The Iraqi Ambassador to the U.S. writes an instructive column in the Washington Post which includes this:
Those who had descended upon Iraq to defeat the United States through terrorism, initially finding favor and support from the “rejectionists,” have themselves been rejected by the Iraqi people. Their strategy to ignite a sectarian civil war has failed. And though they still pose a threat to security, those extremist Islamists were comprehensively and strategically defeated in a Muslim country, a development of profound significance.
The elements in Iraq who thought that they could dominate and create a new form of dictatorship with the trappings of democracy have discovered that they must accept the principles of power sharing.
And, he adds, the elections have given lie to the argument that “Iraqis could not comprehend democracy and therefore could not abide by its rules.” He nevertheless is not pushing American troops out so quickly. Rather, he argues that “the continued engagement of the United States in Iraq will be vital to ensuring that what has been achieved is not jeopardized, though the emphasis will inevitably shift from military issues to economic and diplomatic matters.”
This should be an easily embraceable formulation for the Obama administration: 1) The elections were a success; 2) The violence has diminished but the U.S. still has a critical role to play; and 3) The risk and cost of a precipitous withdrawal can easily be avoided by, as the Ambassador describes, “joint consultantions” in accord with the status of forces agreement to determine the appropriate speed of the drawn down of forces. Hopefully, when the full machinery of the Obama foreign policy team is up and running the Ambassador’s comments will be echoed by U.S. officials.
There is a natural inclination, especially by those who opposed both the war and the surge, to be done with Iraq and “move on.” But now that the casuality rate has plunged, the central task has changed from anti-insurgency activities to peacekeeping. With the end point in sight, it should be far easier to be patient — which we have learned can pay off provided you ignore the vicissitudes of domestic political opinion.
“Randy Scheunemann’s foreign lobbying was a problem” not for the media. the guy was literally a paid foreign agent of another country and no one cared.
c’mon, Jen, this isn’t that hard to understand.
#1: The bad people are “right” purely by accident – they are due no credit for stumbling into “rightness” (stopped clock not responsible for having correct time twice a day, etc.).
#2: The good people are to be commended regardless for resisting the bad people, who are so dangerous that they shouldn’t be allowed to participate in government regardless. Gotta break some eggs to make an omelet …
speaking of paid foreign agents… freemans enemies list is itself a list of some more including schunerman
A similar replacement pick without the money/paper trail would be no better. As long as Obama’s fundamental direction does not change, neither will that of his appointees.
Yglesias’ attack on Kirchick wasn’t really ad hominem at all, but I understand why you feel the need to protect Li’l Jamie – his Uncle Marty can’t be around all the time…
“Word now comes that Chuck Schumer has expressed his concerns directly to Rahm Emanuel. I’d give Freeman until Friday afternoon when in a classic bad news dump before a weekend he can be shoved under that bus”
but theres no lobby
As the comments here, collectively, imply, it will be a mixed blessing to unload Chas Freeman. Obama won’t pick anyone better, it’ll just be someone with a lower profile. And unfortunately, there will be a number of vocal quarters in which the defenstration of Freeman will be characterized not as a triumph for principle and the national interest (which, in fact, it would be), but as a triumph for “the Jewish lobby.”
I’m sure the indefatigable Mr. Walt is revving up his typing fingers even as we speak. Oh well. Heaving Freeman off the train is the right thing to do. Sometimes you have to take your victories the way they come.
“bad people delving into his financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia in bad faith”
Priceless.
For the record, and in my self-assumed capacity as today’s ad hominem monitor, I agree that Yglesias’s attack on Kirchik wasn’t really an “ad hominem attack,” since Yglesias was essentially conceding Kirchick’s argument that Freeman is too compromised to be defended. It was however a mischaracterization of Kirchik’s statements and a typically ill-mannered and dishonest, gratuitious jibe from Yglesias.
Yglesias lashes out at Kirchik as follows:
Here is the parenthetical remark from Kirchick’s piece that Yglesias is referring to:
So, is Kirchick suggesting that merely “raising questions about Scheunemann” is contemptible, or is he suggesting something completely different? I’ll leave it to the reader to determine who’s acting in “bad faith” here.
So, Lester: two Jews make a lobby? Go back to your graphic novel of “The Protocol of the Elders of Zion.” Putz.
“And then we can get around to asking what in the dickens is wrong with Admiral Blair.”
Yes! That’s exactly the right question, that no one yet has asked. What the heck is up with Blair? Freeman was his guy, and it sounds like the White House is guilty more of neglect than anything on this one. Blair, however, a supposedly smart and savvy guy, wanted Freeman?
Blair has gotten pretty much a free pass from the media, from the Republicans, and from the public. He was cited more as an example of the “seriousness” of the Obama foreign policy and national security team. What are his thoughts? What does he believe? What are his priorities. From what I know, he was an Admiral who left the service after crossing swords with Rumsfeld. What was that conflict about, and what billets did he have while in the Navy. Do we have one of these Walt-Mearsheimer-type Realist kooks running the IC?
Warning: a successful hit job on this guy by the Israel lobby would have significant blowback. First, you’ll make the President look like a ridiculous Mr. Stepinfechit character with regard to the Lobby. Second, you guys have a big upcoming ask to make: ask for the U.S. to unequivocally support a right-wing government formally opposed to two-state solution and strongly supportive of settlers. While at the same time sustaining the fiction that it is Israel who wants peace and a just settlement with the Palestinians.
If one of the two states is an instrument of terror, what smart person would back it?
