obama and his team "own" this mess because they have downsized US vulnerability to affairs inside Iraq.

The more significant accounting needed on Iraq is that which led the United States not only to invade -- but then to double down on the surge, an attempt to obligate the US to an empire-building set of responsibilities that the US public never really debated or signed off on.  This is the conceit of many strategic elites who believe that the nation's national security decisions should be made without regard to the public's appetite for sacrificing blood and treasure abroad on questionable ventures.

Saddam Hussein was a monstrous leader -- no doubt.  But the world has many.  Saddam did not contribute to the al Qaeda machine that attacked New York and Washington on September 11, 2001; was largely in a controlled box that the British and US were imposing with a no-fly zone over Iraq; and had not re-engineered stockpiles of WMDs.  The US invasion of Iraq was an enormous strategic mistake because it triggered a downgrade regarding US power in the world in the eyes of other important nations -- and emboldened the aspirations of Iran which the US and its allies have a diminished stock of power to deal with today.

I think Biden and his team have done the best job that any outsider could have done in helping to calm sectarian distrust and to generate a commitment to a semi-democratic process as Iraq evolves.  That said, al-Maliki could turn out to be a successor strong man to Saddam Hussein; time will tell.

A fair accounting of this escapade, however, must start with those who wrongly obligated the US to an invasion and nation-building project that harmed American interests from the outset.  Blame or achievement starts there. 

To presume that American citizens would go on paying the tab for the midwifing of Iraq for generations is very much out of touch with American aspirations and priorities today.

-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

Special thanks to Marian Tupy for this great photo, though I was there too.

-- Steve Clemons

Something for those who think Christianity and Islam are deeply divided, a holiday card greeting I received from Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir, Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States:

In the name of God, Most Compassionate Most Merciful,

Behold, the angels said:

"O Mary, God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him:

his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and hereafter and of  (the company of) those nearest to God;

-- Aurat Al-i-Imran, Holy Quran

I'm a devout secularist, but it's good in this season to be reminded of the deep ties between cultures which some use to divide.

Happy holidays.

-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

Inspired by The Atlantic's 2011 Holiday Gift Guide in which our food and culture senior editor Corby Kummer curated gift idea offerings from the great and the good, I have some ideas of my own.

But to remind, Arianna Huffington wants an old-fashioned analogue alarm clock; former Blogger and Twitter CEO Evan Williams wants a Nest learning thermostat; Nora Ephron wants an extra freezer; former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle a kayak; British Ambassador to the US Nigel Sheinwald Bose headphones; and Zeke Emanuel (yes, the other brother) wants a Yemenite mezuzah. 

I've already suggested two Civil War related ideas given the 150th anniversary this year of that national, bloody tear -- first The Atlantic's special commemorative issue titled The Civil War as well as Adam Goodheart's brilliantly crafted 1861: The Civil War Awakening. 

But one of the gifts I just received from one of my colleagues (but there is no bias in this recommendation) is an attractively labeled bottle of Bully Boy Massachusetts concocted organic vodka.  Here are the online retailers for Bully Boy.  Great stuff.  Mixes well.

When we asked Arianna, Ambassador Sheinwald, Senator Daschle, Evan Williams and others what they wanted for the holidays -- we also asked them to let us know what their favorite charity was. 

Zeke Emanuel told us he supports Mazon, a Jewish charity that distributes food.  Arianna focused her spotlight on the Acumen Fund which invests in start-ups from Karachi to Kenya.  Tom Daschle gives to Southwest Youth and Family Services of Seattle.

Awesome. 

In that spirit, my significant other and I host a fairly large, DC-style holiday party each year, asking all who come to bring with them canned food and other non-perishables which we donate to Food and Friends, which helps foster a community of care for those living with HIV/AIDS, cancer and other life-challenging illnesses. 

The folks at Food & Friends do a terrific job preparing and delivering meals -- and some of these non-perishable items in packages -- to those on their care rosters.

Last night, when Andrew and I were packing up the pick-up truck bed full of cans and boxes, we found a check for $1,000.00 from a friend made out to Food & Friends saying that this might be more help than then cans. 

Thanks so much Walt.  Moving.

Giving and getting need to go together.

Ok, back to what I'd like to have on my holiday gift list -- or what I might suggest for yours.

Among those interesting people who showed up at our holiday party was Marc Pachter, long time and former director of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington who is simultaneously brilliant and humble -- and just knows so much.  I didn't get to spend enough time with Marc at the party -- so one of the gifts I want for the next year is a long dinner and night cap with this amazing intellectual. 

He not only spent much of his life collecting and curating the images of our nation's great and good -- but interviewed J. William Fulbright, convinced Julia Child to allow her kitchen to appear as an avant-garde portrait en masse of her life and contributions, and engineered the hanging of Stephen Colbert's picture of himself near the bathroom door of the Portrait Gallery. 

I do a lot of interviewing of folks -- sometimes on camera and some times just to learn.  Watch this TED interview with Marc Pachter who shares wonderful insights about the art of the intimate interview.  It's been watched 150,000 times -- three times by me.

This gift of quality time with Pachter is probably one I can arrange on my own -- but what I need some help on and probably won't get but would love is Cisco's TelePresence System 3010.  I'm not sure what this costs rack rate, but have been told for friends and family, it's around $30k.

I know, pricey -- but it completely changes the way one interacts with others who are 7,000 miles away.  I do love video skype, but when one is sitting across from three screens that have life-sized images of the people sitting at the same height and level you are -- and you can share data and drawings and smiles and photos in real time, almost as if in real life -- you would always prefer that over getting on a plane and spending a day or two traveling no matter how much you loved the miles.

I went to see how the Cisco TelePresence system worked the other day and told them that they should start an affinity program of points given to people for miles they didn't fly by using the system. 

I'm sure that there are some downsides with this system that some informed tech writer might have pointed out -- but I can't find any.  I love this system and want one.  I wonder if President Obama has one.

If I did get a Cisco platform like this or was even able to borrow it now and then, I'd organize live chats with Matt Damon on his global work with Water.org; would chat about Brazil's demands to play a larger role in global governance with the very impressive Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota; and would talk with women active in the Nablus, Palestine-based Tomorrow's Youth Organization that I think is doing amazing work in an area of the world too many are ignoring.      

