Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Freeman is forced out
So Chas Freeman withdrew his nomination to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. The people who fed the debate that led to his withdrawal have cost the United States intelligence and policy communities the benefit of a truly unique mind and set of perspectives. They have also contributed to what can only be characterized as a leadership crisis in the U.S. government.
The genesis of that crisis is that we have lost perspective on what the criteria for selecting and approving government officials ought to be. Financial trivia, minutiae from people's personal lives and political litmus tests have grown in importance while character, experience, intelligence, creativity and wisdom have fallen by the wayside. Ridiculous threshold obstacles stand alongside obscene ones and when taken with the relentless personal attacks associated with high level jobs in Washington -- the low pay, and the extreme difficulty of getting anything done -- we are seeing even those selected for senior jobs turn away in droves. We are at a moment of not one but an extraordinary array of great crises and challenges for America and we are effectively keeping the people we need most out of the positions we most need filled.
The United States will get along fine without Freeman and without each and every one of the casualties of this latest hiring cycle. But we will ultimately suffer irreparable damage if we do not reverse this pernicious trend. Further, those who celebrate keeping out Freeman or any others whose views do not align with theirs or who feared his associations would do well to remember that the same kind of criteria can be applied by other groups. The result is not a government of people without conflicts of interest or troubling ties, rather it is a government full of people whose conflicts and ties are with groups powerful enough to protect them. This among other reasons is why I, as a Jew with a memory, was so opposed to the attacks on Freeman. But for the record, the most compelling reason I found for believing Chas Freeman would have been a superb Chairman of the National Intelligence Council was one that seldom came up in all the articles I read. I actually know him.
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
David Rothkopf is the author of Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making and Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power. He is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and President and CEO of Garten Rothkopf, a Washington, DC-based international advisory firm.
Thank you.
I think Obama's unwise hiring policies were the least of the problem here, but your point is well taken in general. This was a disturbing episode that should be examined and remembered by anyone seeking to get a read on the realities of American politics today.
Thank Goodness: Obama Administration’s Thorough Vetting Process
From Commentary Magazine's "Contentions" Weblog:
March 23, 2009
Thank Goodness for the Obama Administration’s Thorough Vetting Process
By Ted R. Bromund
I had dinner last week with a former student who worked for Obama’s campaign and now, like millions of others, is in town to try to land an administration job. His complaint was that the administration’s vetting procedures were so thorough that they were slowing him up, a complaint that made me choke on the excellent Pomerol we’d ordered.
I thought of his complaint again today, when a friend pointed out an interesting item in the February 26, 2009, New York Review of Books: a petition calling on the U.S. to withdraw immediately and totally from Afghanistan. One signatory, predictably, was Norman Finkelstein. Another, equally predictably, was Chas Freeman. That petition was published weeks before Freeman’s name was put forward as the arbiter of U.S. intelligence assessments. Now, naturally, it would never for a moment compromise Freeman’s objectivity that his self-declared political opinions are wildly at odds with those of the administration he sought to join. Nor is there anything even slightly unseemly about a candidate for such a position publicly stating preferences that would immediately put him at partisan odds with the President. Nor, of course, need we wonder at the fact that Freeman found himself politically at home with a conspiracy theorist like Finkelstein.
But I do have to wonder about those vetting procedures. Freeman wanted the job, but it seems unlikely that he informed the administration of his publicly-expressed views. And amazingly, no one in the administration noticed them. The press doesn’t get a pass here: it’s astonishing that this publicly-available petition wasn’t immediately brought up as a reason why he was profoundly unsuited for the intelligence job.
Of course, all that may be too generous. Perhaps it’s not true that no one in the administration noticed his views about their policy. Perhaps, instead, they noticed and didn’t care. In that case, we have to ask not about the competence of their vetting process, but about the sincerity of their commitment to the war in Afghanistan.
Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/bromund/59741
Crackpot
Any man who admires a genocidal tyrant like Mao Tse Tung and defends a nation of barbarians that is Saudi Arabia, is either a paid shill or a crackpot - either of which disqualifies him to be a senior government servant.
Freeman is free to go back to his barbarian funded sinecure.
he did no such thing
Of course, Freeman arguing what is obvious - that China is global power with its own interests, and that the U.S. policy towards China has to keep this in mind is not the same as excusing Mao's behavior. Then again, those Chinese do all look alike, don't they. So Freeman MUST have been supporting Mao if he urged concerned for guys who looked like Mao.
As for Saudi Arabia - while it deserves a good deal of criticism for the way it conducts its internal affairs, do you really want to get into the messy business of how Middle Eastern gov'ts regard ethnic minorities? Maybe you have not met Avigdor Lieberman yet.
Lieberman
"Maybe you have not met Avigdor Lieberman yet."
I have. We meet for Frapucionos at Starbucks quite often.
KXB - You know nothing, so shut up
KXB,
There's a saying - "If you don't know what you are claiming, don't claim it"
Here's an exact quote from Chas Freeman, dated 2006:
A man who killed over 50 million of his own countrymen, not to speak of the millions of Tibetans and other minorities, is an inspiration to "romantics"? This guy is a freak!
