Obama's choice for chair of the National Intelligence Council withdrew today, raising questions about the Obama Administration's ability to stand up to what is called the “Israel Lobby.” Chas Freeman, a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, former Defense Department official under Reagan, and President of the Middle East Policy Council, was well regarded in intelligence and military circles. But he reputedly was insufficiently friendly to Israel and was guilty of making remarks that were regarded as critical of our ally and supportive of Palestinians and ending the occupation.
The National Intelligence Council is given the task of producing National Intelligence Estimates, the consensus estimates of the 16 US intelligence agencies. It was a hastily-produced NIE in 2002 that convinced Congress and many others that Iraq had WMD, especially nuclear weapons (or was close to producing them). Freeman's straight talking style reassured many, including Dan Froomkin, that an intelligence debacle like the one that occurred in 2002 and 2003 would not occur again. He has been described as a gadfly, speaking truth to power, and a “one man destroyer of groupthink,” exactly the kind of person you would want in this sort of position.
This brings up the question of how close to Israel should the United States be? Isn't a little tough love between friends warranted every now and then? Friends of Israel seem not to think so. It appears that both barrels were unleashed against Freeman, starting with rumors in the blogosphere, and growing into accusations that he was on the payroll of Saudi Arabia and had coddled China. It appears to have been too much for the new Obama Administration, prompting a sharply-worded statement by Freeman that accuses the Lobby of derailing his candidacy in order to obtain "control of the policy process."
Although I didn't have high hopes of a revolution coming from the Obama Administration in the realm of Middle East policy, I had hoped for sparks of change. This development sows the seeds of doubt that those sparks will ever light up.
Posts
Good analysis!
ReplyDeleteI'd agree that, even 17 ex-ambassadors (some of them not even democrats or disagreeing with Mr. Freeman methods) backed Freeman's nomination.
But it was the so called Israel lobby the one that made him resing. Of course, Ralph Emmanuel and Hillary Clinton for sure have had a word or two in this. But Freeman himself blamed the lobby for this in a statement to Foreign Policy:
"I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government".
It'd be good for America to dig further in America-Israel relationship and realise that they don't have to agree always with Israel.
And it would be good too for America's image and status abroad to approach that relation from a more rational way. Not only to improve the relationship with the Arab countries, but also with its European allies.
Cheers!
Javier
PS. Great blog! The link you gave me on Facebook didn't work. Could you send it to me again, so I can follow you there too?
Thanks for the kind comments. I believe the link is: http://apps.facebook.com/blognetworks/blog/musings_of_a_slacker_wonk_ette/
ReplyDelete