So that's what I want.  Maybe Cisco will just let me visit one of these things now and then;  And maybe get Matt Damon on line on the other end.  I'll even see the movie.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy New Year!

-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

I've been reading a copy of the The Atlantic's Special Commemorative Issue, The Civil War, which includes an introduction by President Barack Obama. 

Most of the essays and photos curated for the issue were drawn from the pages of The Atlantic during and after the Civil War -- and capture a wide swath of the mood and torment of the divided nation at that time.

In the collection, Ralph Waldo Emerson offers a poem written in the fall of 1863, "Voluntaries," in praise of soldiers who gave their lives for the Union. . .

In an age of fops and toys,
Wanting wisdom, void of right,
Who shall nerve heroic boys
To hazard all in Freedom's fight,--
Break sharply off their jolly games,
Forsake their comrades gay,
And quit proud homes and youthful dames,
For famine, toil, and fray?
Yet on the nimble air benigh
Speed nimbler messages,
That waft the breath of grace divine
To hearts in sloth and ease.
So night is grandeur to our dust,
So near is God to man,
When Duty whispers low, Thou must,
The youth replies, I can.

From September 1896, Booker T. Washington commented in his piece, "The Awakening of the Negro":

Some one may be tempted to ask, Has not the negro boy or girl as good a right to study a French grammar and instrumental music as the white youth? I answer, Yes, but in the present condition of the negro race in this country there is need of something more.

Three months after President Abraham Lincoln's assassination, Charles Creighton Hazewell opened his piece published in The Atlantic in July 1865 with:

The assassination of President Lincoln threw a whole nation into mourning . . . Of all our Presidents since Washington, Mr. Lincoln had excited the smallest amount of that feeling which places its object in personal danger.  He was a man who made a singularly favorable impression on those who approached him, resembling in that respect President Jackson, who often made warm friends of bitter foes, when circumstances had forced them to seek his presence; and it is probable, that, if he and the honest chiefs of the Rebels could have been brought face to face, there never would have been civil war, --at that all that they had any right to claim, and therefore all that they could expect their fellow-citizens to fight for, would be more secure under his government than it had been under the governments of such men as Pierce and Buchanan, who made use of sectionalism and slavery to promote the selfish interests of themselves and their party ... Ignorance was the parent of the civil war, as it has been the parent of many other evils, --ignorance of the character and purpose of the man who was chosen President in 1860-61, and who entered upon official life with less animosity toward his opponents than ever before or since had been felt by a man elected to a great place after a bitter and exciting contest ...

There are essays as well by still living writers -- including, as mentioned, President Obama, and Atlantic editors James Bennet, Ta-Nehisi Coates and Jeffrey Goldberg. 

In the collection's opener, "The Duty to Think," James Bennet writes:

Sheltering from a thunderstorm in an empty freight car, the one-term congressman--the one with the habit of telling dirty jokes, and dodging tough questions, and lying to deflect annoying visitors--squatted on the floor, wrapped his arms around his knees, and roared with laughter at his wife's ridiculous ambition for him. "Just think of such a sucker as me as President!," Abraham Lincoln told our correspondent, Henry Villard. Villard would later marvel that this man, who caused him "disgust and humiliation," would prove "one of the great leaders of mankind in adversity."

As the writers in this issue witnessed the country's most terrible and transformative passage, they felt, and reported, the "magnetic personality" of John Brown; walked the anxious streets of Charleston on the eve of the attack on Fort Sumter; joined with Union soldiers quartering (and making mock speeches) in the House of Representatives; listened late one starlit night as Ulysses Grant, puffing on a Havana cigar by his tent, defended himself against the charge that he was a butcher of men. They saw the tide of war turn, and were in Richmond when it was liberated--when Lincoln, holding his young son's hand, passed through the jubilant crowd, pausing to remove his hat and, in silence, return the bow of an elderly black man.

It's simply a magnificent collection of essays -- all brief -- complemented by evocative photography of the day.  The photos were curated by David Ward and Frank Goodyear of the National Portrait Gallery. 

A hard copy of The Civil War can be ordered here.  Ipad here.  Kindle here.

I also highly recommend 1861: The Civil War Awakening by Adam Goodheart that starts much in the same spirit of The Atlantic's special report -- opening with a nearly real time feel for the decisions, constraints, and conflicting orders received by Major Robert Anderson whose squad sustained the first assault from Confederate forces.

What is terrific about the Goodheart book is the rendering he gives of the state of play politically, culturally, psychologically in the nation before the war. 

It too would make a great holiday gift for those people who like a powerful read.

More to come, and happy holidays to all.

-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

Like my colleague and pal James Fallows, I want one too. . .

-- Steve Clemons

In the clip above, GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was queried in Oskaloosa, Iowa by Scott Arnold, an adjunct professor at William Penn University, about how he would engage the gay community that supports same sex marriage.

The thrice-married Gingrich implies that he'll take support from gay voters who care about other issues -- like jobs and national security -- first, but those wanting his support on gay marriage ought to vote Obama.

Only problem is that President Obama isn't a gay marriage supporter either.

Michael Bloomberg is -- and this blogger would love to offer some space to Mayor Bloomberg to share his thoughts on both Newt Gingrich's position and that of Barack Obama.

But until then. . .a reminder of Bloomberg's bold position on gay marriage, it's worth watching this short clip from the 2011 Human Rights Campaign dinner where he was introduced by Sarah Jessica Parker.

-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

Ron Paul's supporters offer a stinging critique of US foreign policy in this provocative campaign ad that should win some sort of prize for making a serious policy point with more than a talking head.

For more interesting writing on Ron Paul, also check out my Atlantic colleague Conor Friedersdorf's deep dive into a "racist newsletter" controversy that deserves some discussion.

-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

North Korea's despotic "Dear Leader" has died and is now succeeded by the newly dubbed "Great Successor."  It may be time for the makers of Team America World Police to issue a sequel to memorialize in Western pop culture both the demise of Kim Jong Il and the rise of a son, Kim Jong Un, few know much about other than alleged, celebrated ruthlessness.

