–updated–
The Washington Times gets at Chas Freeman today by way of the 50th anniversary of the Tibet uprising, which led to the Dali Lami fleeing into exile (he was 23 at the time). –Photo by REUTERS–
However, like all who are on the warpath against Freeman, it doesn’t take them long to pivot to 9/11, the favorite axis point for the swiftboaters.
[...] Freeman is employing a classic “blame America” formula, saying the Chinese repression in Tibet is caused by the fact that concerned humanitarians in the West have drawn attention to it. He took a similar line in assessing the cause of the 9/11 attacks, as he stated in 2005: “What 9/11 showed is that if we bomb people, they bomb back.” …
Again, if there is found to be any improprieties in Mr. Freeman’s financial dealings that’s a relevant issue. But we should all wait until the vetting is complete before running this man out of the foreign policy arena.
Additionally, conservatives shouldn’t try to kid us, because there is a thread that runs through all the critiques of Mr. Freeman that has little or nothing to do with the financial aspects being looked into, as they are thrown into the mix as an aside so that Freeman’s critics can get to the 9/11 nugget, which Republicans have been using for political, much to their embarrassment, since 9/12.
The other fundamental problem with the collective conservative cacophony targeting Mr. Freeman is that this neocon swiftboating corp obviously doesn’t understand what realist means in foreign policy terms. Perhaps they should read carefully about this vein of national security theory, including Charles Pena, someone who has posted on this blog, and who I have heard speak. Just one aspect is its stark view of the world, as some see it, including myself at times, seen through the eyes of seasoned experts who believe that if U.S. interests are not primarily served then there is no reason whatsoever for any intervention or, as some would put it, interference. (Some conveniently become cafeteria realists on the Afghanistan front, saying that country doesn’t have any strategic relevance to the U.S., forgetting that any potential failed state next to Pakistan is most certainly a strategic importance to us. How we save Pakistan without investing in Afghanistan no one ever explains.) Of course, this explanation is only the top of the realist strategy, which can be drilled down to find many sobering tenets of a philosophy that is at its core as I see it, cut and dried and unemotional. That it’s also usually delivered in blunt fashion rarely settles easily with the politically charged and special interest driven foreign policy so often representative of American national security strategy, especially during the Bush-Cheney years.
You may not agree with Mr. Freeman every time, but his unvarnished analysis is something we should want to get to President Obama, because he is a realist rarity. To reiterate, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Freeman reports to DNI Dennis Blair, though he may accompany his boss to give briefings to the President. That Freeman will be shaping analysis is why neocons are worried, because he really is the embodiment of change.
Besides, it’s not like Mr. Freeman will be making the final decision on any foreign policy issue. The guy doing that is named Barack.
I don’t know this man Freeman(I’m reading more about him)) but I wholeheartedly agree that we need voices from all angles to form an effective foreign policy. It seems Bush cherry-picked intel and swept dissenting opinions under the rug, let’s not do that again.
SideBar:
By the way …
ALL THOSE claiming the President is doing TOO MUCH right now must NOT have seen the Obama response to the beginning of the Market Crash last September …
As I recall there was this old man who wanted to put aside EVERYTHING to focus on that singular crisis ( and he was rightly excoriated for being overly hyper erratic … )
There was also this other young bright man who claimed we can NOT put aside other crisis ( as little as they may be in comparison ) just to deal with a Major Calamity …
I believe the wise words of that young man was, ” The President has to be able to MULTITASK …”
That young man is currently OUR PRESIDENT and what is he doing ? …
That’s right … He’s MULTITASKING … ( and doing a heck of a job at it I might add … )
I’ve never been in favor of US foreign policy that is dictated by another country. Whatever our foreign policy, it has to be what is in the interests of the US. I’m sick of the politics that say we have to continue to do this, this or that. You know what I mean. Some how we have to show the world that we don’t kowtow to any other country for whatever reason. Maybe it’s time to put a little humanity into our foreign policy. As to stabilizing Afghanistan, it’s a must. If Pakistan fails then we have a problem if Afghanistan is in the hands of the radicals.
OT:
1 billion (with a B) shares of Citigroup traded today, up 35%… we MAY have found the bottom.
GeoT says:
10 March 2009 at 2:40 pm
____________
Let’s hope so.
Dow 6,926.25 +379.20 +5.79%
good day, one day.
I agree. Obama is in charge.
And that includes the banking plan, too.
On the topic at hand, please see Max’s post for the Daily Beast:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-10/obamarsquos-mideast-policy-smackdown
Taylor Marsh says:
10 March 2009 at 4:11 pm
Being pro Israel no longer means everyone else is the enemy. Israel is going to have to decide if it wants to find a solution they can live with and we’ll be there to facilitate. The days of lopsided diplomacy are over. Freeman seems to be someone withe a panoramic view of the world which is what we need.
Interesting article……thanks.
I’m so not an expert in this stuff, and what I still don’t get is that I read that Hammas is still lobbing rockets.
Yet the world opinion is clearly smacking down Israel.
I understand that this isn’t black/white, Israel policies need revision, settlement issues are clearly a huge part of the debate, etc.
But still.
It sure would be easier if Hammas stopped the rockets. Wouldn’t it?
I can’t see how we can do much so long as that nonsense is going on. The argument that the rockets would stop if Israel would just be fairer is nonsense.
There is not a cause and effect.
And the argument that Israel is entitled to settlements/embargoes is equally nonsense.
Anyway, I have no problem with the current policy. It would appear we are saying……knock it off…..while still giving huge money to Israel. Like it or don’t cash the check.
It’s obviously good timing.
And it may cost him the conservative Jewish vote in the future.
Freeman withdrew his name.
35 minutes ago:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hPNrbKzf2420IoOIBjDzqSGwh5Dw
That’s too bad.
I’ve got the statement up in a new post.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/03/10/swiftboating-works/