Chas Freeman is an intellectual whore and a person who sells his services to the highest bidder. His loyalties are clearly on sale to anyone who can fund his sinecures.
Appointing him to a sensitive intelligence post is akin to appointing a criminal to a lead a government task force on crime.
Someone did not break 1000 on their SATs
Brilliance is a descriptive term - not a term of value. Being a butcher of 50 million and a man who motivated millions are not exclusive of each other. And "romantics" is a perfectly apt term. A romantic is one who does not look at flaws. American hippies in the sixties who were handing out Mao's Little Red Book had no idea of the horror of communal farming. They believed whatever they read in Mao-approved media. That is a romantic viewpoint.
Someone feels busted
For most human beings, a person who killed 50 million people would usually be associated with adjectives such as maniacal, murderous, sadistic etc.
But brilliant? Tsk Tsk...
BTW, this someone was at the top of his Ivy League graduating class and can understand the mindset of people who tend to downplay the true nature of mass murderers.
BTW, the other land of neanderthals defended by Freeman, our friends in Saudi Barbaria just got on today's news for their justice system's latest achievement - a Stoning sentence for a 75-year old widow, who had the temerity to ask two unrelated males to carry her groceries home.
That any American would defend this land of savages is beyond the pale. That such a person was considered for a high post is beyond outrageous. Chas Freeman is an intellectual whore, a third-rate shill, who had and still has no place in government service.
Yeah, what are the Saudis thinking
Stoning is so medieval. Dropping American supplied weaponry on children's schools and killing 1500 people in 3 weeks is how we do it in 2009. "That any American would defend this land of savages is beyond the pale."
American Made Medicine
Yah - and if you want to go that route - American made weapons and components with which terrorists attack america - Boeing.
It's a rhetorical trope, mr. KXB, and it's vapid.
GED reasoning
If you can show a bill of sale from Boeing to Al Qaeda, Cave #14, Afghanistan - your comment would have a bit more merit. By that illogic - Google is responsible for the deaths of Indians in the Bombay attack, since terrorists used Google to direct themselves around the city.
Took you a while to get to your point: blame America
No, we don't need your ilk to head US intelligence. But thanks for highlighting why Freeman would have been a terrible choice.
Exactly - Loony leftists and anti-Semites are NOT what we need
For those with any sympathy for Chas Freeman, please read his vituperative outpourings in his "concession" statement yesterday and tell me that this man has the equanimity required for an intelligence analyst-in-chief.
Good Riddance!
It's caning,
not stoning, at least according to Marty Peretz. This is a perfect sample of the way in which this farce (I call it that because Freeman clearly doesn't give two shits about losing the job) unfolded.
Think, and read
Here's the essay from which that quote is taken. I think if you'll read it you'll understand that using this quotation as a characterization of Freeman's actual views on Mao is grossly dishonest. I hope you'll think deeply about this and wonder whether you jumped to conclusions too quickly about someone who has very sophisticated views on complicated subjects.
In any case, the other critiques of your quite facile point are also true:"brilliance of personality" simply means that his personality was forceful to an extreme. "Romantics" are those who become swept up in grand schemes without understanding the complexity of the world; indeed, one could call your idea of Freeman romantic.
The people who opposed Freeman did so by oversimplifying his views and spouting them too a credulous, incurious public. This was a crime against good government, and a crime against an interesting and brilliant man. Let's hope it does not have the effect that they sought: continuing years of simplification of our foreign policy into a world of black and white that exists only in the minds of those who can afford to distance themselves from the real world.
Nice try
"Sophisticated mind" and "Nuanced thinker" are sometimes alibis for people who rationalize evil. Chas Freeman is one such person.
Anyone that writes about Mao and does not start with or end with the observation that this man was pure evil and a blot on the face of humanity - is not "sophisticated" but an apologist for barbarism. Such a conclusion is further supported by Freeman's gleeful support of Zhongnanhai's animalistic slaughter of peaceful pro-democracy protestors at Tiannanmen Square.
One can only imagine debates within a Freeman-led NIC where career intelligence agents and diplomats bring up the threat of Al Qaida only to have Freeman talk about the "brilliance" of Osama Bin Laden and how pro-Israel US is asking for another 9/11. Similarly, one can see Freeman look at the carnage in Darfur and declare that it is insignificant and those people are immaterial to US interests.
Had Freeman been around during WW-2, he probably would have rationalized the Holocaust. However, that moral disgust of the Nazis was the key driver of our policies then and thank Heavens for that.
Nuance in policymaking is essential. Indeed, no one seeks a repeat of the Bush years with its simplistic pronunciations and shallow thinking.
That does not mean that we bring in people devoid of any sense of right and wrong. We can have a serious national security discourse on a modus vivendi with Iran and Syria, a fresh outreach to left-leaning states in Latin America and another look at multilateralism as an essential part of our security framework - all without making Mao-admirers, genocide-supporters and paid shills of Saudi Barbaria framers of new policies.
