THE PLANK MARCH 6, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
James Fallows' case for Chas Freeman is much better than the "anything that's bad for the Israel lobby must be good" rationales I've seen. Yet it still leaves me unconvinced. Fallows argues that Freeman, while not the kind of person you'd want running U.S. foreign policy, is a useful "contrarian" to have around. But Freeman isn't a contrarian so much as a man with extremely rigid views that run contrary to what most people believe. If the administration was leaning towward curring favor with some particularly odious regime that offered a potential economic benefit to the United States, Freeman wouldn't take a contrary position, he'd be all for it. I think Fallows is reflecting the unspoken sense that "realism" is the absence of ideology, rather than (as I argued in this op-ed) a distinct ideological perspective that can be taken to rigid extremes, as Freeman seems to take it.
Fallows also asks, "would you rather have had more of this
sensibility, or less, applied to U.S. policy in recent years?" In recent years, more. But the administration in recent years was rather extreme in both its neoconservatism and its lack of internal dissent such that having an extremist of the opposite bent would have been useful. Likewise, you could make a case that Richard Perle would be a useful fellow to have around the Obama administration, but his role in the Bush administration was a net negative.
Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias defends Stephen Walt's habit of refusing to engage the arguments of Freeman's critics and instead simply tar them as Israel-firsters:
the habit of turning around and acting indignant when people point out
that what’s motivating this fight is Freeman’s views on Israel is
really pretty silly. When you hear that indicted former AIPAC director
Steve Rosen, The New Republic, Commentary, Eli Lake,
and Chuck Schumer are spearheading opposition to something you don’t
say to yourself “they must be concerned about the human rights
situation in China!” This is an organization dedicated to human rights in China and this
is a good government group, and they don’t seem very interested one way
or another in Freeman. You don’t need to read the minds of the
individual members of the anti-Freeman coalition, or question the
sincerity of any individual person’s statements on any particular
issue, to see that Israel is what’s driving and uniting the coalition
as a whole.
Actually, people who are mainly interested in Taiwan are concerned about Freeman. So are people who care about human rights:
"A capacity to make moral distinctions may not be a prerequisite for
being a good intelligence analyst," Tom Malinowski [of Human Rights Watch] said. "But for such
a high-profile appointment, it would still be wise for President Obama
to weigh the message sent by choosing someone who has so consistently
defended and worked for the clenched fists the president so eloquently
challenged in his inaugural address."
Does Human Rights Watch count as an organization that genuinely cares about human rights, or is it, too, a beard for the Israel lobby?
The problem with making arguments primarily about motives is that it creates a stupid and poisonous public dialogue. Yglesias, without specifically citing it, is responding to my argument against Stephen Walt, the co-author of "The Israel Lobby." So let me explain what happened here, because there's something larger going on. Walt wrote an over-the-top blog post insisting that Freeman was being "smeared" without linking to the arguments made by the alleged smearers or even saying what Freeman was being smeared as. Indeed, my op-ed explicitly argued that Freeman's Israel views are not the cental issue, so Walt simply told his readers that my op-ed made the opposite case. When I pointed this out, Walt asserted that everybody knows what these people really care about.
Of course that assumption isn't true. Foreign policy idealists tend to believe in the value of supporting democracies versus dictatorships, and opposing genocide, even if this doesn't advance narrow economic or foreign policy interests. Realists disagree, which is fine. But the problem is that some realists not only disagree, but have defined the entire idealist worldview as being about Israel. In fact, foreign policy idealists have spent a lot of time defending, say, Taiwan. Not as much time as defending Israel, but of course Taiwan's citizens aren't actually under military attack from China the way Israel's have been from Hamas and Hezbollah. Now, it's true that a lot of Jews are idealists, and that foreign policy idealism is a good justification for the U.S.-Israel alliance. I'd argue that Jewish history before 1948 has more to do with Jewish belief in an ideology that elevates moral considerations over power politics and rejects the notions that a state can deal with its internal population as it sees fit.
