Obama, his advisors and the State Department


Tomsyl asks: Why do you believe Obama would clean house at State? No other president ever has. It continues to act like an independent duchy, free to spit in the eye of whoever's in the Oval Office rather than perturb the careers of the people there.

Mark Brzezinski, son of Zbigniew Brzezinski, for one, will get rid of a great many of the worst of them. ZB is now an old man, but he's still advising Obama, and his son is a good man, perfectly capable of wielding his father's cudgels.

ZB is one of my heroes. He, like me, predicted the breakup of the USSR, and for the same reasons. He was tough where he needed to be, farsighted and shrewd, and the State Department did not like him for his stern dealings with the Communists. ZB decried a good deal of the pantywaist pacifism which led the Democratic Party into ignominious decline. ZB also backed Bush 41 "the wiser".

To be sure, many condemn ZB as anti-Israel. This is the usual knee-jerk AIPAC crap from the usual suspects. Nobody here is more pro-Israel than I am, yet I will say this, Israel has greatly erred over the years. Friends tell friends the truth: it’s time for the USA to stop shielding Israel from every criticism. Israel is a parliamentary democracy, but the penalty of such a democracy is the tyranny of the minority. Certain hard-headed people have caused no end of trouble in Israel and in the USA as well, fear-mongering zealots with a Masada Complex, and they are well-represented in the State Department. We cannot be the doting mother who defends her son the bully from every accusation. Most Israelis long for peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians: the views ZB condemns are a distinct minority within both Israeli and American societies. To condemn Israel in toto is unwise. The USA has a role to play in negotiating an end to the madness between the Israelis and their neighbors, and we must be true to our own ideals of liberty and justice for all.

You see, once the Democrats were tough guys. ZB wasn't a perfect man, some have blamed him for the creation of the Taliban, but I see other factors there. The USSR tore up the pea patch in Afghan society and it's never really been the same since. The USSR's brutal campaigns against the tribal entities made them all into what we see today: we forget how hard the Pashtuns and Tajik fought, how they died, and they died in great numbers, a rabble pitted against a technologically superior enemy. ZB was right to help them then. The USA abandoned the Afghan people when they most needed us, and the pitiless warlords stepped into that vacuum. Pakistan connived with those warlords and in many ways the war we fight in Afghanistan today is merely Round 2 in a battle we should have fought to a conclusion in the early 1980s.

This began as a statement saying Obama would reform the State Department. Obama is often accused of being a Blank Slate, and this may be true. I could be projecting my own wishes and hopes onto Obama: I cannot say I am not, yet not all hope is vain. I see something within Obama others may not, an opinion shaped by his old advisor Zbig Brzezinski and his son Mark. I see shades of Scoop Jackson, a name perhaps too far back in history for some of you to remember: a Democrat with the will to fight. Scoop Jackson was a vastly imperfect man, I do not see all of Henry Jackson in Obama, but there’s a scent of him in the air. Obama will not be one of your Daddy’s Democrats, the usual pusillanimous McGovern-ite weaklings who tainted the party with their craven kowtowing to assorted Communists. Obama, for all his newness, represents something very old in American politics, a wily know-nothing intellectual who has surrounded himself with men who will not kowtow to the threats we face today from the Islamists.

Obama is a political animal, a geopolitical animal. He plays a dangerous game in Europe, seemingly trespassing on the mandate of the president to conduct statecraft. It is an act of astonishing hubris. Bush is a lame duck, but the foxes usually wait for the duck to die before moving in. Obama has already starting pulling feathers off the bird. The Bush Administration can splutter in rage, but there’s nothing they can do. They used up all the goodwill generated by 9/11, sneering at Old Europe.

Europe may be old, but every year the Hochschulen graduate new classes of engineers and scientists. We have lost technical supremacy in physics to CERN, and a new tier of fiber optics will pump 15 petabytes of data from the world’s best collider all over Europe. We have lost intellectual supremacy, we have lost market supremacy and we have lost moral supremacy. Reforming our country to face the new challenges of China and Russia, societies lacking the niceties of freedom we enjoy in the USA will require a thorough housecleaning, beginning in the Department of State, our face to the world.

