The Irish Barack Obama: Amazing Follow-Up

Astonishing news: The Corrigan Brothers will soon be spreading their single "There’s No One As Irish as Barack Obama” throughout the world, formally releasing it on 12 December.

We'd like to think that this dramatic development is due to Enduring America, which featured the single a few weeks ago, but apparently we have to share the credit with MSNBC's ‘Hardball’, Newsweek, the Late Late Show, Pat Kenny, and Ryan Tubridy and The Afternoon Show. The BBC's Andrew Marr, who of course is Britain's premiere music critic (having predicted the rise of Oasis in the 1990s*), anointed the band's inaugural performance as ‘the only YouTube video you have got to see’.

*OK, he didn't. But it makes for a far better story.

Actually, we understand that the breakthrough came on Election Night, when The Corrigan Brothers performed the track at a party in Moneygall, Ireland, the ancestral home of President-elect Obama. Impressing a crowd that no doubt far outnumbered the main victory rally in Chicago, TCB got themselves an invite to play an Obama Inaugural Party the day before the Great Irishman becomes the 44th President of the USA.

Only one downer to this Irish-American tale. We regret that TCB dropped the name under which they originally performed the song, Hardy Drew and the Nancy Boys. Copyright be damned, surely this is a pop-culture reference to appeal to all audiences....

Obama's Challenge: Curbing the Pentagon

In the first of a series of featured analyses on Enduring America, our colleague Giles Scott-Smith identifies the immediate hurdle for Barack Obama's promise to improve America's standing in the world.

The Bush administration will go down as having demonstrated the failure of both political unilateralism and economic neoliberalism for US domestic and foreign policy. Hopefully the new Obama administration will quickly establish itself as pragmatic and unwilling to view all issues through the same ideologically-tinted glasses.

However, as important and welcome as this change in perspective from the Oval Office would, there is another serious matter at the heart of the US government, one which could define the capabilities of the next administration. During the Bush years, the Pentagon has achieved an overwhelming position of dominance at the expense of all other civilian departments. As a result the impact of the military on US foreign policy is set to continue, and in more diverse ways.

According to the recently released report, A Unified Security Budget for the United States: FY 2009, compiled by a non-partisan group of experts on security affairs, the ratio of funding for military forces versus that for non-military international engagement is likely to be 18:1 in 2009 (up from 16:1 in 2008). In a final statement of intent, the outgoing Bush administration has secured a $40 billion increase in the Pentagon’s budget for next year, a figure that is higher than the total budget for the State Department itself. This all the more striking if one considers that the $15 billion a month currently being spent on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan comes from separate supplementary funding granted by Congress.

At present, for every dollar spent on diplomacy, $16 dollars are spent on military programmes. The cost of a single proposed weapons system, the Virginia-class submarine ($850 million), is more than the amount the US owes to the United Nations in unpaid contributions. And this in a time when there is a desperate need to improve the image of the United States abroad by shifting the emphasis away from offensive military strategies.

It is clear why the Pentagon has achieved such a dominant position. The declaration of a War on Terror following 9/11 placed the military establishment in the driving seat to respond to the threat posed to the United States. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was supposed to lead the way to the redrawing of Middle East politics, with Tehran and Damascus on the list as likely venues for further regime change. Instead administrative incompetence and a determined insurgency stopped the US military in its tracks and prevented any coherent transition of power in Iraq for five years. Meanwhile the Taliban, a far more worthy target in relation to anti-terrorism, were given all the time to regroup and reassert themselves in Afghanistan and North-West Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the belief in high-tech military solutions for political problems has led to the insistence on placing an ‘anti-missile shield’ in Poland and the Czech Republic before it has been declared reliable for service. This has caused no end of trouble with Russia, a relation that has already been put under strain over the last decade by the apparently unending drive to expand NATO eastwards. Voices of concern over the practicalities of the anti-missile system have already been heard from parts of the Pentagon, but it remains to be seen whether this will have any effect on its funding status or eventual deployment under the new administration.

When referring to the dominance of the Pentagon, it is not just a matter of weaponry or the questionable deployment of US marines. Looking to develop its role in the field of ‘strategic influence’, the military has also greatly expanded its activities in communications and media, with questionable consequences. Under Donald Rumsfeld the Office of Strategic Influence and the Information Operations Task Force, both within the Pentagon, deliberately planted positive news stories about Iraq that would be picked up by the US media, thereby increasing domestic support for foreign military operations. Private companies such as the Rendon Group and the Lincoln Group were hired with million-dollar contracts to manage Pentagon public relations and ensure a positive press.

