Antiwar.com Blog

Dennis Ross’ appointment was finally announced today. This appeared as a “press release” on the State Department’s website late this afternoon:

Appointment of Dennis Ross as Special Advisor for The Gulf and Southwest Asia

Robert Wood
Acting Department Spokesman
Washington, DC
February 23, 2009

The Secretary is pleased to announce the appointment of Dennis B. Ross to the position of Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for The Gulf and Southwest Asia. This is a region in which America is fighting two wars and facing challenges of ongoing conflict, terror, proliferation, access to energy, economic development and strengthening democracy and the rule of law. In this area, we must strive to build support for U.S. goals and policies. To be successful, we will need to be able to integrate our policy development and implementation across a broad range of offices and senior officials in the State Department, and, in his role as Special Advisor to the Secretary, Ambassador Ross will be asked to play that role.

Specifically, as Special Advisor, he will provide to the Secretary and senior State Department officials strategic advice and perspective on the region; offer assessments and also act to ensure effective policy integration throughout the region; coordinate with senior officials in the development and formulation of new policy approaches; and participate, at the request of the Secretary, in inter-agency activities related to the region.

Ambassador Ross brings a wealth of experience not just to issues within the region but also to larger political-military challenges that flow from the area and have an impact outside of the Gulf and Southwest Asia, and the Secretary looks forward to drawing on that experience and diplomatic perspective.

There will no doubt be a wealth of commentary about what precisely this announcement will mean for Ross’s future authority and influence. But, if you compare it with the way the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) advertised it to its Board of Trustees early last month — Ross will be “ambassador-at-large” and “the secretary’s top advisor on a wide range of Middle East issues, from the Arab-Israeli peace process to Iran” — it seems to fall significantly short. Short, that is, not just with respect to with the “topness” of his status as Clinton’s adviser, but also short in terms of his geographical scope since it appears his brief will be confined to the Gulf and Southwest Asia — regions in which, contrary to the press release’s words, he has very little, if any, direct experience.

That doesn’t mean Ross will not be influential in developing Iran policy, in particular, but his role seems to be a) strictly advisory, with no direct policy-making responsibility; and b) confined to the State Department, unless Clinton asks him to work with other agencies as well. His exclusive responsibility to the secretary — there is no mention of any direct tie to the president or the White House — stands as a rather dramatic contrast to both Special [Middle East] Envoy George Mitchell and Special [AfPak] Representative Richard Holbrooke whose authorities and responsibilities are linked explicitly linked to the White House, in addition to the secretary of state. That impression is naturally bolstered by the fact that Mitchell’s and Holbrooke’s appointments were announced in person by Obama, as well as by Clinton, and they will be reporting to the White House, in addition to the Secretary.

Read the rest of Jim’s post and comment on his blog.

Elliott Abrams just confirmed that he will be official mouthpiece of Bibi Netanyahu and his Likud Party at the Council on Foreign Relations and on the pages of The Weekly Standard (and probably in the Wall Street Journal, too).

In reading the article, ironically entitled “The Path of Realism or the Path to Failure: Laying a Foundation for Peace in Palestine,” what can’t help but be struck by the coincidence in views between Abrams and the Likud leader on virtually every single issue regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, from reviving the notion of a Jordanian option to seeing the conflict as “part of a broader struggle in the region over Iranian extremism and power.” Also noteworthy is the clarity with which he expresses his total opposition to his former boss’s (President George W. Bush) stated policy, particularly with respect to the Annapolis process (although it apparently didn’t occur to him to offer his resignation under the circumstances) and his explicit embrace of Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad (”reliable and trustworthy”) and the PA’s U.S.-tutored security forces who “acted in parallel, and sometimes in concert, with Israeli forces” during Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. I’m sure both Fayyad and the PA’s security forces appreciate such a fulsome endorsement from Netanyahu’s alter ego.

With friends like Abrams, who seems to think that democratic reform — remember, he was in charge of global democracy promotion, as well as the Middle East, in Bush’s National Security Council — consists mainly of building Palestinian security forces that can maintain Israel’s occupation indefinitely and fails to mention the word “settlements” in a 3,200-page essay on “realism” and laying a foundation for peace in Palestine, who needs enemies?

The “Obamameter” is the St. Petersburg Times new tool for following President Obama’s progress on completing his campaign promises. It’s very cute and handy, but is it any more reliable than the president?

While checking in to the site this afternoon, I came across this in the “Promise Kept” section: “No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq.” Needless to say, my jaw dropped. Did I miss something super important when I compiled my daily casualty report this morning? Should I run out and pick up a hard copy of the newspaper in hopes of seeing “IRAQ WAR ENDS” as the headline? Or should I just dig into this “promise kept” a little bit further?

