Wanting to know how Eric Holder “become the most destructive member of Barack Obama’s Cabinet,” Michael Gerson recounts:
Holder launched his tenure by showing disdain for the work of career federal prosecutors when it fit his ideological predispositions. In 2004, a task force from the Eastern District of Virginia investigated allegations of misconduct against the CIA and found insufficient evidence of criminal conduct or intent. Holder ignored the views of these respected prosecutors and appointed his own special prosecutor, appeasing a political constituency that wanted the CIA to be hounded and punished. As a result, morale at a front-line agency in the war on terrorism has plunged. What possible reason could a bright, ambitious intelligence professional have to pursue a career in counterterrorism when the attorney general of the United States is stubbornly intent on exposing and undermining his colleagues?
Then he topped it off by shipping five of the 9/11 conspirators for civilian trial “in a circus atmosphere, with an uncertain chain of evidence (gathered on a battlefield), under a cloud of torture allegations that Holder himself has encouraged.” Rightly citing Holder’s rationale (some nonexistent PR benefit in exchange for risks to U.S. national security) as “memorable for its incoherence,” Gerson concludes: “Whatever his initial assurances, Holder does not believe America is at war with terrorists. Even worse, he seems determined to undermine those who do.”
I concur with every word, but let’s get real here. The way Holder got to be the “most destructive” member of the Cabinet is by Obama putting him there — it is the president who has allowed him to make this series of harebrained decisions. Do we really think Holder does all of this over the objections of the White House? Obama is entirely within his rights to call off Holder or fire him if he doesn’t like the war on the CIA and doesn’t want KSM and other terrorists to make a mockery of the U.S. Justice system. He can tell Holder not to make national-security policy by employing lawyers at the Justice Department who used to represent Guantanamo detainees (yes, he’s done that too). Obama could order heads to roll, including Holder’s, for dismissing an egregious case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party (let’s not forget that one). And if Holder refuses? Obama is president and can replace him.
So the proper question is not whether Holder believes we are at war and seeks to undermine those who do, but whether the president does. Based on everything we’ve seen the answer is not reassuring.
These exercises are meant for rhetorical consumption rather than read anything serious in them. Contrary to protestations Indians remains leery of Chinese intentions and Chinese actions clearly point towards their sub-continental game. Chinese are building up a ring around India(check Chellaney’s blog) and, as usual, their actions speak louder than words.
Though I am doubtful as to how deep a relationship India can have with US. The problem is the internal politics disfavors any such alignment–one reason the nuke deal keeps dragging on. Muslims and Marxist parties are quite vocal in their oppostion and form a formidable voting block inside Indian parliament e.g, the current govt. of Sonia Gandhi’s Congress depends for support on communist parties and vigorously courts Muslims for votes during elections. The centre-right opposition party, BJP, is, on the contrary, quite propitious to alignment with US and Israel, yet cynically opposes the nuke deal.
Perhaps reality will get the best of their electoral compulsions. For now, China benefits, with US distracted in its war on terrorism and its potential rivals, Japan and India, charting randomly for want of decisive US leadership.
I think the US will find it quite hard to curry favor with India – pun most definitely intended.
After Independence the generation of elites who took over India were schooled in hardcore British leftism of the kind you would expect out of Oxford, Cambridge, and LSE in the early 20th century – complete with anti-Americanism and pro-communism. The formative experiences of these young Indians became the formative experiences of the nation. This is why they allied with the Soviets in the Cold War – they thought communism was the inevitable outcome of history and disdained America for opposing it.
Some anecdotal evidence: When I ask highly educated Indians what they think of America I *always* get a very negative answer. I also hear that China is imminently about to take over the world and America is headed for collapse. And they dont just think this, they hope for it. Indeed, they’d rather be friends with China, even though it stole their land. Dont underestimate the delusional power of anti-Americanism.
“When I ask highly educated Indians what they think of America I *always* get a very negative answer. I also hear that China is imminently about to take over the world and America is headed for collapse.”
With the abundance of Chomskyphiles in India’s media elite and the liberal media here itself spreading pessimism about America’s future that should hardly be surprising.
“And they dont just think this, they hope for it. Indeed, they’d rather be friends with China, even though it stole their land.”
I won’t go so far as saying that they hope for it. But there’s no denying that the image of America as bully has taken roots the world over and people usually voice their discontent rather than think over consequences of their choice. The erstwhile Soviet Union benefitted to a large extent from similarly stupid thinking, during its glory days no less.
Being one of “they” I know countless Indians who would have nothing to do with a communist country, least of all China. Though the sad legacy of pro-Soviet days is that larger Indian establishment remains hopelessly leftist in its thinking, and yet send their kids for education not to Beijing, Cuba or Moscow but America. To give a gauge of anti-Americanism there, this should suffice. For one (southern)national newspaper–out of 4, Hugo Chavez and Chomsky are heroes, and unsubtle anti-semitism, a staple of its Middle-east advocacy.
But this can change if their is aggressive American effort to openly contain China. At least those on the fence, and there are many, will be forced to make up their mind.
I think it’s good that relations between China and India are improving.
You articles is very well written.