The new Shadow Government blog at FP has added three more contributors who will be must-reading in the dawn of the Obama administration. They include Steve Biegun, who was a senior foreign policy adviser with the McCain campaign and before that served on the National Security Council from 2001-2003; Kori Schake, another senior foreign policy adviser on McCain 08, a professor at West Point, and a fellow at the Hoover institution; and Vance Serchuk, a former contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD and currently an adviser to Joe Lieberman. Biegun starts off today with a post on the lessons an Obama administration might draw from the mistakes the Bush team made upon entering the White House. He writes:
When the Bush administration took over from the Clinton team in 2001 there was a self-satisfying feeling among many Republicans that the adults were back in charge. Discipline and experience would rule the day, and a more measured and humble policy led by the professionals would steer the ship of state on a true course. The advice of the Clinton team was seen as unnecessary, and divisiveness was the predictable outcome. Unfortunately, for Republicans this harvest was reaped when the realities of the world, the frailties and rivalries of senior officials, and events (credit due to Harold Macmillan) intervened. There was a widely held view among Democrats that the early days of the Bush administration were in effect an exercise in doing the opposite of whatever the Clinton administration had done, as Peter discusses here. Likewise, there was a hypersensitivity that the Bush administration was quick to blame any early challenges it faced on the shortcomings of the previous administration. While both of these impressions were exaggerated beyond reality, as a result, many Democrats adopted a knee jerk opposition to anything the Bush administration did. Yet, especially in the early years of the Bush administration, Democrats would usually fall into line when their hand was forced, making them appear strident and weak at one and the same time.
I'm not sure Republicans can avoid the same fate as their Democratic counterparts -- making a lot of noise and then meekly falling into line when push comes to shove -- given the majorities Democrats now command in Congress. However, the Obama team will in some respects have it even tougher than the Bushies did in 2001. There will be tremendous pressure to reverse Bush administration policies, particularly those policies relating to Iraq and the larger war on terror, which have led to dramatic improvements in Iraq and at least contributed to protecting the United States from any new attacks since 9/11. It would have been hard to imagine just a year ago that Bush would be handing his successor a stable situation in Iraq, but here we are. Still, criticism of the Bush administration's approach to Iraq and al Qaeda has become so ingrained that it is an article of faith on the left that these policies have failed. They haven't, and while there will be a tremendous temptation to dismantle those policies whenever and wherever possible, doing the opposite of Bush may risk renewed bloodshed in Iraq or another terrorist attack at home. Of course, regardless of policy, there's always the risk of disaster. For once Democrats will be accountable no matter what happens, but there will be a steep political price to pay if it appears as though Obama's softer, more nuanced approach to these issues has contributed in any way to a decline in security in Iraq or here at home.