And even if you suppose this entire world view is merely a construct to justify support for Israel, there are arguments to be dealt with. Walt refuses to defend Freeman on his ties to Saudi Arabia and extreme defense of China, thinking he can wave it all away by shouting "Israel-lover!" at the critics in the hopes that this will rally liberals to Freeman's side. The method of Walt's argument is vastly more distrurbing than the substance. Walt is arguing that any Jewish-American who does not roughly share his views on Israel (which, of course, disqualifies the vast majority) is presumptively acting out of dual loyalty, is probably coordinating their actions in secret, and should thus be dismissed out of hand. I think Walt has come to this conclusion on the basis of his foreign policy worldview rather than out of animus against Jewish people. But it's a paranoid analysis whose consequence is to make the debate about Israel much more stupid and mired in attacks on motive.
You can see why Jews who do share Walt's beliefs about Israel policy find his methods useful -- it disqualifies a vast swath of their ideological rivals from the conversation, and it elevates their role, as the special minority of good Jews who are able to see past the blinders of their ethnicity.Yet what Walt's promoting is an ugly and deeply illiberal form of discourse. Yes, there are people who shout "anti-Semite" at any criticism of Israel, but this doesn't justify errors of the opposite extreme.
--Jonathan Chait
42 comments
This is another instance of Obama's hiring decisions—directly or indirectly—being maddeningly self-destructive. It didn't take a political genius to understand that someone with the tax issues that Daschle had was going to be a problem, yet Obama went ahead and pushed his nomination anyhow. Lawrence Summers is thoroughly loathed by a wide range of people, and the idea that he was somehow uniquely qualified above all others for his post is just silly. If Obama's people had had an ounce of sense—Rahm, in particular—they should have known immediately that Freeman was singularly toxic for a whole range of reasons, on top of the fact that he's hardly qualified for the post he was selected for. It's ridiculous to believe that in the whole intelligence community there isn't someone enthusiastically in tune with the overall foreign policy objectives of the Obama administration who isn't at the same time non-toxic. The problems confronting Obama are serious enough without all these unforced errors.
In the total context of all the people he has to appoint it may seem overreacting to focus on these few instances, but the media coverage they draw is far worse than whatever advantages these individuals bring with them.
- donhamm
March 7, 2009 at 10:41am
"In the total context of all the people he has to appoint it may seem overreacting to focus on these few instances,...."
Touche!
- scrubbyoak
March 7, 2009 at 11:01am
...curring favor...
I think that was the previous administration in your country.
- basman
March 7, 2009 at 11:31am
The main post, agree or disagree with the arguments--I find it entirely persuasive, is a model of superb public reasoning, advancing points on the merits, calmly and dispassionately disaggregating specious arguments, engaging substantive arguments clearly and forthrightly, and pleading for the uncoupling of motive from substance in relation to arguments made in good faith.
Impressive!
- basman
March 7, 2009 at 11:44am
Yeah, impressive! What's the supposed substance again? "Ties" and "associations"?
The reason why Walt can't focus on the substance is that there isn't any. I hear Chait saying realist and ideology a lot, but not much else. That listserv posting is disturbing though.
- benberger
March 7, 2009 at 11:59am
Yet again you demonstrate why Stephen Walt and numerous others - Naomi Klein, Stephen Moore, Amity Shlaes - should not mess with you, Jonathan. You are a brilliant thinker and polemicist. To engage people on grounds of motive is fatuous. It has certainly dragged this debate down. I have long cared about human rights in China whereas I have taken various positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict across the past three and a half decades. Chas Freeman and Stephen Walt have their ideological axes to grind and their stereotyping of their opponents follows from this.
- liberal reformer
March 7, 2009 at 12:26pm
So I wrote a long response to this, which seemed to submit without any problems, but it never appeared. I'm not writing it again. To summarize the main point: although a "rigid" ideology is indeed a disqualification, no one has yet demonstrated that Freeman has one. It has been asserted, declared, assumed and maintained, but never demonstrated, much less proved. Instead, through a logical slight-of-hand, Chait and others have conflated "controversial opinions" with "rigid ideology" and expect us to see proof of the former as evidence for the latter. Well, it ain't so.
- ratnerstar
March 7, 2009 at 12:27pm
I'm still not clear why it's bad for an analyst to be a realist. While we wall policymakers to worry about the moral implications of their actions, they never should get moral direction one way or the other from their analysts. Having a "moral" perspective from an analyst leads to them messing with intelligence to try to force a policy: see the neo-cons take on Russia during the 1980s. Chait, who wont' shut up about this topic, has yet to explain what Freeman could do that's so awful. In my mind, Walt is too paranoid (though certainly the biggest attackers of Freeman are the biggest Israeli supporters) while refusing to deal with the issues and Chait is too wrapped in his rigid views of the world to give Freeman a fair chance.
