Freeman Bows Out
I wrote about Chas Freeman, Obama’s nominee for the U.S. National Intelligence Council, a while back. I never heard of this guy but was impressed by his stellar CV, particularly his China track record. Although he is much more of a realist than I am, I explained that after 8 years of the Bush Administration, having a well-qualified career type like Freeman was a solid pick.
The critics were vocal and eventually prevailed. It would be a waste of time to go through a lot of the reporting on this, but I do commend anyone with an interest on this topic to Jim Fallows, particularly this post.
The criticism focused on three things: Freeman’s ties to Saudi Arabia (he had been an Ambassador there), his support of Beijing, and his views toward Israel. After reading a lot of the reporting on this whole thing, let me just say that all the talk about China and Saudi Arabia was complete bullshit. This was about Israel from the beginning, and to be blunt, this nomination was killed by AIPAC, the pro-Israel U.S. lobbying group.
Getting away from China for a moment, as a Jew, I support the State of Israel and the policies it needs to follow to survive, and I’m probably not as sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than a lot of people I know. I also can’t stand the one-sided international criticism of Israel as somehow being the world’s worst human rights offender while ignoring other nations whose track records are much worse. Just look at the history of UN resolutions against Israel, and you’ll get the idea.
All that being said, I would like to note for the record that U.S. Middle East policy has been one sided for the past 30 years and needs to change, to be more balanced. The ridiculously pro-Israel U.S. policy simply makes little sense from a strategic point of view, and the influence of lobbyists in this area is not at all healthy. And don’t tell me that U.S. support of Israel has everything to do with its status as a democracy — the U.S. has never really followed such an ideological global strategy.
It seems quite clear that no U.S. politician or official can say anything critical of Israel or they will feel the wrath of AIPAC. This is shameful, particularly in a sensitive foreign policy area like the Middle East that has world-wide implications. I think Freeman was treated unfairly, and he certainly seems to be pissed off in a big way:
I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign. (further remarks here)
I know that this is tough language for a public figure and that some will be taken aback by his bluntness. I’m sure that Senators Schumer and Lieberman will not like this, not to mention all the AIPAC lobbyists that will be trying to get on the cable news networks to push their viewpoint. If all of this did not already feel like a slimy political hit job, take a gander at this tidbit.
The Obama Administration and Freeman should have been more prepared to defend themselves and this appointment decision. Instead they were caught flat-footed, and shows either a naivete or lack of planning and due diligence on potential obstacles (in this case, AIPAC) in terms of appointments, that seems to be all too common so far in this administration.
I definitely agree with that. The folks in charge of vetting and strategy have a poor track record thus far. Let’s hope that they get better as the Obama Administration goes on.
That’s a great speech he made. His intelligence and experience clearly show. He’ll be a big loss to that post.
I don’t think that this is a vetting issue. Political appointees should not, in an ideal world, need to defend themselves against this sort of attack. The problem is the political system which is based upon such an adversarial culture, where the smallest of things are blown up to epic proportions, and lies are woven out of selectively chosen quotes.
Basically, the US political system is broken.
Lobbyists like AIPAC are a part of the problem. These are unelected groups who are able to dictate the people who are chosen for political positions. This simply isn’t democracy.
Since 9/11, there has been a lot of call for mainstream muslims to find their voice and denounce the extremist elements in their communities. It seems to me that the mainstream Jewish community needs to do the same thing. Of course the US shouldn’t abandon Israel, considering the hostility of her neighbours, but there is a lot of positive criticism that is urgently needed. The US is the only country in a position to give that, but is unfortunately also the country most unlikely to be able to do so.
If we need an example of the success of negotiation, we can simply look at Northern Ireland, where this week ex-terrorists and murderers have condemned the killing of soldiers and police as treachery. This language would have been unthinkable 10 years ago, and that those politicians can now use that language shows what huge steps have been taken.
The US and Israel’s inability to achieve this is an awful failing.