As the media race to tell the story of the weirdness of hereditary succession in a communist state, I wanted to share a couple of observations and historical slices in time that should add color and nuance to what little we know about Kim Jong Il and his kingdom.

First of all, watch for any writing by North Korea expert and scholar Peter Beck as well as Center for International Policy senior fellow Selig Harrison, who met Kim Jong Il on several occasions.  Evans Revere, a former senior state department official and former Korea Society President, is also of of America's best experts on all things Kim.  Wendy Sherman, newly installed Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, also played a role during the Clinton administration as an envoy on North Korea affairs and laid the groundwork for the historic visit of then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to North Korea in October 2000.

Several other interesting policy practitioners on the US side are Ambassador Christopher Hill who now heads the Josef Korbel Center of International Studies at the University of Denver; US Special Representative for North Korea policy and Fletcher School Dean Stephen Bosworth, former Korean Talks envoy Charles Kartman; and senior Asia policy adviser to President George W. Bush Michael Green.

Some miscellaneous thoughts. . .

First, China knows more than it tells the US on North Korea (of course) but its influence over North Korean leadership decisions has been weaker than many presume.  An imperfect but still useful analogy for the China-North Korea relationship is America's relationship with Israel, in which the ties that bind are tight but where the smaller party has figured out how to impose painful costs on the patron in the relationship.  Yes, Israel is a democracy and North Korea is one of the most backward, repressive regimes on the planet -- but they share a resolve and confidence about their status that often has more influence on more cautious, large states than the other way around.

Chinese Premier Li Peng in the late 1990s was frustrated with the lack of high quality intelligence the Chinese government had on North Korea's Dear Leader and thus decided to up China's brief by inviting himself to visit Pyongyang to visit Kim Jong Il.  The North Korean government sat for a bit on Li's self-invitation only to counter that it would be more appropriate for Kim Jong Il to visit China -- and this he did in May 2000 in his iron train.

While North Korea depends on Chinese economic support and does enjoy some privileged access and latitude in the relationship that is greater than any other nation, the threat of instability on the Korean peninsula and prospect of millions of refugees streaming into China from North Korea in the event of a crisis has emboldened the regime in Pyongyang to push the limits in its demands from China and the rest of the world. 

Essentially, North Korea survives through extortion -- and thus has had few incentives to stabilize itself, rid itself of nuclear weapons, and to stand down militarily.  It's too lucrative for North Korea to threaten the world with its naughtiness -- and for the rest of the world, including China, paying off the North Korean regime is cheaper than all other options.

Chinese intelligence and the senior political leadership has probably known for some time the severity of Kim Jong Il's ailments -- though some told me as recently as two months ago that they thought his health was rebounding, that in the recent trip Kim had made with his heir apparent son that Kim Jong Il was more robust than he had been in other trips. 

US intelligence on the other hand had a remarkably good read on Kim's coming, likely demise -- arguing in a number of sensitive analyses that the violent clashes, missile launches, and the mysterious sinking of a South Korean warship were a function of leadership succession struggles inside Pyongyang.  Former Ambassador Christopher Hill once told me that what we were seeing was the manifestations of "Kim Jong Il being 'Kim Jong Not Well'".

One other measure of the North Korean regime's isolation from the world hit me in 1995, after Kim Il Sung's death and in the early period of Kim Jong Il's reign.  At that time I directed the Nixon Center in Washington and was hosting Japan's Liberal Democratic Party Secretary General Koichi Kato for a meeting.  Kato told me that he was getting frequent calls from Kim Jong Il and other elites close to the leader at his home phone number.  These calls ranged from questions about potential rice imports from Japan to various other kinds of political, economic, and cultural queries. 

Because of the outreach, Kato worked hard to understand who the new power centers around Kim were -- and what was driving the rise and fall of political players in Pyongyang.  I called Senator John McCain's office to see if he would like to meet with Kato and hear the reports on these calls he had received as well as other intel info that the Japanese government had assembled.  McCain listened carefully, taking precise and extensive notes -- and then asked Kato if he could share the material with the Central Intelligence Agency and defense intelligence.  Kato agreed.

The takeaway from Kato's telephone encounters was that the North Koreans had almost no sense of what was happening in the outside world.  These calls eventually led to large scale visits of Japanese Diet members to North Korea -- the slow-built honeymoon ending with the counter-trend of Japanese anger at revelations about North Korea's abduction of scores of Japanese citizens who were later held against their will in order to inform Kim Jong Il and the North Korean state about culture and events beyond their border.

As my colleague Max Fisher points out, doubts abound about the solvency and stability of a regime under the new "Great Successor", Kim Jong Un.  He will face not only self doubt about the genuineness of loyalty from those in the military -- but will face tests from China, Japan, South Korea, the US, even Russia in how competent he is and how solid his control of the political and economic machinery of the country is.

A Neo-Nixonian approach that I have been supportive of for some time would be one that strongly promoted political and economic engagement with North Korea's leading generals and political glitterati.  As they have watched former comrades in Russia as well as China join the world's billionaires rosters and be courted into outfits like the World Economic Forum, there may be a substantial amount of robber baron envy stirring inside North Korea. 

One way to change a regime is to seduce half of a nation's top leadership with gold and treasure and a horizon for increasing their power while leaving the other half alone.  Some senior Chinese authorities believe that this approach is something that they feel is the only way to eventually get North Korea on a China-like track that emphasizes economic development and progress while not necessarily yielding on political control.

Chalmers Johnson used to pay back-handed respect to Kim Il Sung, grandfather to the new leader of North Korea, by suggesting that he dug a big hole and painted a bucket red, saying that he had a nuclear weapons program underway -- and the world began to grovel.  Former President Jimmy Carter went to North Korea, preempting an American attack on the big hole in the ground during the Clinton administration.  Madeleine Albright visited with Kim Jong Il -- and Bill Clinton came remarkably close to visiting North Korea as the closing act of his tenure in office -- choosing instead to distract himself with another failed act in Israel-Palestine peacemaking.