- kbecker
March 7, 2009 at 1:23pm
A tutorial for you people. All analytical lenses have their limitations, most definitely including realism and neoconservatism. Two prominent problems with realism are (1) It eschews morality as a consideration in foreign policy and (2) It tend to lead to arguing for the status quo and therefore, sometimes, is not even all that realistic. An example of the latter is Henry Kissinger calling for a US-Soviet condominium in the late 80's, even as enormous changes in the former Soviet Union were opening up new possibilities concerning the Cold War, et al.. Further, Jonathan notes that Chas Freeman is a hyperrealist, which is a kind of Procrustean ideology in itself. Joanthan has explained himself very well, to all except the tone deaf.
- liberal reformer
March 7, 2009 at 1:49pm
Very odd, ratty. I submitted, also apparently without problems, a medium-sized response on this subject on "The Spine", and it never appeared. Another round of censorship?
I don't want to repeat either, but suffice to say that in Marty's "Freeman controversy won't die" post he alluded to the alleged communist sympathizers in the FDR/Truman administrations. Most of these folks were purged during the McCarthy days as scapegoats who "lost China", leading directly to our fiasco in Vietnam--there were very few people left in Washington who knew anything about the region.
Chait, Marty, and the rest of the lynch-mob have used about the same tactics as McCarthy--innuendo, guilt by association, gossip, etc. A good example is his supposed "support" of the crackdown at Tianamen. A strict reading of his actual remarks reveals nothing of the sort.
I don't agree with Freeman on a number of specific points, if the sound bites taken out of context which comprise the bulk of the "evidence" against him are to be taken at face value. But this is a guy with a solid working knowledge of several places vital to US interests, and he's apparently not afraid to say what he thinks. We need people like that on the NIC, not ones that can pass some kind of popularity contest.
- Robert Powell
March 7, 2009 at 1:51pm
rp- the same thing just happened to me at the Spine. It's very confusing. I will say that, as much as I've disagreed with Peretz on numerous things, I've always respected his willingness to publish opposing views. If TNR is engaging in censorship on this issue, it will be very surprising to me.
- ratnerstar
March 7, 2009 at 1:57pm
Well put Jon.
- jet
March 7, 2009 at 2:05pm
benberger what do have you read by Freeman, what do you know about him? I knew very little before this controversy erupted--I'm not even an American--and checked him out; bias aside, the man soils himself with every pronouncement. Satisfy yourself as to that, if you care to. Plus you have conflated a very laudable stye of public reasoning in Chait with your (I think wrongheaded, but no matter) disagreement with him. A few minutes of poking around would tell you how Carter like he is, and how rabid he is in criticising Israel, let alone getting hopelessly trapped in the absurd conclusions his *logic*--when he is not doing is patrons' bidding--leads him. to
Bob, you are getting paranoid in your old age. Of course you are being censored. God forbid the world shaking ramifications of what anyone says in this cyber suburb get too loosed on the world and change man's destiny forever.
- basman
March 7, 2009 at 2:08pm
Maybe, Itzik. But you know, even paranoids have real enemies...
- Robert Powell
March 7, 2009 at 2:42pm
libref said: "Two prominent problems with realism are (1) It eschews morality as a consideration in foreign policy and (2) It tend to lead to arguing for the status quo and therefore, sometimes, is not even all that realistic."
Pay attention, because I'm going to educate you on how intelligence works. Broadly speaking, there are two sides to the intelligence coin: producers and consumers. Producers look at data (often gathered by collectors, but we don't need to go into that), evaluate the reliability of different sources, make analytical judgments, and write up reports ("product") that summarize their findings. Good product usually contains at least one or possibly both of two things: 1) a factual description of the situation of some designated target, and/or 2) predictions about what that target might do.
Note that neither 1 nor 2 contains the phrase "policy recommendation." Product then goes to the consumer, who uses their value judgments to make policy decisions.
