Rivals for Influence on Counterterrorism Policymaking in the Obama Administration: White House Political Staff vs. Executive Branch Legal Advisors

The Obama administration has struggled throughout its first term to live up to its campaign promises to reverse the most objectionable of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies and to govern by “rule of law” principles. It is clear that most of these policies have continued, with minimal changes, and some have even expanded to include more controversial elements, e.g., targeted killings, well beyond the practices of the Bush administration. The most “signature” policy failure has been the inability to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. Efforts to accomplish this became entwined with two other unfulfilled campaign promises – rejection of the use of military commissions for prosecuting terrorist suspects and halting the practice of indefinite detention of uncharged suspects. Analyzing all of the reasons why the Obama administration has not rolled back these policies is a complex undertaking beyond the scope of this paper. The focus here isolates the role played by one specific explanation: the rivalry for influence between White House political advisers and policy principals, on the one hand, and executive branch legal advisers, on the other.