But this is not just about propaganda. Areas previously reserved for the State Department and related agencies, in particular public diplomacy, have increasingly been drawn within the military’s responsibility. In November 2007 Robert Gates, the successor to Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, declared that the civilian tools of government needed to be upgraded so that the US could once again explain clearly to the world “what we are about as a society and a culture, about freedom and democracy, about our policies and out goals”.

It is highly likely that Obama will keep Gates on as Secretary, even as the Secretary of Defense continues to oversee his Department’s outreach into new administrative territory. In December 2006 Gates appointed Michael Doran as the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy, with the task of upgrading the Department’s contribution to US information programmes. Significantly, in September 2008 the White House nominated Doran for the position of Assistant Secretary of State for International Information Programs in the State Department.

As a Pentagon spokesperson said during the summer, the civilian side of government operates according to “an outdated model of global communication.” No wonder that the recent report A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future from the American Academy of Diplomacy refers to the “militarization of diplomacy”. The consistent under-funding of the State Department has led to a desperate shortage of trained embassy personnel, especially in languages, and a serious lack of morale. Meanwhile under Bush the military establishment has taken a leading role in US diplomatic, public diplomacy, and assistance tasks across North Africa, the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and the Far East. In many regions the Pentagon is at the forefront in engaging with foreign public opinion, even though this remains, officially, the job of the State Department. During 2008 the military’s lead in developing a ‘whole of government’ approach to stability and security issues around the world will probably only increase the subordination of other departments to the Pentagon’s agenda.

Of course, the ongoing effects of the credit crisis will have a major impact. Earlier this year Obama stated his intention to more than double the US international aid budget to $50 million, but this is unlikely to survive the strain on federal reserves caused by the $700 billion bail-out plan, higher unemployment, and declining tax revenues. Opinion is at present divided, however, on how this crisis will have an impact on the still-rising military budget. Domestic politics will always play a role here, due to the vast array of jobs in the US economy that are connected to defence contractors, spread out across almost every state. Obama will be looking to expand his political base over the next two years, considering he received only 52% of the popular vote, and the domestic political risks of reducing the Pentagon’s budget and appearing to run down US defences are potentially huge.

Nevertheless, the possibilities for improving the US standing in the world are equally great. As the respected Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Thomas Fingar, stated in September, US military power will for now be “the least significant” asset in maintaining and extending US influence abroad. To make the changes required, however, Obama faces his challenge: curbing the Pentagon. A cut-back in the military budget, accompanied by a regeneration of the State Department and a large-scale investment in diplomatic resources, will be the best possible outcome from this year’s financial turmoil.

Obama, Race, and Arab Opinion

Our colleague Brian Edwards has written an excellent piece for The Huffington Post considering Arab responses to Barack Obama's election:

Chicago -- The U.S. election is over, but Al-Qaida finally threw down the race card. The organization's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, released a video last week comparing President-elect Barack Obama to an 'abd al-bait, or "house slave."

It's easy to dismiss such extreme rhetoric as ineffective, especially because we have been frequently told about the enthusiasm that Muslim populations, especially in the Arab world, have for Obama.

But this mischaracterizes the ways in which non-elite Arabs are talking about Obama since the election. Al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's chief ideologue, tapped into the ambivalence many Arabs are expressing about the President-elect.

The massive circulation of American culture through the world--fueled by digital media--means Middle Easterners feel familiar with and sometimes ownership of American culture and ideas. But Arabs also are deeply affected by the 2000 U.S. electoral debacle and the runup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. From Fez to Cairo to Tehran (non-Arab, but similar in this respect), people are guarded and cynical about being hoodwinked yet again by our attractive ways of communicating a message, especially "democracy." They see Obama's rise as barely believable.

Fully cognizant of this, Al-Zawahiri reran a play from the Soviet playbook during the cold war. The Soviet leaders routinely referred to the oppression of African Americans to counter the attraction that American culture - particularly jazz - had among the Russians.

The al-Qaida video included film clips of Malcolm X distinguishing between "field Negroes" and "house Negroes," in which the latter - in this case Obama -- are said to be more dangerous to their brethren, because they were loyal to their white masters.

For al-Qaida, many young Arabs' love of hip hop, the American cultural form that attracts international audiences, is a force to be reckoned with. The Arab engagement with American hip hop is complex, and Arabic language hip hop has become popular both online and in public concerts.

Many Arabs identify with oppression by white America, while others see the outward expressions of luxury (the "bling" worn by many American rappers, for example) as a sign that all Americans occupy an economic status far from their own. Since the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, young Arabs have become much more skeptical of U.S. intentions, even as they consumed American culture more and more.