Consider military intelligence. I got my start as a grunt SIGINT analyst in the Army, working the Korean mission, so we'll use that example. If we were fighting the North Koreans (technically we are, but whatever), an analyst might be charged with determining what, say, the 1st Infantry regiment is doing. Assuming that analyst worked all source, he'd probably look at some intercepted communications, some satellite photos, moving target indicators, reports from the ground, etc. He would then write something like "The DPRK 1st Infantry regiment is currently occupying hill number 401, and will likely stay there for one week while they wait for reinforcements."
Note that he does not say "we should send the 10th Mountain division over there to crush them" or "if we attack, casualties will be unacceptably high" or "Tienanmen square was justified." Instead, his report, containing facts and predictions, goes to a general somewhere. The general then decides things like "can I afford to send troops to take this hill?" and "will casualties be too high?" and "is it in our strategic interest to destroy the 1st Infantry regiment rather than the 3rd tank brigade?"
Obviously, the analyst might have his own opinions about those things. But if he's good at his job, he won't let those opinions color his analytic judgment.
The position of Chairman of the NIC is essentially "chief producer." It is not a policy making role, but an analytic one. The President, the Nat'l security council, the joint chiefs of staff, the DNI, etc ... these are the consumers, the people who end up making decisions. If you're asking about Chas Freeman's political opinions, you're really asking the wrong question.
- ratnerstar
March 7, 2009 at 3:02pm
Ratner,
It is really silly to suggest that one's political views are irrelevant to intelligence analysis. Even when one makes every effort to be "objective," political views dominate intelligence analysis. It is not algebra, after all. Taking large sums of money from some of the most important subjects of that analysis, as Freeman has, also tends to introduce biases into one's judgment. Freeman is not merely inappropriate for this position; he is grossly inappropriate. If we were talking about very low level analysis -- how many tanks are parked behind that hill? -- you might have a point. At the highest level, it is impossible to separate politics from analysis.
- roidubouloi
March 7, 2009 at 3:18pm
Great, apparently with Bush gone, the Democratic position on intelligence has shifted from "it shouldn't be driven by politics" to "it's inevitably driven by politics; let's just make sure its OUR politics."
I'll accept that the financial argument has more weight than the ideology argument. Of course, "large sums of money" is somewhat relative; Freeman was paid less by CNOOC than I am by my employer, and I've never felt like I've received any vast sums. But here's the thing: neither you nor I, much less Chait, Kirchick, or Peretz, really knows anything about Freeman's finances. That's why there's a) a security clearance investigation, and b) a separate IG investigation. So why don't we let them look into it before we throw the guy overboard, eh?
- ratnerstar
March 7, 2009 at 3:36pm
Moreover, roi, I'm kinda astounded to see you taking the essentially nihilistic view that objectivity is impossible. So we're doomed to never get straight answers from our intelligence services, only claptrap put together to advance one political ideology over another? In that case, we may as well just disband the whole enterprise. If we're never going to be able to trust our intelligence, why do we spend all this money producing it?
- ratnerstar
March 7, 2009 at 3:52pm
That takes the point to an extreme, ratner, which is unnecessary. Because it is impossible completely to separate analysis from the political perspective of the analyst, it is necessary to be aware of the political predilections of key players and to have a range of political point of view. And, because there is no perfect objectivity does not mean that it is not something to strive for or that one can therefore assume that radically subjective analysis is just as good as anything else. At the end of the day, however, it is important to have have top advisers and analysts who more or less want to go in the same direction you do. Because you had better believe that, whoever they are, their analysis, intentionally or unintentionally, is going to be supportive of their own political agenda.
Freeman was head of what used to be called the American-Arab Affairs Council, a lobby for foreign, Moslem, primarily Saudi interests. Do you want to tell me that if the head of AIPAC were to be nominated to head the NIC that you and the whole fucking anti-Israel world would not be going berserk? Come on. You are so blinded by your sympathy with Freeman's views that you are simply unable to see that his activities subsequent to his public service make him a grossly inappropriate choice for this position. There are reasons why there are rules against bureaucrats going directly to work for lobbyists. While Freeman did nothing wrong, and there is nothing unpatriotic about his activities on behalf of the Saudis and Chinese, those activities on behalf of hostile, foreign powers should be more than enough to disqualify him completely without regard to any specific opinion he holds or has expressed.