--

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Agreed on Israel. (#104661)
by tomsyl

A strange phenomenon I've observed over the years: many non-Jews in this country are more uncritically supportive of Israel than American Jews are. I don't know why: maybe most of us are hawkish on the subject, while they are more liberal, and have a religious angle on the country we don't grasp. Maybe my view of the country as an oasis of democracy and reason in a vast desert of corrupt dictatorships is romantically simplistic. Maybe the rampant corruption in the Israeli government taints their views more than mine. Or their ambivalence could be linked to what the recent references here to Benny Morris remind us of: Israel as a state is still too young to be entirely comfortable in it's own history.

But lately, and particularly w/r/t the issue of Iran, I've started asking myself a simple question: how often has the US acted at the prompting of the Israelis, and taken positions in the Mideast that are substantially and materially detrimental to American interests there? Answering that question on a case-by-case basis is beyond me at this point, but I know the answer is that we have done that many times in the past, just as we will continue to favor their interests in the region over ours, wittingly or not, in any future administration.

My wife was in national security contract work and and had colleagues who liased with the Israel security types on joint intel exercises. They found their Israeli counterparts to be astoundingly arrogant and condescending, and wholly unpleasant to deal with. A paternalistic attitude that seemed to pervade their views of us from top to bottom. I've met some of the security people from India and Sri Lanka and they are the precise opposite. I suggested that she mention Lillehammer the next time some Mossad type came on as if they could do no wrong.

I always liked Brzezinski, even though I always misspelled his name. He seemed to me one of the most intelligent yet pragmatic guys to ever hold the post, and a guy who could be very tough when pushed or provoked. I think the Russians may have understood that dymanic better than Americans did. Baker, Albright and Rice are pitiful shadows. Powell was Kissinger cast small: a man with his own agenda, but lacking the smarts and guile of the Machiavelli of the Twentieth Century.

We lost the lead to CERN in advanced physics when the Texas Superconducting Supercollider became a political football instead of an essential research advancement necessary to keep our preeminence in particle physics. That project would have had acceleration capabilities on the order of 40+ tera-electron volts; CERN's latest only manages 14 TeV. Contemptuous behavior by the usual pol suspects, who were confident that the significance of that project would never be understood by the voters. We won't regain the lead unless someone has the courage to revive that project.

--

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

There will be alot of cleaning and I would bet it is on (#104642)
by Davinci

Competency to a greater degree than the normal changing of the party.. I bet Obama takes more than a handfull of conservatives that are competent... I might also be projecting but I think he does bring a bit of post partisan outlook to the job.. Their will be the unending arguments by interest groups but I think we will see many improvements... A work in progress is what America has always been IMHO..

Churchill comes to mind...
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.”

--

Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your

Hard to quantify "competent" in this line of work. (#104652)
by BlaiseP

The old hacks at State have their virtues, and many of the most obstreperous are the most useful. State has endured some savage funding cuts of late, and many good people are leaving. The intelligence services, more precisely, the parasitic tapeworms of the contracting services they use, are grabbing anyone with a passing familiarity with Arabic or any Middle Eastern language, I get interesting job offers all the time.

State is a job where seniority is important. Oh, at the higher levels, I expect Obama to give the worst of these partisan hacks the Bum's Rush. But down deep in the embassies, he'd be well-served to retain as many of the old-timers as he can, promote the competent and get rid of the hacks.

Ambassadorships have always been political plums, awarded to people who can't even speak the language. Look at the current ambassador to France, Craig Stapleton. Used to be co-owner of the Texas Rangers with Dubyah. The man can't speak French! He's a patent jackass, just another factotum, a dunce, a well-heeled partisan lunatick. He has no business in France. He's just another Bush Embarrassment.

At the very least, I would expect Obama to appoint someone who can actually speak French to that ambassadorship. France, for better or worse, has been a great friend to the USA over the years, and the current French government is pro-American.

Will Obama reform State? Maybe, as others have observed, State will push back. But maybe not. If Obama took the old boys and girls at State seriously, (and nobody has in modern times), Obama might actually tune up that engine of incompetence, that sinecure of wickedness.

Justice may need deep cleansing (#104602)
by Bill White

more than State.

--

Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.

Justice is its own ball of wax. (#104695)
by BlaiseP

I have no clue where to start with an informed opinion.

DOJ has changed over the Bush years. It was always a collection of other agencies, with many different mandates. Many of those have disappeared into the Department of Homeland Security, which ought to be abolished tomorrow but will likely remain with us until the sun burns out, becoming the Jabba the Hutt of Big Gummint. Who knows? Newtonian physics also applies to gummint, force equals mass times acceleration: DHS may yet gobble up yet more of DoJ before all is said and done, unless someone has the political will to budge DHS, a task probably beyond the abilities of anyone save The Almighty, and you'd have give him a good running start.

