Blogs and Stories
A Moment for Hillary's Inner Wonk
Mark Wilson / Getty Images
Obama’s erstwhile rival has been entrusted with his top national-security priority, but she still can’t get any press. So her nuclear-policy speech was the perfect time to surrender to her inner wonk, says former Clinton speechwriter Heather Hurlburt.
The old adage “the urgent drives out the important” was in overdrive on Wednesday. Secretary of State Clinton gave a speech about what is perhaps the most important security issue the United States faces, and certainly the issue that as a senator, candidate, and president, Barack Obama has indicated he cares about most. And did Americans read about it? No. But perhaps—in terms of what matters most to keep us safe in the decades ahead—we should.
It makes for great cocktail-party chatter—and is, in fact, true—that we face no security threat greater than nuclear weapons. Think about it: Would we care about North Korea if it didn’t have the bomb? Only as a post-dated communist collectors’ item, and a humanitarian tragedy. Pakistan without the bomb? A mess, but not an existential one. Even Afghanistan, if we weren’t concerned about extremist groups building strength across the border to go after Pakistan’s government and weapons, would slip down the to-do list a notch or two.
It seems like the makings of a great news story: Obama entrusts his highest national-security priority to his erstwhile rival, whom he battled so bitterly on national security. But no, not so much.
So the agenda to reduce, control, and ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons has unbelievable bipartisan support—former secretaries of State and Defense, national security advisers, senators, generals. Chuck Hagel, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lee Hamilton, and Tony Zinni all support working to eliminate nuclear weapons.
The anti-nuclear push, by the way, is also hugely popular internationally and wins the U.S. much goodwill on other issues when we take it seriously—not to mention being the deciding factor, or so the committee said, in winning Obama a Nobel.
But, and there is always a but, it is wonky beyond belief. Are many Americans thinking about how our stance on the NPR, or the QDR, or the RRW, is going to affect the atmosphere at the prepcom for the revcon on the NPT? Probably not. But one question we should be asking is: How does what we do with all these initials at the U.N. help us with Iran and North Korea?
The secretary of State to the rescue. Her inner wonk is never far below the surface, and she embraced it fully Wednesday. In sum, Secretary Clinton’s to-do list:
1. Make major speech drawing comprehensive connections among U.S. core national-security interests, key regional threats, and global efforts to construct rules and sanctions around the possession and use of nuclear weapons—Obama’s highest personal national-security priority. Spank North Koreans and Iranians. Signal significant update to how U.S. views role of nuclear weapons.
2. Observe almost nonexistent press coverage of same.
3. Grant five more interviews to reporters wondering whether she isn’t marginalized, and how she is spending her time.
4. Emit trademark deep chuckle, go out for a drink.
5. Repeat.
Seriously. Obama has made, as Fareed Zakaria observes, an “all-in” bet that the U.S. can be a more cooperative player in the international system and make that pay off for our national security. He has also bet, as Zakaria would surely agree, that he can twin that international cooperation with pretty tough national-security stances, even tough love to the international community, and make that pay off.









It was on C-SPAN. I heard it with my own two ears.
No sane person would be against the reduction of nuclear weapons all over the world. That would be like being against motherhood.
To be sure, there are probably some crazos on the Rabid Right and among the C Street Boys who want to build more nukes, but they cannot possibly have any rational arguments for advocating such a policy.
We should get together with the Rooskies and the shiny Cheyenne-Easy in a seek writ summit - then announce to all the other countries in the world we are going gun collecting.
Everyone is giving up their nooks or we are going to come and get them.
After we collect everyone else's nooks we are going to get rid of ours. This long term world policy could take twenty years and keep all the military employed.
michaelslevinson.com
HELLO ??? Anybody in the media or D.C. listening ? IT'S CALLED 'JOBS' STUPID ! People are loosing or afraid of loosing their jobs. And many of the ones who have jobs know they can't exactly change jobs. Oh yeah, then there's forced pay cuts and all the rest. I know it's hard for you to tell, but many people are just barely getting by.
Like Mike Tyson said, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
Who is this woman? I thought obama made her disappear. Where in the world is hillary clinton. Oh look, obama gave hillary a nice little position to keep her out of his. (i better stop before i say something that someone might think is racist) . adios amigos, hasta manana
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.