As far as Bush is concerned, he and his crowd were fantasists. It is one thing to have people who share a common set of goals. It is quite another to have people who delude themselves that merely having the intention to achieve a certain outcome is sufficient, that one need not have a keen grasp of reality and of opposing forces that are going to try and frustrate you at any turn. We do not need fantasists of any political stripe in positions of importance. They can lick stamps.
- roidubouloi
March 7, 2009 at 5:35pm
Only a philosophical naif would contend that it is nihilistic to say that objectivity is impossible. What is "objectivity" anyway? The view from objects? It is a Platonic construct. The "intersubjectivity" of the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas does quite nicely as a description of what goes on in scientific research and in academia, at its best. Objectivity would be the View From Nowhere, which even the philosopher Thomas Nagel concedes is impossible, even though often enough he pines for such a location.
- liberal reformer
March 7, 2009 at 5:40pm
scrub:
In the total context of all the people he has to appoint it may seem overreacting to focus on these few instances, but the media coverage they draw is far worse than whatever advantages these individuals bring with them.
George:
The "total context" here is little more than a self-delusion. Who gets go say what that is? Who gets to list all the variables that must be accrued and then conflated to qualify as a "total" outlook on Obama's appointments? Who gets to differentiate between "advantageous" and "disadvantageous" consequences?
The mainstream media thrives on controversy. Especially in our "mile wide and an inch deep" political culture. Here the likes of Rush and Keith and Sean and Bill and Michael are hell bent on turning the political dialogue into the Jerry Springer Show.
george walton
- iambiguous
March 7, 2009 at 6:12pm
My my response is too long and that's why it's not posting anywhere. I'll break it up into three parts.
Part I
Hey, I remember Thomas Nagel from college! I really enjoyed his essay "What is it like to be a bat?" although I disagree with his conclusion. In fact, being a bat is a lot like being libref, in that you're generally flying around in the dark, guided only by the sound of your own voice.
roi- In fact, I agree pretty much with your first paragraph. I would add that, while perfect objectivity is impossible, some people are better or worse at it than others. My impression of Chas Freeman is that he's one of the better ones, a position supported by people who know him well (see this: online.wsj.com/.../SB123621499240635319.html ) and contradicted by nothing that has been put forth against him.
- ratnerstar
March 7, 2009 at 7:34pm
Part II
Moreover, while it's important that there be consensus in government, it's also important that a diverse set of opinions is available. Freeman's views are more than countered by the people surrounding him. I also want to know how you guys explain Blair's choice in this. Do you really think Blair (and Obama for that matter) is unaware of the controversial nature of Freeman's views? And if they are aware, then either:
a) they've decided his virtues outweigh his flaws and they can mitigate any risk he brings, or
b) they agree with him, or
c) they're a bunch of idiots.
It seems to me that if your view is b or c, you've got a lot more to be worried about than Freeman.
- ratnerstar
March 7, 2009 at 7:35pm
Part III
As far as I am concerned, I'm not sure where the myth about me agreeing with Freeman arose. I disagree with him on many things, and yet, in reading his actual writings (rather than gotcha quotes and excerpts) I find him to be thoughtful, rational, learned, and willing to challenge conventional wisdom. Those attributes in that combination is a rare find, and I am perfectly willing to praise him for them while at the same time disagreeing with many of his specific opinions. To say that I am blinded by sympathy with his views is really quite ironic, since the truth is that his detractors are blinded by antipathy to them.
If the head of AIPAC (about whom I know nothing) were put forth for this position, I'm sure Walt, et al would be outraged. I'm not sure what that proves. Perhaps they would be right, or perhaps they would be wrong; in any case, their motives would be suspect. But if the head of AIPAC possesses the same characteristics as Freeman, with merely opposing opinions, I would have no problem with that appointment.
- ratnerstar
March 7, 2009 at 7:35pm
I have been following the discussions on Charles Freeman with growing anxiety. What does this say about the left in our society? They accuse Chait and others who have brought up serious concerns with Freeman's views on human rights, Saudi Arabia and China let alone Israel. And yet the left blogosphere only sees Israel firsters. The paranoia among the leftists about Israel, including a hefty percentage of Jews themselves - MJ Rosenberg, Yglesias, most people who write for the Nation - reminded me of Paul Berman's book on Terror and Liberalism in which he wrote that in France during World War II it was the left who joined the Nazis to support the Vichy government. This is frightening when you mix in a global economic depression. So let's see because of their "principled disagreement" with Israel we now have people who support equality for women, gay marriage, human rights lining up with people who support the Chinese massacre in Tianenman square, Saudi Arabia in which women do not have equal if any rights, the Sudanese government and their supporters (China, Libya, Iran and Hamas support al Bashir) extremist Muslim societies where to be openly gay is a death sentence. But it is the supporters of Israel who throw principle to the wind in their defense of Israel. OK. It must be Purim time.