The problem isn't so much DoJ as it it is the cluster of world-class Useless Individuals under its aegis. The FBI has successfully defied every attempt to reform that bastion of incompetence. DEA is in a world of hurt, they're overwhelmed by contradictory policies and a shortage of manpower.

The best approach to reforming DOJ is getting on the same wavelength as INTERPOL. Work back from there. FBI should be overhauled, integrated into a new agency more akin to the UK's reforms creating the Ministry of Justice.

The tendency has been to be apolitical at the US atty level (#104791)
by tomsyl

where I've dealt with them. The top job in each judicial district takes political cloout, but from there down it's a question of maintaining a 90%+ conviction rate, and the competition for the jobs is pretty fierce.

There might be more of a "law and order, throw the book at them" mindset on the part of the top lawyer under some administrations more than others, but with the federal sentencing guidelines there's not much a US attorney can do once he/she can convinced a jury to convict someone. The spate of USAs jumping up and complaining about conditions last year was very unusual in my experience.

--

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Umm (#104795)
by Spartacvs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

Karl Rove tried to fix that and anecdotal evidence to the contrary based on personal experience notwithstanding, I think the consensus is as Bill says, that it will take some cleaning out to restore that tendency.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Rove is persona non grata and always was. (#104802)
by BlaiseP

Even Bush calls him Turd Blossom: everyone needs a Lucca Brazzi, and Rove fit the bill. Now Rove's off hobnobbing with dictators, he's in his element. I fully expect him to turn up in Paraguay soon, along with all the other aging agents of idealistic despots. He'll hoist his stein of beer and sing Die Wache am Rhein with the best of 'em.

See, Bush's one virtue is a sort of feral loyalty, and it's also his signal weakness. He was his Dad's loyalty enforcer, but he's got a blind spot the size of Iowa when it comes to his own staff.

Rove was a brilliant and ferocious campaign manager. If words were artillery rounds, Rove would be a Napoleon. Unprincipled audacity of his sort is a godsend to any candidate. But Rove had no business in the White House. He should have been sent back to Texas, with the praise and thanks of his president, and sent around to help various other Republican candidates.

The problem wasn't DoJ. I still don't think it's DoJ. Decent leadership in the AG slot will cure most of what's wrong over there. Idealism is fatal in such jobs: a pragmatist is needed. Someone to provide some direction. Turns out even John Ashcroft was a better man than we paint him. See, someone like Ashcroft, a straight arrow from the old school, isn't as morally flexible as a weasel like Gonzales or Mukasey. Bush has had three, count 'em three AGs, he sounds like Nixon, firing AGs, or Reagan putting Ed Meese in there.

The AG ought to be the nation's lawyer. He's not the president's lawyer. He's our lawyer.

Decent leadership is required as you say (#104823)
by Spartacvs

But I wish there was some way to get modern Republicans to grant just one tenth the respect for government and its institutions that they unquestioningly allow everything military.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Depends on your definition of Modern Republicans I spose. (#104872)
by BlaiseP

It's not idle sophistry to say Bushco Inc. wasn't an entirely Republican enterprise. What the Republicans need is a board of directors who will look at the reports and yell "What?! These shenanigans aren't on the corporate charter!" somewhat louder.

And let's not say the Republicans are all that big on the military either. Look at 'em, especially at the way they treat the USMC. It's a shame and a disgrace. USMC does more fighting and dying than any other branch of service and they're treated like bald-headed stepchildren of the Navy, which gets all those expensive doo-dads. Let's not eeeeven go into their shameful treatment of our returning vets, the parlous conditions of their barracks, the grubby poverty of their spouses and children, the woeful laxity of our recruiting standards, the coterie of thieving contractors and corporate grifters, oh just don't get me started on the way the Republicans have treated the military, especially mid-level NCOs. I'd have probably retired out of the Army if I had the faintest clue the elected officials gave a damn about the enlisted military.

Recent Diaries
Links

Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference

Related Sites -

Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)

Foreign Affairs -

Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
The Head Heeb
War and Piece

Politics -

Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net

War -

Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog

Economics and Business -

Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture

Science and Tech -

Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb

Legal -

Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy

Sports -

Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist

Books, Film and Music -

Amazon.com
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide

News and Aggregators -

Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Los Angeles Times
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
The New York Times
The Washington Post

References -

Wikipedia
Your Dictionary