Will The Real James Jones Come Forward

OBAMA'S NSA DESCRIBED AS MEEK IN MEETINGS

President Obama's "Team of Rivals" propaganda did more to fatten book sales of Dolores Goodwin Kearn's book of the same title than provide any real rivalry among cabinet members (the book can also put you to sleep.)

I mention this because two mainstream articles, one by Time's Joe Klein and a feature by Robert Dreyfuss in Rolling Stone show two different portrayals of one of Obama's notable "rivals", National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones.

The Rolling Stone piece reads like a rehashing of four month administration talking points set along the "rivals" theory of governance. The article says Obama does not have much of a relationship with the general but has spent the past two years gaining familiarity with him on the campaign trail. Jones, a supporter of Obama and frequent critic of the war, is described along the lines of how the Administration would have you believe him to be behind closed doors. According to a Time opinion piece last week, Jones is anything but a go-getter and Type-A personality in meetings.

There is some concern, however, about National Security Adviser James Jones, who is still adjusting to civilian life after a brilliant career in the military. "Obama has appointed all these high-powered envoys like [Richard] Holbrooke and [George] Mitchell, but we don't know who's going to really be in charge of setting the foreign policy priorities," says a prominent foreign policy realist who admires Jones. "That should be Jim's job. But he's throwing off a sense of uncertainty." Several sources say Jones seems to attend meetings rather than lead them. "He needs to drive the agenda," the foreign policy expert adds.

The appointment of old Democratic hands like Mitchell and Holbrooke to Middle East hot spots way back in February may signal Obama had already viewed Jones as overwhelmed by the position. Are there foreign policy problems bigger than Israel/Palestine and Iraq/Afghanistan?

Rolling Stone may primarily be a music and culture magazine but it does churn out insightful public affairs pieces from time to time. This is not one. It gives the appearance of sloppy journalism or worse by its shocking mimicking of the party line, the feel of propaganda.

Other than that, what can I say? There's a pretty good story about the porn industry's top actress in this week's issue.

Holbrooke: Domestic Energy Policy Is National Security Issue

Richard Holbrooke, the foreign envoy and frequent name drop as Secretary of State in a possible Obama administration, makes a few interesting points in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

Among other points, Holbrooke identifies the need for the next president to engage Turkey, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and China. He also advises torture be clearly renounced and prisons at Guantanamo be closed.

The most important matters according to Holbrooke are of extreme importance to the strength of the American empire. He mentions the historical fact that world powers tend to decline as a consequence of economically overextending themselves.

Holbrooke says the $475 billion a year transfer of wealth from the U.S. to Arab oil producing countries along with Venezuela constitutes a potential challenge to American interests in the decades to come. The stirring in countries like Venezuela where President Hugo Chavez is expanding his influence over South America could be the tip of the iceberg.

The most important paragraph of Holbrooke's readable treatise is this:

To restore the United States to its proper world leadership role, two areas of weakness must be repaired: the domestic economy and the United States' reputation in the world. Although the economy is usually treated as a domestic issue, reviving it is as important to the nation's long-term security as is keeping U.S. military strength unchallengeable. This will require more than a cyclical upturn; to repair the economy in the long term, a new national policy on energy and climate change will be essential—not because it is nice to be popular but because respect is a precondition for legitimate leadership and enduring influence.

It is important to note being popular is not just for national back slapping but for, as Holbrooke says, “respect”. It is clear that rising powers like Russia feel compelled to challenge the weakened American president with blatant incursions in the Causcasus. Whether its Medvedev or Putin at the controls, the Kremlin's disregard for numerous cease-fires and boldface threats to Poland and Ukraine is a direct function of American futility during the Bush administration along with a posture that sought to humiliate the Russian psyche post-1991.

It was interesting that Sen. Barack Obama, last night, during his acceptance of the Democratic nomination, said he will aim to make the nation free of foreign oil dependence in 10 years. How he will do it is unclear, yet the mere acknowledgement of this problem to the security of our country is something that must become a kitchen table discussion from now on.