- sbmike
March 7, 2009 at 9:15pm
ratnerstar,
Frankly, I don't believe you. But if what you say is true, then you are the only person on the planet who believes that serving as head of AIPAC, lobbying in the interests of a foreign government in a region in which we have a great stake, would not for that reason alone be an inappropriate choice to serve as head of the NIC no matter what his or her opinions or reputation for objectivity.
Someone, maybe more than one person here, made the point that the only thing that is keeping Freeman from being dumped is the anti-Israel lobby and the only thing that intrudes on it being self-evident that a man with his ties to foreign governments, and sympathies for some of the worst of them, is inappropriate to head the NIC is that Israel is in this picture and Israel bashing provides both cover and the motivation to insist on Freeman. That is correct in my opinion.
This is a case of the BIg Lie a la Goebbels. It is not Israel's supporters who, alone and for no other reason than their support of Israel, are opposed to Freeman. It is Israel's detractors who see an opportunity to damage Israel and the stature of its American supporters and go about it by accusing Israel's supporters of engaging in exactly the behavior in which they themselves are engaged -- that is, ignoring everything inappropriate about Freeman because of their single-minded intention to damage Israel. What a terrific load of crap this is.
- roidubouloi
March 7, 2009 at 9:53pm
Ratner,
As soon as you cite to The Wall Street Journal, you are in trouble.
A bunch of former ambassadors think that working for foreign powers and holding unusual opinions should not be disqualifying for high office affecting the most sensitive security matters? Gee, blow me over. Is it just possible that they too want to be free to find money wherever they can without forfeiting any opportunities? Do Congressman think they should be able to go directly to work for lobbyists who have lobbied them? Do Republicans think laws should be made by lobbyists? Does pork for Arizona pass muster with John McCain? Are you "shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment?"
- roidubouloi
March 7, 2009 at 10:01pm
"You don’t need to read the minds of the individual members of the anti-Freeman coalition, or question the sincerity of any individual person’s statements on any particular issue, to see that Israel is what’s driving and uniting the coalition as a whole."
Typical Yiglesias:
According to him people who care about Israel can't also care about human rights elsewhere.
This is a version of Freeman's own accusation of Jews who support Israel as citizens with divided loyalties.
Pretty sickening.
- jacksondyer
March 7, 2009 at 11:27pm
What is it like to be a rat? T. Nagel's essay is splendid and i have invoked it for years and years. His conclusion is sound. You are the one flying around in the dark, disoriented by your incoherent voice. It is you who has moved off the dime, I still stand where I was. Now you state that there is no such thing as perfect objectivity. What, may I ask, is imperfect objectivity? Plato on a bad day? Facts do not arrange themselves, there is no privileged perspective, every interpretation is contextual. On the substance of the Chas Freeman appointment, jdyer and roid have kicked your tail all over this thread. You must be going batty by now.
- liberal reformer
March 8, 2009 at 12:08am
Excellent post, sbmike.
- liberal reformer
March 8, 2009 at 12:15am
Andrew Sullivan writes:
-- Jon Chait argues that the opposition to Chas Freeman is largely about the rigidity of his realism, his connections with Saudi Arabia, and his brutal realpolitik with respect to China. And he has argued against the notion that this contretemps was initiated and pursued by advocates who are concerned primarily with Israel. I think this is self-evidently ludicrous. And it is not "bad faith" to say so.
Sullivan is absolutely correct to use the word "lucicrous" to describe Jonathan Chaits's stated views on Freeman. However, we should not be surprised given the ideological blindness demonstrated by Chait in each and every post he writes about Israel. On matters pertaining to Israel Jonathan Chait''s mindmeld with James Kirchick appears to be complete.
- ndmackenzie
March 8, 2009 at 2:46pm
Quite obviously, mackenzie, the support for Freeman has no basis other than the hope that he can damage Israel which makes an obvious lie out of the claim that he will merely be an objective purveyor of honest intelligence. The only reason you want him is that you expect that he will be a lot more than a transmitter of information.
