Is HRC Revolutionizing American Foreign Policy?

Secretary of State Clinton is a lightning rod for criticism and praise as she commandeers the levers of US foreign policy. She's now seven months into the job and some are starting to score her work so far. If there was an A++, David Rothkopf would assign HRC such a lofty grade. Leaving little to the imagination, Rothkopf writes that she's quietly revolutionizing foreign policy. I like Secretary Clinton, and her choice of Anne-Marie Slaughter was impressive. When I read the article on Sunday, however, I rolled my eyes at his saccharine review of her first few months at State. He's correct on several points, especially how the media focuses on her attire and attitude rather than some of her accomplishments. I'm troubled by several elements of his article. Notably, I don't believe that the Obama administration is reinventing the diplomacy wheel, regardless of how well I think HRC might be performing. Rothkopf isn't winning me or a variety of people as fans when he praises this strategy: "In the same vein, she has opened up Cuba to American telecommunications companies and reached out to India's private sector on energy cooperation -- showing that this administration will seek to advance national interests by tapping the self-interests of the business community." ETA: On Monday, Rothkopf participated in a chat based on his article. You can read the transcript here.

From the other side of the aisle, enterprising Christian Brose obliterates Rothkopf for his head in the sand stance on the Bush administration's foreign policy. Writing on the blog Shadow Government at ForeignPolicy.com, Brose sinks his canines into Rothkopf's millennial article. In an appropriately titled post (What is David Rothkopf Smoking?) Brose picks apart the paen to Hillary and, with sufficient evidence, demonstrates how the Obama administration is in part picking up where Bush and Rice left off. (Of course, one could say that Bush utilized networks Clinton created, and Clinton capitalized on the Bush I admin's work at the end of the Cold War...but that could be a stretch.) With Bush and Rice, the US led the way on significant multilateral efforts to bridge the gap between the United States' long-term waning power and what Fareed Zakaria dubbed the "rise of the rest." It would be disingenuous to ignore the Bushies' accomplishments, some of which Bose helped foster.

In the closing paragraphs, he questions whether Obama and Secretary Clinton will elicit more progress than Bush due to the nature of international politics consisting of nation-states who fervently press their own interests over neighbors or allies. And while he's got a point, the administration he worked under embarked on those initiatives after thumbing their nose at world opinion, and there's room to question how seriously the folks on Pennsylvania Avenue and in Foggy Bottom took multilateral or UN endeavors to broker peace or prosperity abroad. Possibly Bush and Rice helped to create the scaffolding for a multipolar direction of US policy in the future. Nevertheless, they didn't do much to strengthen the foundation and accomplish lasting improvements thanks to the militaristic thrust of US diplomacy under Bush. No one wanted to and few could work with Bush, which was the product of the Bush administration's demeanor and not the zero-sum game that is international affairs. When one of your biggest fans is Mikheil Saakashvili, you've got problems.

It's too early to pass judgment on the Obama administration's diplomacy. It's obvious that contradictions exist as well as legacies from the Bushies persist despite Obama's and HRC's out with the old rhetoric. And what Bose neglects to discuss is how State suffered losses to the Pentagon, and it appears that the Obama administration is returning (albeit slower than I would prefer) the rightful control of diplomacy to the professionals and not the generals, as even Defense Secretary Gates proposed. So where are we?