When George W. Bush came into office, Secretary of State Colin Powell worked hard to maintain continuity with the progress the Clinton team had made with the North Koreans -- only to be undermined by then Under Secretary of State John Bolton's sharp attacks on the North Korean leader (which were substantively true but undermined US diplomacy) as well as George W. Bush's own disdain (then) for the kind of realist foreign policy track that emphasized deal-making with thugs over regime change.

President Obama's foreign policy team did not make much headway with North Korea.  Attempting "not" to over-react to North Korea's predictable, global irascibility has marked Obama's approach more than anything distinctly proactive.  Obama & Co. will no doubt work to test the waters of a more stable, more sane and constructive relationship with the new North Korean leader -- but my hunch is that the leadership will double down on its misbehavior and threaten its neighbors and the global system.

Now may be the time for Obama, as well as leaders in Japan, South Korea, China and Russia to offer trips to North Korea's political and military elite -- to show them what they could have if they engineered some shifts inside the regime. 

Then just stand back and watch.

-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

(photo credit:  Paramount Pictures)

I became the 599,464th person to dislike Rick Perry's anti-gay ad titled "Strong" on YouTube. Only 17,811 people have clicked they like it.

This is the Rick Perry zinger:

You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.

Bigotry out loud. Perry probably can't pull off a win in the presidential primary at this point. He was the big anti-Romney hope of many GOP candidates, until he began speaking in debates.

My worry is that he'll rank up in the stratosphere for a cabinet level job if Romney or Newt managed to beat President Obama. Perry's bigotry will dog him for sure -- but so too will GOP strategist Mike Murphy's delicious tweet:

Listening to Perry try to a put a complicated policy sentence together is like watching a chimp play with a locked suitcase...

One can't retweet this too much.

-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

photo source: C-Span

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey said yesterday at a meeting hosted by the Atlantic Council that the absence of a public discussion about shifts and changes in US military strategy amidst certain significant budget goods is a 'good thing' for now.

Dempsey acknowledged that behind the scenes and in "the tank" -- a place where military commanders can meet "without note-takers" and discuss complex strategic problems -- a serious review of security objectives and resources is underway and that he's "encouraged" by the military's process and progress.

C-Span's video of the entire meeting is available here -- and the question I posed on budgets and a responding military strategy shift kicks in at 53:50. 

Washington Post national security columnist David Ignatius conducted the exchange with General Dempsey who in what was one of his first debut chats in a public forum was very relaxed, clearly informed about macro and micro military policy issues.  He even wrapped up his policy talk with a surprising, full-throated performance singing "Christmas in Kilarney."  He was terrific -- much better than John Ashcroft, with all due respect to the former Attorney General.

That said, General Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta do a disservice to the national debate by promulgating the notion that America's strategic course should be a function of closed debates by generals and admirals behind closed doors -- that are then negotiated in mostly secret sessions with legislators and appropriators on Capitol Hill.  General Dempsey referred to a copy of the US Constitution that he carries with him which he said reminds him of who is responsible for what, noting that Congress is responsible for providing for the provisioning and training of an army and navy.

Continue reading this article

-- Steve Clemons

This morning, The Atlantic hosted a forum on high-growth business (video should be posted on the site later for those interested) and I got to moderate the first session — where Gallup Chairman & CEO Jim Clifton hammered on the point that despite the economic fragility and doldrums of the US economy today, America’s system of laws, particularly contract law, creates a base for entrepreneurs unmatched in the world. 

Clifton said that prevalent corruption in many places around the world — the forced forfeiture of property that entrepreneurs develop which ends in the hands of a government official’s cousin or son — compels small firms to sell out before the government takes what they have.

Clifton was quick to note that the sub-prime crisis and the lack of accountability in that fraud were a problem for the US — but largely, America led the rest of the world on legal protection for business owners by leaps and bounds.

Along these lines, I just read this segment of a piece by Peruvian economist and property rights evangelist Hernando de Soto that recently ran in the Financial Times.  The piece is called “The Free Market Secret of the Arab Revolutions”:

If Marx taught us anything, it is that the powerless can crystallise into a revolutionary class when they become conscious that they share a common suffering - and especially when a martyr embodies that suffering. There is no doubt that millions of Arabs see Bouazizi as their icon. “We are all Mohamed Bouazizi,” Mehdi Belli, a university IT graduate working as a merchant in L’Ariana market in Tunis, told me.

To understand this you have to appreciate the details: Bouazizi flicked his lighter on at 11.30am, one hour after a policewoman, backed by two municipal officers, had expropriated his two crates of pears ($15), a crate of bananas ($9), three crates of apples ($22) and an electronic weight scale ($179, second hand). While a total of $225 might not appear to justify suicide, the fact is that, as a businessman, Bouazizi had been summarily wiped out.

Without those goods, Bouazizi would not be able to feed his family for more than the next month. Since his merchandise had been bought on credit and he couldn’t sell it to pay his creditors back, he was now bankrupt. Because his working tools were confiscated, he had lost his capital. Because the customary arrangement to pay authorities three dinars daily for the property right to park his vendor’s cart on two square yards of public space had been terminated, he lost his informal access to the market. Without property and trade, his reputation as a reliable administrator of goods was now undermined in the only market he knew.

He was not on a salary. He was a budding entrepreneur. According to his mother and his sister, his goal was to accumulate capital to grow his business. But this was impossible as we discovered when we investigated the records and the laws he had to comply with.

I’m meeting with de Soto this afternoon along with some other journalists to explore his latest thinking and commentary — much of which is provocative and also the target of reasoned criticism.

But it seems to me that many in Washington who talk about aid and development towards newly liberated Arab Spring countries and other nations low on the development track tend to organize around what the West can do in terms of deployed dollars to these countries — rather than focusing to a greater degree on the internal legal organization of these countries.  My sense is that attention needs to focus on what sorts of ‘market failures’ these governments and partners abroad can fix that either provide a better foundation for people to buy and sell — and thus help themselves as opposed to waiting for some command and control engineered opportunity from a foreign aid giver. 

Nancy Birdsall’s team at the Center for Global Development do very good work in this arena — but it still seems to me that in a world where there is not enough resources, certainly not enough US-provided aid, to raise people from impoverished circumstances, we need to focus on some of the frameworks that Jim Clifton and Hernando de Soto suggest.