It comes as such a surprise to me, mackenzie, to discover that you are a liar. But, it is not "bad faith" to say so. Nor is it bad faith to point out that you are self-evidently ludicrous.
Get off the planet, mackenzie. It doesn't need bloodthirsty Leninists like you. You are a plague, a pestilence.
- roidubouloi
March 8, 2009 at 3:20pm
It is absurd at best, and slander more likely, to suggest that people like ratnerstar or Yours Truly are anti-Israel because we object to the kind of politicization of intelligence his opponents seem to demand. It is a tremendous handicap to be unable to get useful information from a consistently reliable source like The Wall Street Journal just because you disagree with their editorial opinions. It gets a lot more serious when you start disqualifying real experts on vital countries because they developed their expertise over many years of professional contacts with them. I'm still waiting for roi, or anyone, to come up with something, anything, substantive that indicates Freeman is anything other than a patriot with a deep commitment to the security of the US.
As anyone who has read any of my posts on the subject for years surely knows, I am a very strong supporter of the State of Israel, and I know that ratnerstar is too. In my view, it would be a real advantage for Israel to have someone with his expertise involved in our intelligence analysis.
- Robert Powell
March 8, 2009 at 3:53pm
So what do you think, Mr. Powell? Would a head of AIPAC, assuming widely acknowledged expertise in the Middle East and respect as an analyst, be a suitable candidate for head of the NIC without regard to previous employment?
- roidubouloi
March 8, 2009 at 4:48pm
Freeman did not merely "develop expertise over many years of professional contacts with" China and Saudi Arabia. He was paid by them after he left public service. You may not find that persuasive, Mr. Powell, of a conflict of interest. But you should stop pretending that no one has stated any substantive basis for thinking Freeman inappropriate for the position of head of the NIC. Evidence that does not persuade you is not the same thing as no evidence.
It is highly ironic that defenders of Freeman impugn the patriotism of his critics -- repeating the Walt and Mearsheimer smear that they subordinate the interests of the United States to those of Israel, whether they are American Jews or, oddly enough, Chinese dissidents -- and then complain that Freeman's patriotism is being questioned. It is not his patriotism that is in question, but his judgment, a quality that one would think is of critical importance for the position he seeks.
- roidubouloi
March 8, 2009 at 5:15pm
This whole debate is becoming, thanks to the anti-anti-Freeman crowd, a debate on a spurious issue: whether the US is too pro-Israel. This is a serious misconstruction of the issue, which is Freeman's integrity. He is a flack for the House of Saud. That extended family is the biggest source of funds and support on the planet for Al Qaeda. It is absurd to even consider their paid representative for the role of arbiter of intelligence on Al Qaeda and other enemies of the US.
- teplukhin2you
March 9, 2009 at 2:00am
If someone who had served as head of AIPAC had been named by Admiral Blair as his pick, and had the sort of qualifications Freeman has, I would argue strongly that he should not be disqualified for that former association.
I have not written a single word that could fairly be construed as impugning the patriotism of Freeman critics. I think they are sincere, but influenced by their own ideology (and the shoddy treatment Freeman's ideas have been afforded) to advocate what is in effect the same politicization of intelligence they railed against in the Bush Administration, if in this case a different ideology.
Freeman's relationship with and knowledge of Saudi Arabia could be a real plus for the US government, and unless the official inquiry indicates that it constitutes a conflict of interest, I think it is unfair to consider it one. The simple fact of that relationship is hardly evidence of conflict of interest in terms of US security. I yield to no one in my antipathy to Saudi Arabia, but it's too damned important to leave to people with a superficial understanding of how it works and its key players. Ditto China.
- Robert Powell
March 9, 2009 at 3:10am
Good morning, Mr. Powell. It must be wonderful to wake up in the morning free of the ideological taint that so impairs the judgment of the rest of us. That is a concept indeed, that one's ideology might affect one's judgment. Fortunately, while ideology has that tendency to affect one's point of view, taking money from people whose interests you are paid to represent does not. Thus, we can all be sanguine that, if Admiral Blair has made a choice, it is all for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds.