To translate the quoted statement in terms of what the author actually wants to say: “I find Freeman’s anti-Israel views so attractive that its killing me to acknowledge the overwhelming problem regarding Saudi Arabia and China.”
cfmulloy — my $.02 on Blair. He’s a primarily apolitical guy who was well thought of — in professional terms (naval warfare, leadership, seaman professionalism) — in the Navy, has strong ideas on the future of national security and defense, and did his last tour as the Pacific forces Commander, the main job in which Navy admirals end up making a lot of de facto national policy.
A brief note about that. The Pacific theater is different from Europe (and again from the Middle East), in that we — the US — are not as transnationally organized at the POLITICAL level there as we are with NATO in Europe. There is a well-tended political collective to which the US/NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe is subordinated. It is stuffed with US ambassadors and bureaucrats. That doesn’t exist in the Pacific. Washington tends to pay less attention to regional dynamics there, from both a political and a military point of view. Politically, the principle there is the “bilateral” relationship: with Japan (the core Far Eastern alliance), with South Korea, with Australia, now with India. There ends up being more latitude in the Pacific for the US theater commander to work directly with our ambassadors and with the individual nations, making ad hoc policy as he goes along.
A number of commentators right here at Commentary correctly regard that as a weakness, when it comes to China. Perfectly sound 4-star admirals go to the Pacific Command in Hawaii and come out 2-3 years later as China’s best buds. My perspective, from a lower level, has been that the mid-grade officers in Hawaii harbor a more typically American, skeptical view on China, and that the pattern of PACOM himself exchanging Valentine’s Day chocolates with Beijing doesn’t dilute the substance of our OPLAN preparations (e.g., for the defense of Taiwan). But with the tendencies of our ambassadors and Pacific Commanders combined, versus what Congress and even the president may be thinking half a world away in DC, the national signals do end up being mixed.
There was a single proto-political event that suggests a window on Admiral Blair, from the period of the East Timor uprising in 1999. Blair has become well-known in Timorese circles for giving heart to the national forces of Indonesia as they worked to quell the uprising — reportedly even failing to carry out Clinton’s order to approach the Timorese instead. Since I was at CENTCOM at the time, I don’t have direct insight on that event, except to say that Blair would have been acting in concert with the US ambassador to Indonesia. It would be seriously unthinkable for him to take an action in Indonesia (meeting with the Indonesian defense commander) that the US ambassador had not approved. Our Far Eastern ambassadors act with a latitude unknown in Europe, as well.
But there were no repercussions against Blair from that incident, suggesting that the perspective of the Timorese on Clinton’s own intentions may be imperfect. Blair ended up taking the public heat over it, as he apparently will over Freeman, but remained all the while under the radar. I do note that his putative role in this incident evokes the comments of Chas Freeman that the problem with the Tiananmen Square uprising was that the Chinese authorities didn’t crack down fast or hard enough. But there was a US ambassador in Indonesia, and it would be wrong to attribute the whole outcome of the incident with East Timor to Blair.
His Navy peers consider him a superb surface warfare officer and military leader; his strong opinions on defense transformation brought him into conflict with Rumsfeld, and my take is that substantive transformation of that kind — now in the intel community — is what motivates him. He headed the Institute for Defense Analyses, a private defense think tank/contractor, after retiring. He doesn’t seem to drive in political stakes, or get caught impaled on them.
One of my concerns, as a career intelligence officer, is that he is NOT one, and will understand less well than his predecessors where the mines are lurking in the community he is now in charge of. I don’t expect to see any positive transformations in the IC any time soon. Another concern is his attitude about China, unfortunately typical for alumni of the PACOM chair. Being comfortable with Chas Freeman’s level of embeddedness with China doesn’t speak well for Blair.
I did note, in a previous post at an earlier piece on this, that I don’t for a minute believe that Blair picked Freeman without the White House’s knowledge. Have to throw the BS flag on that one. Even if Obama’s team is so blunderingly incompetent as to let that happen, Blair isn’t. The president approves the NIC chair appointment, and (a) Obama’s people would, rightly, guard his prerogative vigilantly in that matter; and (b) so would Blair. Blair is just taking the fall for this one.
10. two very powerful jews yes. they are getting this guy fired because of his stance on israel.
this is america, not israel.
if he stays or he goes, either way I win. the future is going my way not yours.
J.E. Dyer,
Thanks for the primer on Blair. I hadn’t heard anything about him before he was nominated for the DNI post. It’s also heartening to hear that he’s an apolitical former officer called back into service (although I’ve met more than a few intel officers and analysts who, although apolitical, tend to view the world through the prism of the New York Times on every issue under the sun).
Also, piggybacking off of something you said, one of my concerns, as an intelligence analyst just starting his career, is that the IC is about to enter a very dark period. The community is obviously in need of drastic reforms, and one of my worries is if the reforms (especially dealing with domestic/homeland security matters) aren’t made, the initiatives and programs that are just starting up will wither and die on the vine.
As for Blair, I guess I’ll just take a wait-and-see approach. Probably wasn’t nice of me to imply he’s a “Realist kook”, but that’s a worldview I have serious problems with, and I believe can really set intelligence policy off-track.
Also, thanks for the info about the White House’s probable role in Freeman’s selection. I could have kept from saying a couple of foolish things if I had known that before hand.
“if he stays or he goes, either way I win. the future is going my way not yours.”
Yes, baby. Of course, baby. No need to cry.
18 me-ologist. just where did you get your degree anyway