Slowly but surely Washington, DC is becoming a place where all the foreign policy challenges we face can be seriously debated. Perhaps it was inevitable that the backlash against the groupthink and self-censorship that marked the lead up to the Iraq invasion would embolden analysts who have long tired of the false boundaries drawn around discussion of U.S. policy vis-à-vis Cuba, Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan. These analysts are hungry to push the debate along and to encourage similar diverse thinking inside government. The President also seems keen to avoid the groupthink and bubble formed decision making of his predecessor (remember the report of this meeting at the Wilson Center).
The debate around the appointment of Chas Freeman to lead the National Intelligence Council is one area where we are currently seeing these boundaries being tested. Freeman, it seems, has been appointed to the position because he is a smart analyst who has a tendency to push back against groupthink. His appointment has triggered a backlash among some who disagree with his views on Israel and the Middle East.
Joe Klein, writing at Swampland frames the debate well in his own colorful way – please read the whole post here and Joe, forgive me for quoting you so liberally in this blog entry!:
I don't know the man, am only vaguely aware of his reputation--very smart but unorthodox, a bit too close to the Saudis, a root canal 'realist' whose cold analysis of the Tiananmen uprising suggested that the Chinese government would have been better served to nip the student uprising 'in the bud.' At the same time, there was the rabid opposition of the professional Jewish community--some of them moderates like Jeff Goldberg, others full-fledged members of the Israel lobby, like former AIPAC honcho Steven Cohen Rosen, others from the neo-hysterical Commentary crowd...perpetrators of the OMG nutsiness about Obama on a range of issues, in this case: OH MY GOD, he's selling out Israel!
Joe goes on to discuss the key data points that have influenced his thinking:
In recent days, however, two very reliable sources--at least, I find them so--have made strong arguments in Freeman's defense. The first was James Fallows, who made the absolutely essential argument that Freeman's contrarian nature is precisely what you need at the National Intelligence Council. (One can only imagine the sort of rigor Freeman would have brought to the disgraceful October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq...or even to the 2007 NIE about Iran's cessation of its nuclear program.)
The second argument comes from Andrew Sullivan, who reconstructs the history of the campaign against Freeman--and finds it launched primarily by neoconservatives, who don't like Freeman's position on Israel. Sullivan notes that Jeff Goldberg, who favors a two-state solution and has criticized the Israeli settler movement, bases his case against Freeman on a single speech. It's a pretty tough speech, filled with the sort of, well, candor, that rarely is heard in Washington when it comes to Israel.
Klein then goes on to excerpt long portions of the speech including this concluding line:
The results of the experiment are in: left to its own devices, the Israeli establishment will make decisions that harm Israelis, threaten all associated with them, and enrage those who are not.
and concludes by saying:
I think Freeman's been caught in the flagrant commission of a truth here. Especially now, as Israel concocts a new government that will probably include an anti-Arab bigot (Avigdor Lieberman) in a key cabinet position, will probably allow the cancerous spread of Jewish settlements on Arab lands and will oppose a two-state solution, I think it's absolutely necessary that the US government, finally, makes it clear when Israel is behaving badly (as Hillary Clinton did recently, when she chastised the Israelis for not allowing humanitarian supplies into Gaza).
So, in sum, a guarded vote for Chas Freeman--not that any votes will be necessary for this appointive position. It's time we had some candor and intellectual noncomformity, some abrasiveness in the too-smooth collegiality of the intelligence bunker. It is also time to resume the relative balance that existed before George W. Bush gave veto power to Israel's neoconservative supporters have over US government policy and appointees in the region.
Joe is one of many progressive/ realist bloggers who have weighed in and supported Freeman – not because they know him well but because the fight seems to be about whether Washington, DC will continue to move away from the Bush years and become a place where debate on the tough foreign policy issues is honest, open and, yes, reality based. Here are some of the other folks who have weighed in on the Chas Freeman issue and what it really stands for: Glenn Greenwald, Josh Marshall, Ezra Klein, Andrew Sullivan, Joe Klein, Matthew Yglesias, and James Fallows. I’d also encourage you to read MJ Rosenberg’s work on this and see here for some of the diplomatic support Freeman is receiving.
There is no doubt that on Israel-Palestine and the other tough foreign policy challenges we still have work to do to ensure that the debate is a more honest and open one. For instance I’d like to see a more detailed discussion of Sen. Menendez’s actions re: the omnibus appropriations bill. The Democrat told the Senate Majority Leader that he would be voting ‘no’ because he opposed the House bill’s easing of the Cuban embargo. Surely Sen. Menendez should be questioned as to the appropriateness of holding up a bill to fund the entire government because he disagrees with a provision on Cuba (incidentily one that reflects the President and the American public’s view of U.S.-Cuba relations).
And on India-Pakistan, I am concerned that Kashmir has been deemphasized by the administration after a public push from the U.S.-India analysts who do not wish to see the issue addressed.
Nevertheless, in sum, I am hopeful that the crises we face will encourage those inside and outside government to discuss solutions openly and honestly. The Obama administration needs to take the lead but the thinkers outside government need to do their part to encourage the search for new ideas to dig us out of the hole we find ourselves in.