I yield to no one in my devotion to my country, the United States of America, its security, and its success in a dangerous world. As well, I very much doubt that the evident biases of Chas Freeman, were he to serve as head of the NIC, would result in any policy tilt by the administration either toward or away from Israel, Saudi Arabia, or China. However, in the two regions of the world where we have the most critical interests, it is too damned important to leave to people whose independent judgment may be impaired by their previous association with, and service to the interests of, other key nations in those regions. Clear, untainted intelligence is of paramount importance if we are successfully to navigate the very dangerous and confusing political currents there. If someone who had served as the head of AIPAC were chosen for the same position, I would say exactly the same thing: grossly inappropriate if one's concern is the interests of the United States, first and foremost.
- roidubouloi
March 9, 2009 at 8:51am
Teplukhin has it just right: "It is absurd to even consider their [the Saudis'] paid representative for the role of arbiter of intelligence on Al Qaeda and other enemies of the US."
But for the presence of Israel in the midst of this controversy, which affords an opportunity for some to turn this into a question of whether one is pro-, anti, anti-anti, or pro-anti Israel's interests, rather than those of the United States, the absurdity would be perfectly obvious to all.
The interest of the United States is that the chief arbiter of its intelligence on the Middle East and the Far East be free of personal financial interest or service to the key actors in those areas. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. Unfortunately, some, despite their evident sincerity, may be influenced by their own ideology to ignore the obvious impropriety and risk to the United States.
- roidubouloi
March 9, 2009 at 9:38am
Good afternoon, roi. Yup, it feels pretty good. But then I work at it.
I'm afraid you're probably right about this controversy--if Israel hadn't come into it we would probably have lost the opportunity to benefit from Freeman's experience and expertise without anyone even having noticed. As it is, at least there is some kickback from this unfortunate attempt to politicize the intelligence process in the name of political correctness and ignorance of how the system is supposed to work, although a lot of it is probably for the wrong reasons.
One of the worst features of the current atmosphere in US politics is the tendency to ascribe the worst possible motives to those with whom one disagrees (although in this case I think much of the disagreement is a function of a misreading of what the selected quotes from Freeman actually mean, combined with a profound misunderstanding of what intelligence analysis is all about). We've been here before, and I'm afraid we'll be here again--Freeman couldn't possibly use his extensive knowledge of Saudi Arabia and China for our benefit because he (gasp!) once worked for and in those countries. Similarly General McCaffrey couldn't possibly have anything useful to say on military matters because he worked for a defense contractor, Dick Cheney only supported the invasion of Iraq because he had worked for Halliburton, and etc.
This is childish nonsense of the sort that put Paul Bremer and his merry band of College Republicans cum FEMA hacks in charge of the reconstruction of Iraq--they didn't know shit about the country, but hey, they said all the right things as far as the appointing authorities were concerned...
- Robert Powell
March 9, 2009 at 11:34am
I suppose you are right. There are only two alternatives for public office or service: people with their hands in the till or complete morons.
I imagine that you would have supported McCaffrey not only for "what he has to say," but as head of military procurement. Why shouldn't people move freely back and forth between paying government contractors and working for them? Protecting US interests vis a vis the Saudis and then being paid by them? Surely no future public servant of the United States could possibly get the idea that if, while in public service, you take care of the interests of your government's opponent or counter-party, rather than the interests of the government you are sworn to serve, that you might get a payoff later. No, these are all incorruptible patriots. The thought never crosses their minds.
By all means, lets put Chas Freeman on TV as an analyst like McCaffrey. That way we can get the benefit of his wisdom and he doesn't need to take a pay cut.
- roidubouloi
March 9, 2009 at 12:33pm
He could probably land a good network contract, roi, but the country would be poorer for it.
This question is as old as dirt. I really don't want regulators moving back and forth between agencies and the activities they are supposed to regulate. But that's not the same thing as intelligence analysis, which confusion seems to be the crux of the controversy here.
We need intelligence analysis from people who have an intimate knowledge of the societies and leadership of critical nations. I want to know the mind of the enemy, which I'm not going to do if the only people I talk to are those who start with an institutional bias against them, and whose knowledge comes mainly from a graduate degree program somewhere, if that. Perfect objectivity is an unachievable ideal, but it helps to get a variety of perspectives, most importantly the one from the other side of the hill.
- Robert Powell
March 9, 2009 at 3:45pm