Along these lines, just on Monday, Visa announced its first full national partnership with a foreign government, Rwanda, to create a “branchless” financial market system that essentially allows anyone with a cell phone, which is a vast majority of the population to get out of operating in cash and to operate in point to point financial transactions.  This may have a real impact on opportunities for the kinds of entrepreneurs that Tunisia’s Mohamed Bouazizi aspired to be.

— Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

Comments on the influence of neoconservatives on GOP foreign policy establishment.

Former Dick Cheney chief of staff and now Heritage Foundation vice president David Addington dropped his strong aversion to the public spotlight and offered one of the questions to GOP presidential candidates at the national security/foreign policy debate last week sponsored by CNN, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.  AEI adjunct visiting fellow and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz also offered a question as did several other prominent neoconservatives.

Clearly, the foreign policy wing characterized by Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, even Henry Kissinger deserves endangered species status.

I shared some thoughts on the resurrection, yet again, of neoconservatives in the foreign policy establishment on The Rachel Maddow Show.  Clip above.

-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

This is a guest note by Anya Landau French, Director of the US-Cuba Policy Initiative at the New America Foundation.

As a Cuba policy analyst, I've given an surprising amount of thought to our policy toward the politically isolated, resource-rich nation of Burma (Myanmar) half a world away.

That's because I used to work for Senator Max Baucus, who in 2003, working with Senators Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Grassley, helped pass smart sanctions against the Burmese Regime.

At the time, Congressional supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi wanted to punish the regime for its crackdown on Suu Kyi and her supporters, but Baucus and Grassley made sure that the sanctions would not be open-ended. With this new sanctions model, Congress would continue to exercise real oversight over the impact of the sanctions and of the Executive Branch's efforts to bring other nations on board. (Here's what Baucus had to say when the sanctions were renewed in 2007.)

With the news that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be making an historic trip to Burma, now might be an interesting time for Burma experts to debate whether it was U.S. sanctions, or Chinese influence (too much of it), or any other combination of factors that have led to Burma's leaders to take steps that have registered as "flickers of progress" with President Obama of late. But more importantly, over at The Atlantic, Joshua Kurlantzick has offered up "5 Ways to Tell if Burma's Reforms Are Really Working," which could be helpful to the Obama administration in determining how far to engage the Burmese government. After all, if the reforms continue and the administration wants to support them - and the leaders behind them - the President may wish to urge Congress to let the sanctions expire when they come up for renewal next summer. And if not, he can urge their renewal.

Unlike the maze of Congressionally-mandated sanctions against Cuba enacted over the last several decades, the Burma sanctions were designed to expire unless proponents make a compelling case to renew them. The sanctions only last a year, unless Congress passes a joint resolution to renew them another year. Imminent expiration of the sanctions means that Congress actually monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of its policy toward Burma every year, instead of leaving the sanctions in place indefinitely at the whim of the single most interested member or members of Congress, as in the case of the Cuba embargo.

With U.S. sanctions always just a vote away from expiration, the Burmese government has a clear picture of the levers at work in the U.S. government and a real incentive to take steps that would encourage U.S. policymakers to scrap them.

But because the Cuba sanctions are open-ended and lack meaningful oversight, Cuban officials insist they can have little confidence that the U.S. will actually take significant steps to improve the relationship even if Cuba does.

A case in point: two years ago, President Obama sent a message to Cuba's leaders via our Spanish allies:

. . . [W]e understand that change can't happen overnight, but down the road, when we look back at this time, it should be clear that now is when those changes began.

Few would argue over whether Raul Castro has since embarked on a campaign over the past two years not just of economic reform, but, as Cuban political scientist Rafael Hernandez argues, key political reforms - de-centralization, de-statization, de-bureaucratization, and enhancing the rule of law - that go hand in hand. It's not been speedy or perfect, and much remains to be done.

But when Raul Castro's government released more than 50 political prisoners last year imprisoned in 2003 for their alleged cooperation with the United States (in fact, it released more than 100, all of its political prisoners according to Amnesty International, except those convicted of violent crimes), the Obama administration hardly acknowledged its significance.

Some may consider eased U.S. restrictions on people-to-people and academic travel implemented this spring to have been some sort of response to Havana, but they certainly weren't messaged as such. Instead, they were sold as a more effective way to get around the Cuban government, reinforcing Cuban officials' perception that all the U.S. government is interested in in Cuba is regime change - hardly an incentive to serious negotiation.

And as the Cuban government has begun implementing numerous economic reforms - some more consequential than others - including, importantly, steps to legitimize the private sector in Cuba; after increasing space for diverse opinions in the nation's official media; and after Raul Castro's public endorsement for term limits, all developments one could reasonable qualify as "flickers of progress," President Obama has remained unmoved.

Considering how politically charged U.S. (regime change) policy is in Cuba's domestic politics, it may be for the best that we just sit on the sidelines at this critical juncture. But when the time comes for the United States to meaningfully engage Cuba after more than half a century, our byzantine embargo will in many ways tie the president's, and lawmakers' hands. Maybe it's time to apply the Burma sanctions model - defend it or lose it - to the Cuba embargo, where it's sorely needed.

-- Anya Landau French

The Clemons Grades for the National Security Debate

Rick Santorum  D+ [Changed to C-]
Michele Bachmann  B+
Newt Gingrich  B-
Rick Perry  D-
Herman Cain  F
Mitt Romney  B-
Ron Paul   B
Jon Huntsman  B+

[After reviewing my grades, I decided that Rick Santorum's honesty about the importance of negotiating and willing to compromise with the "other side" deserves a bit more credit.  I hereby revise his grade to a C-.]

Here is the full transcript of the debate.

Sad truth is that this was really amateurish overall.  Where was the serious discussion about the costs of war and peace (except from Ron Paul)?  Nuclear weapons responsibilities and challenges?  North Korea?  Sudan?  Piracy?  The complications and challenges of the Arab Spring?  And what of non-traditional but important national security issues like global water management, climate change, pandemics, natural disasters, and the growing sense aroundt the world that America's mystique has been ruptured and is in decline.  Other than platitudes from Romney, very few got into the realities of America's limited stock of power today.