Last week when I was in Cairo, arriving just after the election, many who heard me speaking Arabic asked me where I am from. My answer was "medinat Obama," Obama's city. Many smiled in recognition. When I asked Cairenes - working class, middle class, students, writers and intellectuals -- what they thought of the U.S. President-elect, most replied with a telling word: "Menshouf." We shall see.

The feeling toward American culture and people are another matter. "Americans are good, it's the government's policies that are bad," says Mohammed, a young Arab in the old part of Cairo. When I ask him about Obama, he brightens. "Obama shows just how remarkable a democracy America is. We wish we could have something like it. We need it in Egypt," he says. "A black man, whose father was a Muslim, without power and money, could rise to the top. That shows how America really is."

But when I asked Mohammed whether he thought Obama would be good for the Arab world, there was that word again. "Menshouf," he said. "I think it doesn't really matter who is the president of the U.S. The policies are the same. It's a new person, but the same country. Bush, Obama, the same," he said. I heard it all over Cairo.

While Americans opposed to Bush administration Middle East policies over the past eight years could still put trust in the American political process, those who grew up in autocracies, monarchies and dictatorships have less reason to trust democracy, having never experienced it.

It is this distrust that al-Qaida is trying to capitalize on. Even if most Arabs disdain the terrorist organization, the injection of the race card is a savvy, if offensive, move.

In Mohammed's menshouf there is hope, of course. It means that this transition and the first 100 days in the Obama administration will be critical in the Arab world. Obama's ability to excite a generation of Americans and his new-media savvy put him in a perfect position to inspire young Arabs to expect something from America beyond business as usual. That would be a real break in the Middle East tradition that we could all support.

Obama and the Centre Lane of Foreign Policy

While we're mulling over the news that Robert Gates is staying on as Secretary of Defense and awaiting the announcement of the Obama "national security team" on Friday, a comment from Maria Jacinta on another thread deserves consideration:

"Obama’s foreign policy picks so far are depressing. Gen. James Jones as National Security Adviser? He backed McCain!! It’s a centre right cabinet so far. I recall a comment from Nancy Pelosi–of all people– in the NYT after the election: “The country must be governed from the middle.” Talk about capitulation. The Democrats finally have a mandate for actual change but they don’t want to use it. Govern from the center; appoint Republicans to the cabinet.

Can you imagine the Republicans governing ‘"rom the middle" if they had won? In 2001 Bush acted as though he had a landslide mandate.

Unsurprising News of the Day: Gates to Stay On at Pentagon

The news this morning is that Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense, is close to agreeing to stay on in the first year of an Obama Administration. No surprise there --- the issue was not whether the offer would be made to Gates but whether he wanted to spend more months in Government service.

The media's headline attention to Gates' retention as a sign of Obama's "bipartisan" approach, keeping or bringing in Republicans in his Cabinet, misses the significance of the story. While there may be some mileage with Congress in pointing to Obama's "centrist" approach to national security, Gates serves more important roles.

In particular, his continued stay at the Pentagon is a reassurance to military services, who are suffering from years of trampling under Donald Rumsfeld. The Secretary of Defense's approach of working with commanders, rather than imposing decisions on them, has brought some stability after the disasters of the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith grand plan for a "transformed" military fighting and liberating country after country. It is also notable that Gates has pulled back on the preaching about Missile Defense as a be-all, end-all solution for the threat from "rogue states" even if, for political and strategic reasons, the US Government is still pursuing its basing strategy in Eastern Europe.

But here's the question missed in today's headlines: the continuity under Gates at the Pentagon is a continuity for what? He may have kept the military ship from sinking, assisted by the fluffy headlines of "surge is working", etc., etc., but there is no strategic approach for the immediate demands on US power.

Will an Obama/Gates Pentagon in 2009 have any approach for dealing with Al Qa'eda other than bomb, bomb, bomb in Pakistan? Is there any new strategy for Afghanistan other than putting some number of troops --- 10,000? 15,000? 20,000? --- into the country? As Iraq moves into a new stage of political in-fighting and insurgency, albeit one with a lower if still significant level of casualties, is there any consideration of a US military role other than some number of troops --- 50,000? 75,000? 100,000? --- as a deterrent to the scheming Iranians across the border?

To be fair to Gates, all of these are issues that require a political solution with military support, rather than a military solution with political justification. Unfortunately, his retention is also a sign --- that seven years into the "Long War" --- that a lot of Washington minds may still be stuck on fight first, talk later.