One of the perennial issues that gets thrown around in the U.S. foreign policy community regards ambassadorial posts and the value of "career" State Department folks. I have to admit that I’m on the side of the career guys, particularly after the debacle that was the Bush foreign policy and its complete disregard/respect for actual experience in the field.

More than most, long-time expats know what it’s worth to be in country for a long time or to have regular exposure to certain issues. Political guys, whose value rests with the ability to raise cash and stick to a certain ideology, well — that don’t cut it when foreign crises erupt. The best example of this was Iraq and the 20-something conservative intern-ish appointees that the Bush administration put in charge of the occupation in 2003/4. Absolutely horrendous.

The post of head of the National Intelligence Council is a case in point. The name of Chas Freeman has been floated out there as a possible pick, and the idea immediately drew fire from folks who think that he is too close to the Saudis and too sympathetic to Bejiing. Knowing that these criticisms come from the Neocons and the pro-Israel lobby, my natural inclination is to go in the opposite direction.

So I checked out Freeman’s bio to see where he comes from. Here’s a sample:

• Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs from 1993-94
• U. S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm)
• Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the historic U.S. mediation of Namibian independence from South Africa and Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola
• Deputy Chief of Mission and Chargé d’Affaires in the American embassies at both Bangkok (1984-1986) and Beijing (1981-1984)
• Director for Chinese Affairs at the U.S. Department of State from 1979-1981
• Principal American interpreter during the late President Nixon’s path-breaking visit to China in 1972

Here are his academic credentials:

Ambassador Freeman earned a certificate in Latin American studies from the National Autonomous University of Mexico, certificates in both the national and Taiwan dialects of Chinese from the former Foreign Service Institute field school in Taiwan, a BA from Yale University and a JD from the Harvard Law School.

Look, I’m not trying to be a cheerleader for this guy. But come on, I don’t see how you can go after someone with these credentials, particularly when we’ve had such losers in the U.S. government for the past eight years. I think we’ve been fortunate here in China to have a very qualified ambassador, who actually knows the country and speaks the language (yes, and I admit, a foreign lawyer), but there are a lot of horror stories around the globe about other Bush appointees that have not made the US of A so proud.

This guy has a very solid record. The critics have been hitting his ties to the Saudis. Fair enough, but the guy was ambassador there; I kind of expect he would have those ties and even benefit from them at some point. Sure, it looks bad that the outfit he was working for back in 2001 was consulting on Middle East deals that include the Bin Laden family, but unless you are looking to score cheap political points, you gotta admit that everyone was doing business with the Bin Laden family in that part of the world, the black sheep of the family notwithstanding.

Freeman’s stance on Israel has also been brought up. This quote from a 2005 speech is held out as controversial:

As long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected. Israeli occupation and settlement of Arab lands is inherently violent.

You know, only AIPAC would consider that controversial. I would call it common sense, if not plain fact.

Finally, Freeman did make some fairly outspoken comments about China’s policy decisions in 1989:

"The truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities," he wrote in 2006, "was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud."

Indeed, continued Mr. Freeman, "I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be."

Apparently this was in a moderated chat room or something, so this was not some formal policy pronouncement or anything. I know people have strong opinions about this topic, and Freeman’s comments do come across in the worst cold-hearted realist way imaginable. On the other hand, I can’t completely disagree with what he said either, and I would definitely not cross him off the list of appointees just because of that statement (although I might want to know a bit more about what he meant).

I’m getting more than a little tired at the potshots being taken at well-qualified professionals these days. If you’ve had a long career, and particularly if you are a consultant or a lawyer, there is always going to be some client or some deal you worked on that can be dredged up (I’m thinking as much of Gary Locke here as I am of Freeman). As for controversial statements, keep in mind that these are being pushed by very opinionated folks with very narrow policy axes to grind.