9:59 pm

AEI visiting scholar Marc Thiessen asks good question of candidates about what issue they haven't heard about tonight that they worry about or which might be hidden behind a blind spot.

Santorum says -- predictably -- it's all about "radical Islamists."  Also says that we need to do more care for Central and South American allies.

Ron Paul says that need to get out of unnecessary wars.  Gives a rosy view of Taliban -- says they are trying to kill us not here but over there...  Rick Perry says China is not a country of virtue -- says that "Communist China is destined for the dustbin of history."

Mitt Romney says China is a big issue.  Agrees with Santorum that Latin America is a lurking national security issue -- Hezbollah, he says, is building capacity in Latin America.

Herman Cain says that cyber security is the biggest threat ahead.

New Gingrich says he worries about nuclear/WMD attack; electro-magnetic pulse attack, and cyber attack.  Michele Bachmann believes that there is a radical Islamic threat here inside the United States now.

Jon Huntsman says that a trust deficit at home -- people not believing in Congress or their government -- is a national security problem, that joblessness and an economy not working is a national security threat.

9:53 pm

Former Cheney Chief of Staff and global war on terror architect David Addington from Heritage Foundation up.  Someone call Jane Mayer.  Asks about Syria -- and asks candidates to outline American interests in the region.

Herman Cain says he would not support No Fly Zone over Syria -- says that we should work with allies to constrain Syria's options, curtail oil purchases and use economic tools, not military ones, to influence Syria.

Rick Perry want a No Fly Zone over Syria.  Perry really seems uncomfortable with just about every question.

Jon Huntsman said the US missed the Persian Spring; got involved in Libya where the US has no interests; and now is holding back on Syria where it does have interests -- and the biggest interest is Israel.  Says we need to do more to prevent a nuclear armed Iran and need to work more closely with Israel.  Refrain.

Ron Paul making sense about the blowback that comes from intervention in other countries.  Links al Qaeda to US bases in Saudi Arabia and thinks that imposition of a no fly zone is exactly the kind of thing that would inspire an al Qaeda like reaction.  Wants the US to learn how to "mind its own business."

Mitt Romney on a platitude streak -- talking about America reasserting its power in the world and not apologizing for leadership.  Romney says no on No Fly Zone over Syria -- but YES to covert action inside Syria to achieve "regime change."

9:39 pm

Rick Perry oddly says "here we are again Mitt" -- agreeing with one another -- this time, on the "magnet" as a draw pulling in illegal immigrants.  Perry says he knows how to secure the border -- that he's been doing it for ten years.  (Then why is the border a problem today??)

Romney is strongly against conversion programs for illegal immigrants -- strongly for legal immigration programs, particularly for the educated (and rich?).  Bye bye Hispanic vote.

9:37 pm

For those interested, here is the CNN transcript for the first 30 minutes of the debate.

9:36 pm

Mitt Romney says that "amnesty is a magnet" and that we have to stop all of the support and stickiness that draws in illegal immigrants.  That said, he believes US should "stable a green card" to completed advanced degrees.

9:34 pm

Rick Perry says that within 12 months he will close down the Mexico-US border and make it secure.  Ron Paul says that the "war on drugs" is another war he'd cancel.  Good line actually.

Ron Paul called the federal war on drugs a total failure and believes that sick and dying people should have access to marijuana if they want it.  Says US should regulate some drugs like alcohol.

Cain says an insecure border is a national security threat.  Can't tell whether Cain supports amnesty for illegals or not -- my sense not, but he has a way of speaking that just doesn't help one get much detail about his views.

Will have to check out the clock later on how long each of these candidates got to speak.  It seems, surprisingly, that Rick Santorum is getting much more time than anyone else to speak.  Not hearing as much from Mitt Romney as we should tonight.  Gingrich is getting a good deal of air time.

Gingrich supports an H-1 visa for everyone who gets a graduate degree here and who came from other countries.  Wants US to educate folks and keep the best.  References Albert Einstein.  Thinks on immigration, US needs a comprehensive approach that secures border but that also reviews those who have been here illegally and creates a way of keeping those who have built solid lives here -- and deport those that haven't.  Bachmann opposes this sort of program and doesn't think there should be amnesty for 11 million workers in the US illegally. She supports the Steve Jobs platform of granting visas to highly skilled workers like chemists and engineers.  Impressed that she knew about Steve Jobs' conversation with President Obama.
 
9:16 pm

AEI economics staff member asks a question that doesn't even pretend to rope in a national security theme.  He asks about what they would do to cut entitlement programs because of a large and growing $11 trillion debt picture. 

What about China?  And those combat troops just sent into Africa?  The implications of the Euro debt crisis?  Does anyone know what the key takeaways of the Halifax International Security Forum were this past weekend (where 18 defense ministers including Leon Panetta and Ehud Barak assembled)? 

How did we get back on entitlement program cuts?  Wasn't that in the last debate?

9:11 pm

Gingrich goes off on doing everything more efficiently. Most interestingly, he basically supports a more efficient Millennium Challenge Corporation.  He also says that the only Iran bombing program he would support was one tied to regime change.

Jon Huntsman says that "everything needs to be on the table" in cutting the budget deficit -- including defense!  Brave comment at an even cosponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation.  Says we need defense spending to match our strategy and objectives.

Wolf Blitzer asking Rick Perry about the failure of the Super Committee and asks if he would compromise with Democrats in Congress to help stop the large coming budget cuts.  Perry turns the question into an assault on Obama's leadership -- doesn't mention Congress' failure at all. 

OOPS.  Perry says "half a trillion dollars" -- and then says with emphasis "500 million dollars."  I'll leave that to others to play with.

9:03 pm

Mitt Romney says that his first foreign trip will be to Israel to show the world we care about that country.  Pandering!!  His first trip should be to either China, Mexico or Canada -- all rank far more significantly to the United States than Israel.  Romney is fundraising tonight.

