It's not simply for the sake of making a "team of rivals." He wants to do something bold in foreign policy and needs somebody tough as nails out front to take the heat. He may have in mind one particular issue, or a larger, multinational one.
Let's say that Obama really would talk with Iran. That one move would, directly and indirectly, involve dozens of other countries, each with their own interests. Here at home, the Republicans would scream to high heaven.
The issue itself seems ridiculous to me. Good night, we talked to Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev, but we're scared of talking to Ahmadinijad? We talked with people who had a gabillion nuclear weapons and had threatened to "bury" us, and we're worried about what's-his-face? Get serious. Ahmadinijad is not even the real power in Iran anyway. We should be talking to the Supreme Ruler, not him.
So let's say that Obama wants to do something which everyone knows is just common sense, but which will unleash, nevertheless, howls of protest from all the familiar quarters. Who do you want front and center?
John Kerry? Perhaps. Bill Richardson? Probably not. Or do you want someone who has proven themselves tough and skillful--someone with a good understanding of the military, someone with "street cred" around the globe, with a worldwide network of contacts and friendships, and, here in the USA, someone at least respected on the right on national security issues?
Comments