One thing that the Chas Freeman attacks have tried to erase is Freeman's professionalism. He served his country for four decades in many countries, through Democratic and Republican administrations, and lost a child and a marriage along the way. The Saudi Arabian chapter is an important one, obviously, but it was reluctant, and followed from long engagement in east Asia, famously as the interpreter on Nixon's trip to China when Freeman, an extremely verbal person (i.e., a great raconteur) who is fluent in Mandarin, was still in his 20s.
The reason I think Chas Freeman is a lock to keep his appointment at the National Intelligence Council despite the smear campaign is his connections to many big deals, including Henry Kissinger and Richard Holbrooke, the consummate operator who now has a high position under Hillary Clinton. I have to believe that Holbrooke is now working behind the scenes in Freeman's behalf.
I say so because Freeman has never suffered fools--he recently described George W. Bush as "leading the world's first genuinely-autistic government"--and Richard Holbrooke won his respect. In an oral history of his service, Freeman describes working with Holbrooke on an important speech about U.S.-China relations in 1980, when Holbrooke was an assistant secretary of State. By the way, Holbrooke is Jewish. Any suggestion that Freeman, who is a WASP with somewhat traditional manners, is prejudiced against Jews is nonsense, and belied by this character portrait of Holbrooke, the epitome of the Jewish meritocracy, thrown off during an interview in the mid-90s, when Freeman cannot have anticipated that he might need Holbrooke:
Dick Holbrooke has the most brilliant policy mind that I have ever encountered. He is someone with enormous quickness to see the political realities of Washington and understand how to use those to create results. So he's a very driving personality, with acknowledged brilliance.
He has succeeded then and subsequently because of that brilliance, not because of his charm. He began his tenure, before my time, in the East Asian and Pacific region by throwing out a great number of older people and bringing in people with whom he felt more comfortable. He paid a great deal of attention to personnel. I think he created, in the end, a more dynamic bureau by doing that, but he broke a lot of rice bowls and made a lot of enemies.
And he's infuriatingly distracted always. He would often have a meeting, with two television sets going, on different channels, and while he was reading a newspaper, he would be discussing a policy issue. He has a notoriously short attention span, but somehow the sheer power of his intellect compensates for all of that.
The Freeman quote on Holbrooke is a great find, Phil. Thanks.
I hope you are right about Freeman having a lock on the position. And if he does I hope he doesn't temper his 'truthiness' on Israel and I-P just because of the zio howling…we need intelligence people wihout any ideology or sympathies, not only regarding Israel, but for all the other hot spots.
"we need intelligence people wihout any ideology or sympathies, not only regarding Israel, but for all the other hot spots."
Except for Iran, of course. :-)
My name is Suzanne, btw…not Suzanna. Kindly spell it right. Thank you.
At Holbrooke's presser announcing his joining Obama's State Department, he gave a shout out to an old buddy of his from their Vietnam Occupation days. It was John Negroponte. Holbrooke and Negroponte killed Vietnamese together, and Holbrooke even joked that mission did not work out too well. Holbrooke has been given the task of doing something with Pakistan. Despite Freeman's endorsement, Holbrooke's past as an operative in Vietnam and his friendship with a ghoul like Negroponte portends a very bad outcome for US interference in Pakistan.
It is easy to support Freeman simply as a response to the pro-Israelis' opposition to his appointment, but Freeman's support of a former Vietnamese killer, and possible Cambodian killer as well, does not provide much assurance he eschews the use of hard power to advance American establishment goals.
Sorry, but you're Suzi-foo. The name accurately reflects the intelligence level of your posts to this blog.
It is easy to support Freeman simply as a response to the pro-Israelis' opposition to his appointment, but Freeman's support of a former Vietnamese killer, and possible Cambodian killer as well, does not provide much assurance he eschews the use of hard power to advance American establishment goals.
Absolutely not. The guy's no pacifist. But as I read a little more of his writings, it does become apparent that he doesn't think in lockstep with the typical imperialist mindset that embodies his jurisdiction in Washington.
A more realist perspective vis a vis Israel is critical to the well-being of the world at large.
maybe she's Suzy Q?
The perspective of realists is greatly over estimated to be of any use. They support US military aggression just as vigorously as neocons.
The perspective of realists is greatly over estimated to be of any use. They support US military aggression just as vigorously as neocons.
I don't think that's true. They're generally militarists, to be sure, but not to the extent that neocons are.
tommy, are you implying the USA's and Israel's respective realistic interests are always the same? Please clarify. thanks.
My implication is militarists, whether labeled realists, neocons, Zionists, anthropologists or accomplished linguists, choose military power to resolve conflicts. Using military power as a policy tool is not virtuous, even if the advocate is the smartest person in the world.
It depends on whether you think the West Bank is going to end up as part of a US sphere on influence, or part of a Saudi one, which might for instance be aligned to a UK alliance, conceivably not-US-centric. That in turn depends on who the Saudis are able to regard as congenial allies in reconfiguring the sub-region. We or the Europeans might offer a less ziocentric possible framework of alliances.
Looks like the article's title should be changed.
'Why Freeman is not a lock to keep his appointment.'