8:57 pm

American Enterprise Institute foreign policy program director Danielle Pletka asks whether sanctions really make any difference in clipping Iran's nuclear weapons track.  Rick Perry says "yes" and that the US and world should sanction Iran's central bank.  Perry says that Obama has not had the backbone to cut off the central bank as of yet.

Newt Gingrich says we need a serious strategy for topping and replacing the Iranian regime using as minimal force as possible.  Gingrich thinks that sanctioning Iran's central bank a good idea.

Michele Bachmann going after Iran because of its standing, overt threats to Israel.  While I disagree with her overall framing, she has clearly studied up on foreign policy -- and has views that are generally informed and internally coherent.  Impressive actually.

Now Paul Wolfowitz up and asking about Millennium Challenge program and foreign assistance.  Rick Santorum says he completely supports Millennium Challenge Corporation and other forms of foreign aid as vital to the US.  Santorum challenges those (like Rick Perry) who have talked about "zeroing out" all foreign assistance.

Santorum's answer Messianic, all about spreading American values -- but still an internationalist even though he's got a Borg-like posture of wanting to assimilate the rest of the world to look like the US.

Cain says he'll support foreign aid if there is a tight plan, tight mission, tight objectives. 

Ron Paul says that we are in big trouble at home -- endless wars, too much foreign aid, too much meddling abroad.  He says the biggest threat to the United States today is America's domestic economic condition.

Ron Paul ties foreign policy to "Obama Care."  I'm dizzy on that one.  How did he get there??  Ron Paul hammering on Obama administration's so-called cuts.  Says that nothing is getting cut.

8:47 pm

Big question:  If Israel attacked Iran to help Tehran from getting nuclear weapons, would the candidates help Israel?

Herman Cain says that he would want to know what the likelihood of success was -- and what the mission and plan were.  He would help if it was a solid plan and perhaps even join US forces to the Israel mission.

Ron Paul thinks that's crazy -- and wants to get out of Israel's way.  If they want to do something, then they should go ahead and the US should not be involved.  Says US is over-involved in Israel's key decisions.

8:44 pm

Former US Senator Rick Santorum says that the US is "fighting a war against radical Islam."  Opened by saying that he agreed with Ron Paul (really??) that we are not fighting a war on terror.

Now, taking a break.

So far, most impressive responses and positions -- in terms of coherence -- have been articulated by Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul.

8:41 pm

Romney says he's with the commanders.  Huntsman counters by saying the Commander-in-Chief calls the shots, not commanders.  During Vietnam, the President deferred too much to the generals.  Romney, seems wounded, and says of course he knows that the Commander-in-Chief calls the shots.  Newt looks and sounds ruffled and grouses at them for not playing by the debate rules.

8:38 pm

Mitt Romney says we need to help bring Pakistan into "modernity."  Also thinks that we need to stay in Afghanistan until the country can incrementally take over more of its core security responsibilities.

Jon Huntsman makes strong statement supporting withdrawal from Afghanistan -- says we have done nothing to define an "end point" in Afghanistan.  Huntsman calls for 10-15,000 troops with much more limited roles in counter-terrorism and security support. 

Romney says that this is not the "time for America to cut and run" from Afghanistan.

8:34 pm

Governor Rick Perry says that he'd not give one dime of US aid to Pakistan unless it was tied directly to American interests. 

Wow again! Michele Bachmann calls Perry "hopelessly naive", properly and maturely mentioning that Pakistan has nukes that could be vulnerable to terrorists and that we must be engaged and have a presence.

Perry says we need to stop writing "blank checks" to countries like Pakistan.  Bachmann counters that our arrangements with Pakistan are "not blank checks".  She says we are sharing a lot of intelligence information -- and she is largely correct, certainly more than Perry.

8:30 pm

AEI's Fred Kagan asks candidates whether they support expanded drone use policy.

Jon Huntsman says Pakistan is the country that should be keeping us all up tonight.  Says Army Commander General Kayani really running the country -- not President Zardari.  Says that an expanded drone program would serve US interests but also says that 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan are not serving US interests. 

Wow.  Michele Bachmann knows about and mentioned the Haqqani Network.  That's like getting an extra three points on FourSquare.

8:28 pm

Ed Meese launches things with a very wonky question about the investigatory powers of the Patriot Act, which he feels has helped stop more than forty acts of terror in the United States.  Wonder if Herman Cain got that. 

Newt Gingrich thinks that the US government and presidency should have many more powers to fight terrorism.  Ron Paul says the Patriot Act is unpatriotic as it "undermines our liberties."  Gingrich responds that Timothy McVeigh "succeeded." 

Ron Paul implies that Gingrich advocates the building of a "police state."  Michele Bachmann says that "we are in a very different kind of war."  Bachmann says that we need to completely change the way that we investigate terrorist activities -- says Obama has "outsourced investigations to the ACLU."  Jon Huntsman said that we have to be very careful about sacrificing our liberties -- says that it is part of the shining light of the United States abroad. 

Mitt Romney said we can "do better" than TSA pat-downs. Mitt Romney says there is "crime" and there is "war" and that there is a body of law that applies to each.  Really? Isn't the problem of our Kafkaesque secret prisons and Guantanamo detentions a function of the laws of war being thrown out and made up in ad hoc ways?

Rick Perry says that the Obama administration has been poor at drawing in intelligence from around the world to keep America safe.  Who got bin Laden, Governor Perry?  Wolf needs to drill down on some of these.

Santorum says "we are at war" and supports profiling of "Muslims" and "younger males" to chase down likely terror candidates.  Ron Paul goes after Santorum for reckless with terms and words -- and says that this is a slippery slope to all Americans being at risk. 

Herman Cain rebrands "profiling" as "targeted identification."  Says terrorists "want to kill all of us" so we should use every means possible "to kill them first."  Wolf Blitzer keeps pushing on the issue of whether Cain supports profiling of Muslims and more.  Calls Wolf Blitzer "Blitz".  Blitzer calls Herman Cain, "Cain."

