rssFreeman Loses By Winning
Monday, March 09, 2009 at 1:18 pm
- 5 Comments
At the end of a thoughtful post about National Intelligence Council Chairman Chas Freeman, Ezra Klein observes:
But for Freeman’s detractors, a loss might still be a win. As Sullivan and others have documented, the controversy over Freeman is fundamentally a question of his views on Israel. Barring a bad report from the inspector general, Chas Freeman will survive and serve. But only because his appointment doesn’t require Senate confirmation. Few, however, will want to follow where he led. Freeman’s career will likely top out at Director of the NIC. That’s not a bad summit by any means. But for ambitious foreign policy thinkers who might one day aspire to serve in a confirmed capacity, the lesson is clear: Israel is off-limits.
If anything, this doesn’t go far enough.
It’s not just that Freeman is bloodied or that the NIC is the final stop in his career. It’s that now every time the NIC issues a report on god-knows-what — but particularly China or the Middle East — Freeman’s critics will opt to say Aha! The nefarious influence of Chas Freeman! or What can you expect with Chas Freeman in charge or some other-such dodge. That’s hardly his fault, but it’s the way these things go. Indeed, the smarter strategy for Freeman’s critics should be to ensure a weakened Freeman remains in charge of the NIC, so they can be spared having to grapple with a difficult analysis of, say, the prospects of a grand bargain with Iran or what would happen to U.S. interests in the Middle East if there isn’t an independent Palestinian state in ten years. (By the way, National Intelligence Estimates on these topics would be written by the NIC officer for the Near East, not Freeman. But still.)
Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter
5 Comments
Pingback posted March 9, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
[...] reading. Also note this brief Spencer Ackerman post with a somewhat different [...]
Comment posted March 10, 2009 @ 5:27 am
I suggest that the Freeman discussion here and at interlinked websites is getting too complicated. A Freeman win here might actually be a win. In that more balanced thinking on the ME is being made available to the President–regardless of what detractors may say.
Why not take this small victory (if that is what it turns out to be with confirmation) for what it is?
Comment posted March 10, 2009 @ 7:54 am
I am all for contrarianism and free discussion. My problem with Freeman is that the guy knows how to disappear facts. My only source is his Gulf cooperation council speech. He analyzes the Middle East crisis but never acknowledges what everybody knows: since 2000, Israel proposed peace that was rejected; then they vacated two places unilaterally; in return, they got three wars started against them. I mean, I don't want him to acknowledge the whole package, or to share my interpretation. But how is it possible to just disappear all those facts at once? And then there is his mad talk about how the Arabs may opt for Israel's destruction. Let me give you a comparison. Assume an American public figure talks to a mixed Israeli-American audience and says: “Arab behavior may make Israel believe that the Arab states are too theomaniac, too fixed on hate, rage and revenge, and the only way is to destroy them, like the Baghdad Califate of old”. This would be outrageous, no? But this is an almost exact paraphrase of what Freeman said.
Comment posted March 10, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
I suggest that the Freeman discussion here and at interlinked websites is getting too complicated. A Freeman win here might actually be a win. In that more balanced thinking on the ME is being made available to the President–regardless of what detractors may say.
Why not take this small victory (if that is what it turns out to be with confirmation) for what it is?
Comment posted March 10, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
I am all for contrarianism and free discussion. My problem with Freeman is that the guy knows how to disappear facts. My only source is his Gulf cooperation council speech. He analyzes the Middle East crisis but never acknowledges what everybody knows: since 2000, Israel proposed peace that was rejected; then they vacated two places unilaterally; in return, they got three wars started against them. I mean, I don't want him to acknowledge the whole package, or to share my interpretation. But how is it possible to just disappear all those facts at once? And then there is his mad talk about how the Arabs may opt for Israel's destruction. Let me give you a comparison. Assume an American public figure talks to a mixed Israeli-American audience and says: “Arab behavior may make Israel believe that the Arab states are too theomaniac, too fixed on hate, rage and revenge, and the only way is to destroy them, like the Baghdad Califate of old”. This would be outrageous, no? But this is an almost exact paraphrase of what Freeman said.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
