Walk Softly And Carry A Big Clinton

BooMan takes a look at the NY Times story on the future of diplomacy. Hillary Clinton is already pushing for a much more powerful State Department role in Obama's foreign policy apparatus.

Democrats are more culturally attuned to the State Department, but Carter and Clinton had weak secretaries. Hillary Clinton is not going to be a weak secretary. She is looking to expand the job and take over as much turf as possible. Ordinarily that might be a bad thing, but her power is going to be coming at the expense of the Defense Department (and to an indeterminate degree, the Treasury Department). Secretary Gates is voicing his support for an expanded diplomatic service, and his lame duck status and Republican roots make him institutionally incapable of competing with the former First Lady.

Why do I see this as good? Because it will mark a restoration of the State Department as the premier department of government. And that means that we won't shoot first and ask questions later. It means we will put a kinder face forward to the rest of the world. It means that State Department will regain its morale and that they'll be able to recruit the best minds. It's just good overall.

I happen to agree with BooMan on this one. The Times story makes it clear that a new era is dawning at Foggy Bottom.

As Mrs. Clinton puts together her senior team, officials said, she is also trying to carve out a bigger role for the State Department in economic affairs, where the Treasury has dominated during the Bush years. She has sought advice from Laura D’Andrea Tyson, an economist who headed Mr. Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers.

The steps seem intended to strengthen the role of diplomacy after a long stretch, particularly under Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in which the Pentagon, the vice president’s office and even the intelligence agencies held considerable sway over American foreign policy.

Given Mrs. Clinton’s prominence, expanding the department’s portfolio could bring on conflict with other powerful cabinet members.

Mrs. Clinton and President-elect Barack Obama have not settled on specific envoys or missions, although Mr. Ross’s name has been mentioned as a possible Middle East envoy, as have those of Mr. Holbrooke and Martin Indyk, a former United States ambassador to Israel.

The Bush administration has made relatively little use of special envoys. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has personally handled most peacemaking initiatives, which has meant a punishing schedule of Middle East missions, often with meager results.

Again, having the State Department run diplomacy and foreign relations is a good thing, and certainly a step in the right direction over Colin Powell's lies to the UN to justify invading Iraq and Condi Rice's frenetic scrambling that continues to accomplish nothing, both acting on the whim of the VP's office.

Then again, Clinton is still a war hawk and always will be. Although she's a definite improvement over Powell and Rice, that's just not saying much. Any competent diplomat would meet that low criteria. We need somebody committed to diplomacy and compromise, not Kissinger in a dress. It still remains to be seen if she'll actually promote Obama's policy...or worse, she will promote Obama's policy, and it turns out Kissinger in a dress is exactly what he wanted.