8:13 pm

Rick Santorum throws punch at Obama on economy and national security.  Ron Paul says that unnecessary wars undermine the nation.  Rick Perry uses national security debate to talk about 29 years of "married bliss".  Mitt Romney wants "to keep America strong and free."  Herman Cain says America's national security has indeed "been downgraded."  Newt Gingrich says that this is all about "the survival of the United States."  Michele Bachmann wishes Happy Thanksgiving to soldiers around the world.  Her dad was in Air Force (mine too).  John Huntsman intros wife of 28 years who is sitting "fortuitously in the New Hampshire box."

8:06 pm

Wolf Blitzer intros Jon Huntsman as former US Ambassador to China but not as former Governor of Utah or Deputy US Trade Representative. 

7:57 pm EST

I'm not at the Daughters of the American Revolution Constitution Hall tonight as are many of my friends preparing in moments to watch the CNN GOP national security debate -- but I'm going to blog it remotely.

Prediction:  Herman Cain now knows more about what President Obama did and didn't do towards Libya.

-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

Photo Credit:  CNN

(photo credit:  Steve Clemons)

Yesterday at the 2011 Halifax International Security Forum -- basically the Davos for defense and foreign policy junkies at which 18 defense ministers from around the world are in attendance (about a 1:10 ratio with other conference guests and participants) -- US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta gave a mostly compelling speech that has no title but should be called "Security Deliverables in an Age of Austerity?"

Panetta was upfront with the assembled defense ministers that the US and all of them would have to find ways to "sharpen the application of resources" to major security challenges, that the age of austerity was here -- and that the US needed others to pick up their game in bridging the gap between defense upgrades needed and their particular fiscal and political constraints.  This was a call for greater efficiency, greater pooling of resources, and innovation across the board.

Panetta did offer a line that Senator Jon Kyl or John McCain might have made which is used to distract rather than enlighten citizens about real economic and security choices they are facing today.  He said:

I refuse to believe that we have to choose between fiscal responsibility and national security.

In my view, juxtaposing these two choices is a red herring.  The US has a shifting scope of security concerns -- and has to face squarely the kind of shifts in resources Panetta admitted in his comments but then seemed to take back in the statement above.

In 1985, the US share of global GDP peaked near 33%.  Today, the US share of global GDP stands at about 23%.  However, the US share of global defense expenditures is about 50%.

America needs to reorient its security objectives, how it delivers security deliverables, in a manner consistent with the resources it has on hand.

I can easily imagine a set of generals in Moscow before the dissolution of the Soviet Union or even in China today making this same statement:

I refuse to believe that we have to choose between fiscal responsibility and national security.

Panetta sounded like pre-Iraq War Don Rumsfeld in calling for greater efficiencies in this line addressing NATO members:

We must commit to ensuring that NATO addresses key shortfalls in areas such as intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, precision strike munitions and aerial refueling and lift capabilities.  To fill these gaps, allied nations will need to pool their declining defense dollars to more efficiently and effectively.

Secretary Panetta did highlight al Qaeda and terrorism writ large, nuclear proliferation, cyber threats, and Iran as defining threats of this era -- and in contrast to Senator John McCain who seemed to suggest that the dynamics of the Arab Spring would eventually topple Moscow, Panetta embraced Russia's potential cooperation with the US and NATO stating:

We are also hoping that missile defense will provide NATO and Russia an avenue for its most meaningful cooperation yet, presenting an opportunity for former adversaries to firmly turn a page on the past and deal meaningfully and effectively with the real threats that emanate out of the Middle East.

Panetta's full speech is here.  It mostly interested me in the sense that it is the first time that I have heard any US defense secretary in recent years begin to struggle publicly with the reality of diminished budgets.

Panetta's comments overall seemed fair -- though one NATO member nation four star general here told me privately that Secretary Panetta was disingenuous calling for other nations to do much more with less -- while not talking at all about how the United States could do more with less.
 
-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons

(photo credit:  Halifax the Forum)

I'm up at the 2011 Halifax International Security Forum where 18 defense ministers and a who's who of the international defense and security community have assembled.  The forum is modestly sized with about 200 attendees -- but the diversity of perspective here is impressive.

I'll have a post up in a while on US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's appeal to allies in an "era of austerity" -- but wanted to get something up now that John McCain tagged on to his otherwise very humorous remarks at the opening dinner last night.

After Senator Mark Udall used his time on stage mostly to joke about American and Canadian hockey -- a theme nearly everyone here can't stay away from -- McCain jested that in Arizona, mothers tell their kids that they'll never grow up to be President -- as Barry Goldwater, Bruce Babbitt, Morris Udall (Mark's dad), and McCain had all tried and failed.  McCain was truly funny -- his sense of timing better than Udall's.

But then sensing that a crowd of generals, admirals, defense ministers, and national security policy practitioners prefer gravitas to slapstick, McCain dropped a pretty big zinger on the crowd.

He said, "A year ago, Ben-Ali and Gaddafi were not in power.  Assad won't be in power this time next year.  This Arab Spring is a virus that will attack Moscow and Beijing." McCain then walked off the stage.

Comparing the Arab Spring to a virus is not new for the Senator -- but to my knowledge, coupling Russia and China to the comment is.

Senator McCain's framing reflects a triumphalism bouncing around at this conference.  It sees the Arab Spring as a product of Western design -- and potentially as a tool to take on other non-democratic governments. 

At an earlier session, Senator Udall said that those who believed that the Arab Spring was an organic revolution from within these countries were wrong -- and that the West and NATO in particular had been primary drivers of results in Libya -- and that the West had helped animate and move affairs in Egypt.  Udall provocatively added Syria to that list as well.

But John McCain's biting kicker last night would have been seriously jarring to any Chinese or Russian defense types who might have been in the room.  They seem to be the only ones not here. 

McCain may be right that fake democracies like Russia and authoritarian regimes like China may face the same kinds of disruptions in their locks on power that Gaddafi and Ben-Ali did, but to frame this possibility as objective -- which was the tone of McCain's comment -- seriously complicates the global security picture particularly when the US and Europe are hoping to draw Russia and China into a much more cooperative arrangement confining Iran's options in the world.

It's tough to partner with regimes on one front while essentially calling for their collapse and downfall on another.

-- Steve Clemons is Washington Editor at Large at The Atlantic, where this post first appeared. Clemons can be followed on Twitter at @SCClemons