WP op-ed Why John Kerry could be a better Secretary of State than HRC

[karynnj]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-john-kerry-could-be-a-better-secretary-of-state-than-hillary-clinton/2013/04/25/dacf6bac-ad0b-11e2-a198-99893f10d6dd_story.html

Very interesting read. I think they place too much on things like it being Obama's second term.. You could argue that the international goodwill that would have accrued to any Democrat replacing Bush would have given the first term SoS a great position to accomplish a lot. The idea that Obama is now more focused on domestic issues is silly. A huge stimulation package to keep the economy from going over the cliff, a bailout of the auto industry and landmark healthcare legislation that has eluded Democratic Presidents for decades is MORE than what he now has to deal with.

The difference lies with the individuals, their experience, their vision and what their life goals. I thought it interesting that on the day Obama was to formally name him, Kerry went to the grave of his friend Pershing who died in Vietnam. This seems an effort to frame what was important and as he told the students at Holy Cross in MA - working for peace is. They cite it as Kerry being willing to take more risks because he was at the end of his career. (Just as he was in 1972 and in the late 1980s (investigating illeagally arming the Contras) or 1990 investigating BCCI?) In reality, it is a valid difference, Bill Na Hillary ALWAYS consider the personal politic cost or gain first.

To me, it is clear what Hillary did with the SoS job -- her goal was a narrative for a 2016 run. The title helps and there is win/win human rights and womans issue role. the likelihood is that the goals she put in place worldwide will not be met in many areas. It is not their culture. I suspect that when we leave Afghanistan they will retreat and women will have fewer rights. Will this hurt - no. The response is that a President HRC would have made sure that did not happen.

There is one inexplicable comment - that HRC made the environment an issue. This is not really true - as Keystone shows and the fact that she had little interest in Copenhagen. (The Clinton record in Arkansas was HORRIBLE on the environment. )

Anyway, this is an interesting article and it might show the respect Kerry has in the foreign policy world.

[wisteria]

1. Of course he will be better-he understands the importance of this post.

He also has te knowledge and experience. I agree with you on Hillary too. And, I will add that President Obama seemed to not take foreign policy seriously in his first term and now he realizes that was a mistake. I think we know that Clinton was a political pick. And, I just couldn't see Rice doing much better. This is Kerry's time.

[Mass]

2. I have to say I am just reading the article right now and I am not exactly

seeing the media world in general in a positive mood these days (in large part because of the media meme that the primary race in MA could be won by Lynch, even though all polls have shown Markey up by anything from 6 (Lynch internal poll) to 16 (PPP/LCV). It becomes clearer and clearer that there is no reward in reporting accurately anymore and no penalty being very wrong. In that case, if Lynch wins, those people will be see as geniuses. If they are wrong, nobody will care. Same here. Who will remember this editorial should Kerry be a terrible SoS (not something I would foresee, just a rhetorical question).

This said, a few points, the first one being that it is an interesting turn for Aaron David Miller (who, though he has an indisputable knowledge of these issues, is a mediawhore as well; his profile of Hagel is largely responsible of the problems he had to be confirmed). In December, he was pushing Rice on the basis that she had Obama's ear and that Kerry (and Clinton) did not.

A couple of reflections on this article:

a/ I wonder how much input Miller had on the title of his editorial. Most writers do not chose their titles, which are given by their editors who tries to make this more spectacular. If I read correctly the article, Miller writes that Kerry is ready to take more risks than Clinton because he does not have future ambitions and therefore has no personal risks involved. His column ends with:

That kind of energy and intensity tells you something. Unlike Clinton, who may have her eyes on a greater political prize, Kerry has reached the zenith of his career: Vietnam veteran, U.S. senator, presidential nominee and now, the second-best job in the U.S. government. He seems hungry to demonstrate that he can use that job not just to advance U.S. interests but also to gain a place in history as one of America’s most consequential secretaries of state.

It’s largely a Kerry improv show right now. But with a little help from Obama, and a lot of luck in a volatile world, he just might get there.

Given Miller's previous writings, it mostly tells me that he is pandering to Kerry and probably would like being one of his advisers on the Middle East as he was one for Clinton.

b/ At this point, this is a question asked, not an answer (and it should not be an answer, Kerry has been SoS for not quite three months. The only thing we can judge him on is his activity, and clearly, his activity has been to put out fires. I have a lot of confidence in Kerry's ability and knowledge of the Middle East, but it is also true that:

- He is depending on what the Obama administration is ready to do, and, for somebody who tends to express himself freely, it must be sometimes challenging.
- Peace in the Middle East will be made by people in the Middle East. The US and Europe can push toward it, but if neither Israeli nor Palestinians are ready to do something, those will be wasted efforts. It may be what the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton have recognized during the first term.

c/ Not that often that American scholars quote Marx in editorials:

“Men make their own history,” Marx wrote, “but they do not make it as they please.”

This said, the quote and the paragraph following go to what I wrote just above: to answer the question Miller asks, we need to know the future. As people in this group know, Kerry is somebody very active on topic he cares about and also can be ready to accept compromises to make things advance, but this in itself is not enough to bring success, and, in an ideal situation, we would like him to be a boring SoS if this means there are no major issues he has to deal with.