04 December 2008

Foreign Policy and National Security Challenges

President-elect Barack Obama (second from the left) announced his national security team on December 1, 2008.

By Kurt M. Campbell

Kurt M. Campbell is chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security. The author would like to thank Whitney Parker and George Mitchell for their research assistance on this article, which is drawn from the recently released book Difficult Transitions: Foreign Policy Troubles at the Outset of Power by Kurt Campbell and James B. Steinberg (Brookings Press, November 2008).

The handoff from an incumbent U.S. president to a president-elect offers an opportunity for change and reassessment, but it is also fraught with serious risks. When President-elect Barack Obama is sworn in on January 20, 2009, he will be confronted with ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a deepening financial crisis that threatens to destabilize the global economy, active nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, an increasingly tense relationship with Russia, and an ever more complex relationship with China, not to mention the specters of climate change, global poverty, and conflict in Africa.

While major national security trials are nothing new for presidential transitions, there are several reasons why this particular handoff poses unique risks. First, the immediacy and magnitude of threats in today’s globalized world are much greater than at any point in our past -- a biological attack or a stock market crash can have rippling effects around the globe in a matter of minutes. Second, increased international military and economic interdependence, coupled with growing transnational ties, means that it is virtually impossible for any one president to enter the White House with complete knowledge of every possible region of strategic importance. This transition is also likely to be the most complex in history. Barack Obama will take the reins of an expanded national security apparatus that now includes several new agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, which has never before experienced a political transition.

These and other factors, in combination, create complex difficulties for the incoming team. To manage them successfully, the Obama team will need to focus on three core transition issues: reassessing campaign commitments, choosing people and processes, and setting an agenda for the first 100 days of the new administration.

Campaign Commitments

One of the early challenges of presidential transitions arises well ahead of the November election, while candidates are still campaigning for the presidency. Hastily made campaign commitments are a frequent cause of presidential headaches once candidates reach the White House.

Presidents-elect may have to reassess promises made on the campaign trail after receiving top-level national security briefings for the first time. If a new president fails to follow through on a commitment, he may appear weak, thus damaging his credibility. But sticking by an imprudent campaign commitment invalidated by newly acquired information could risk much more dire consequences.

Unfortunately, the pressures of the campaigning process virtually ensure that candidates will make at least some rhetorical missteps. Although making specific commitments during the campaign may be necessary for securing the support needed to win the White House, once elected the new president will need not only the support of key domestic constituencies, but also the cooperation of foreign partners. The myriad policy proposals and position checklists generated by an extensive network of think tanks are occasionally helpful, but they also run the risk of trapping candidates into policy positions that may later prove ill-considered.

People and Process

A second core challenge in foreign policy transitions involves picking the right people and setting up the best processes for decision making and governance. Presidents-elect could use the time ahead of the election to vet potential appointees for key cabinet posts. However, for a variety of reasons, candidates usually decide against this approach. Superstition, not wanting to “jinx” the election, is one reason, but candidates have a number of pressing priorities during a campaign, and they may want to avoid alienating key supporters by failing to submit their names for consideration.

Potential appointees generally fall into one of four categories —  holdovers, loyalists or campaign policy advisers, all-stars, and worthies — each of which has benefits and drawbacks. Holdovers from the current administration can provide continuity and institutional memory for the new team, but with uncertain loyalty. Loyalists have demonstrated their commitment to the new leadership, but pose risks associated with “groupthink” when it comes time for decision making. All-stars offer instant credibility for the administration in specific domains, but they may not be compatible with the president’s personal leadership style. Worthies — those with high public profiles, often from the U.S. Congress — offer credibility but may not bring significant national security experience to the table.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad at a heavy-water nuclear facility. Tehran says it is for peaceful purposes, but Westerners are wary.

Making choices about people and processes extends to the office of the vice president as well. And all of these considerations must be made in view of the new administration’s still-evolving policy agenda.

The First 100 Days

The new president is faced with a troubling paradox after the inaugural ball comes to a close — he is at the height of his popularity precisely when his administrative capacity is at its weakest. The new president must walk a fine line, blending boldness and caution, choosing his battles carefully.

Early failures, such as President Bill Clinton’s infamous initiative on gays in the military, which severely strained his relations with the Department of Defense, can prevent a new leader from building momentum toward solving the major policy challenges.

New presidents must also attenuate their urge to abandon the outgoing administration’s policies wholesale — a phenomenon labeled by some observers as the “ABC,” or “Anything But Clinton,” syndrome that characterized President George W. Bush’s first term in office.

Advice About Transitions

During the campaign process, presidential candidates must, first, remember to be judicious in making promises and to be cognizant that new information may demand a change of opinion once in office. Second, candidates should avoid answering hypothetical questions. Third, candidates and their teams should use the campaign period to learn about and reflect upon the candidates’ governing and management styles. These lessons will come in handy when determining the composition of the teams. It’s also possible to get a head start on selecting key officials without appearing overconfident. Further, during the campaign, the candidates can establish informal and formal advisory groups that later transform into transition and governing teams — as both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush effectively did.

During the official transition period itself — the days between election and inauguration — the president-elect should make personnel decisions, first, while keeping sight of the overall composition of the team. Next, the president-elect should develop decision-making procedures based upon the people and personalities who will make up the new administration. Personalities and informal relationships will affect the success of the processes and procedures that ultimately prevail. The team should guard against groupthink (that is, not appoint an abundance of loyalists at the expense of holdovers, worthies, and all-stars), but realize that too much diversity can paralyze decision making and inhibit strong working relationships.

Once in office and firmly in control, the president should move to resolve old disputes quickly and efficiently, trying to build a momentum of small victories to demonstrate early progress. The new president should try to defer difficult and complex issues until he can adjust to unforeseen governing realities. Although presidential power is often at its weakest during the first 100 days, substantial progress is still possible if the so-called honeymoon period can be leveraged effectively. Initial steps can be taken to bridge the polarized national security community early on in the administration.

The president-elect should enter the White House with an effective team already in place and be prepared to manage unanticipated crises at the outset. Moreover, the new president should engage with the legislative branch of the government early and often. The George W. Bush executive team got off on the wrong foot with Congress by setting up a national security process heavily focused on the executive branch of the government, greatly straining relations with party allies in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Dangers and Opportunities

The history of the 11 U.S. presidential transitions since World War II is a cautionary tale replete with dangers as well as opportunities. There are many unique features associated with the American system of government: its delicate balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; the role political appointees play in the executive branch; and a presidential transition process that is very different and much more prolonged and elaborate than the Westminster-style parliamentary systems found in other nations.

And in a complex world with myriad threats, urgent information flows, and increasingly vast government bureaucracies, American presidential transitions are viewed with both hope and trepidation. The trepidation reflects more than simple concerns over possible policy departures; it also reflects an anxiety over the potential for missteps and mix-ups that have rattled presidential transitions in the past.

Yet despite the many challenges and occasional blunders over the centuries, presidential transitions in the United States have remained remarkably orderly and peaceful. Respect for the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, the electoral process, and the institution of the presidency has always prevailed, even despite occasional setbacks. While presidents-elect have routinely faced difficult challenges in the past, and though many have made mistakes, the American republic has always persevered. The upcoming transition is sure to present some of the greatest challenges America has ever faced, but history assures us that great men and women will rise to meet them.

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government.