Freeman can exude brilliance in his Beijing and Riyadh paid sinecures and spare us the faux outrage.
Oy Vey
"This among other reasons is why I, as a Jew with a memory, was so opposed to the attacks on Freeman."
Such tsuris.
Bring out the violins.
I, as a Jew, have tired of people saying, "I, as a Jew..."
Advocating for Chas Freeman to get a job in government is not a Jewish issue.
Jews, Chinese, WASPS, whatever...with memories just as long as yours didn't want him in there.
And other Jews, Chinese, WASPS, whatever... with memories just as long as yours did.
As a Jew, I'm sure you'll get over it.
The Moral of the Story...
Presidents, and especially new Presidents, do themselves no favors by letting it appear that they can be pushed around.
I am generally familiar with Amb. Freeman's record in public life. For the post he was asked to fill - which requires someone willing to ask difficult questions, not just the ones with interest-group approved answers -- he was a worthy choice. Even if he'd been a bad one, though, Obama's people are doing their President a disservice by letting him withdraw his nomination under fire. A President who is afraid a potential nominee would generate too much controversy is best advised not to nominate him in the first place; the appearance here is that Obama, or Obama's White House staff, chose Freeman for a responsible post, was unprepared for the (entirely predictable) uproar from American supporters of Israel, and caved in to pressure within days.
This President, even more than some others, will be tested often in the next few years. That just goes with the times. He would be tested less often if he were able to make it clear, right at the start of his administration, that he sticks up for his people. During the campaign there were several incidents -- the one about a year ago involving Samantha Power, for example -- that suggested Obama does not do this; if someone (not someone really important like David Axelrod, but a policy adviser) puts a foot wrong and controversy ensues, they are told to announce they have become a "distraction" and get lost. I had hoped Obama would conduct himself differently now that he is President, and he'll likely have cause to regret not doing so. This little controversy isn't really about Amb. Freeman, or Israel. It's about Obama.
ZOG victorious?
Drum Rolls baby!
Chalk that one up to the Powers that Be. AIPAC Power! ZOG.
Childishness and ignorance aside - Baruch Hashem that this Saudi pigeon blinked. When the threat of a full background check and investigation into conflict of interests was made - he jumped ship.
Where there is guilt, a suggestion of sunlight is all it takes to push the forces of darkness (read Saudi Arabia, Jihadism, Wahabist Islamism) back into their cave.
But judging by your take, Dear. Mr. Rothkopf, this victory for simply doing one's due diligence, is a threat to Jews. I dissent - due process and procedure, are the bedrock of America.
Mr. Freeman's appointment has nothing to do with views that align or do not align with "our" own. It has to do with a commitment to America, and Democracy. But I don't suppose you, or FP will make even the slightest effort to illuminate your readership about the Evil which lurks in the theocracy of the Saudis.
Freeman unsuited for position
I don't agree with his views, but I was for Freeman getting the position.
That is, until I read his ungraceful rant as he withdrew his nomination. He showed an intemperate character, lack of judgement, and an inability to present a situation honestly and fairly, all character traits crucial for the Chairman of the NIC. He is clearly unsuited for the position.
Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish
Yeah, in light of yesterday's humiliation of US NAVY ship by Chinese, another sellout to Chi-comms.
I wonder how he'd have worded his approval if Bush used M1A2 Abrams tanks to clear Manhattan from the lefty protesters. What would his realism make him say.
"Still, for the record: I
"Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic."
Was Freeman lying about this? Or were his detractors lying?
I didn't think to look it up when they claimed he had been paid by the saudi government. I assumed if it was a lie that somebody else would point that out.
Who was lying here?
Spinning, if not entirely lying
Full disclosure: Like Mr. Rothkoph, I have met Mr. Freedman and regret that someone with his knowledge and understanding of the Middle East has been blackballed for being insufficiently supportive of Israel.
I of course cannot say for certain that Mr. Freedman has never secretly benefited from Saudi largess, but from what I know of him it would be drastically out of character. What is true is that the Saudis have given financial support to the Middle East Policy Council, which Mr. Freedman is president of. This does not result in any personal gain to Mr. Freedman, however. Moreover, the Saudis support the Counsel because they tend to agree with the viewpoints the Counsel professes; the Counsel does not profess these viewpoints for the purpose of winning Saudi largess.
Thus while there is a kernel of truth in the claim that Saudi Funds go to Mr. Freedman, the assertion that he is a bought and paid Saudi flak is a canard.
I am less familiar with the claims concerning China, but from what I understand Mr. Freedman is on the Board of Directors of a Chinese company, and like most any corporate director is paid for those services. China being a communist communist that in many ways acts as if it is capitalist, the govenrnment has an interest in that company. Whether this means that his corporate salary should be considered a payment from the government may be subject to interpretation, but I do think he can in good faith claim that in his own mind he has not acted on behalf of the Chinese government.