As evidence of a kept promise, the paper quoted Obama as saying, “on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war” and re-ran a story on Obama’s historic meeting with military officials. Okay, so that is vaguely true, but is it what the public was hoping for? A meeting that, even a month later, has given us no new, concrete plans? President Bush undercut that promise anyway, when gave us the SOFA agreement that forces U.S. combat troops out by the end of 2011. I was expecting more at this point in the administration. Heck, the Obama hasn’t even bothered to get a new Defense Secretary yet.

Obama in the same op-ed piece wrote, “[we] can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months.” That particular sentence, I believe, is what lured many voters to pull Obama’s knob in the voter’s booth. But, as of this morning, he is still considering a 23-month timeline—and the drawdown in Iraq would be mostly to feed the Afghanistan surge instead of ending U.S. warmongering.

Thankfully, the Times has the 16-month timeline as their next campaign promise, but if you are looking just in the “Promises Kept” section, you get the phony impression that Obama has done something to speed up the end of the war. At least that’s what I thought at first. I don’t know if the Obamameter’s editors meant to be intellectually dishonest — I actually don’t think so — but we have to stay on top the media and the President if this endless is ever to actually end.

Unfortunately, President Obama has also apparently kept the following promise: “No. 134: Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan.”

We have to do something about that too.

As first reported by Laura Rozen and subsequently confirmed by Chris Nelson, it appears that Chas Freeman has been appointed chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC), the body that is charged by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) with synthesizing the analyses of the entire U.S. intelligence community and producing National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) — the most famous of which was the December 2007 NIE on Iran’s nuclear program that put paid to the hopes of hawks who favored a military action against Tehran — that are used to guide policymakers on critical issues facing U.S. security.

To me, this is a stunning appointment. There are very few former senior diplomats as experienced and geographically well-rounded (just look at this bio here), knowledgeable, entertaining (in a mordant sort of way), accessible (until now at least), and verbally artful as Freeman. He can speak with equal authority about the politics of the royal family in Saudi Arabia (where he was ambassador), the Chinese Communist Party — he served as Nixon’s primary interpreter during the ground-breaking 1972 visit and later deputy chief of mission of the Beijing embassy, and the prospects for and geo-strategic implications of fossil-fuel production and consumption over the next decade or so. But, more to the point, he was probably the most direct and outspoken — and caustic — critic of the conduct of Bush’s “global war on terror,” especially of the influence of the neo-conservatives — of any former senior member of the career foreign service. His appointment constitutes a nightmare, for the Israeli right and its U.S. supporters, in particular, (and for reflexive China-bashers, as well).

For a taste of both his rhetorical style and his politics, see, for example, this speech he gave to the U.S. Information Agency Alumni Association two years ago or, better yet, this one to the Pacific Council on International Policy in October 2007 in which he says:

“In retrospect, Al Qaeda has played us with the finesse of a matador exhausting a great bull by guiding it into unproductive lunges at the void behind his cape. By invading Iraq, we transformed an intervention in Afghanistan most Muslims had supported into what looks to them like a wider war against Islam. We destroyed the Iraqi state and catalyzed anarchy, sectarian violence, terrorism, and civil war in that country.

Meanwhile, we embraced Israel’s enemies as our own; they responded by equating Americans with Israelis as their enemies. We abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel’s efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations. We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists. This has convinced most Palestinians that Israel cannot be appeased and is persuading increasing numbers of them that a two-state solution is infeasible. It threatens Israelis with an unwelcome choice between a democratic society and a Jewish identity for their state. Now the United States has brought the Palestinian experience – of humiliation, dislocation, and death – to millions more in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel and the United States each have our reasons for what we are doing, but no amount of public diplomacy can persuade the victims of our policies that their suffering is justified, or spin away their anger, or assuage their desire for reprisal and revenge.”

He doesn’t pull punches.

I am finishing up a new book and am seeking suggestions for a snappy title.

The book’s essays deal with the political sanction for mass killing, the fraud of idealism, how truth is perverted in Washington, why power corrupts, Leviathan-loving intellectuals, the fatal myths of democracy, and other cheery topics. My tentative title is “Principles & Paradigms: How Politicians Con Citizens Into Submission.” But my hunch is that the title could be better.

Ideally, the title would be both hard hitting and zippety. In the past, I’ve been a pushover for alliteration (Fair Trade Fraud, Farm Fiasco, Bush Betrayal, Terrorism & Tyranny). Alternatively, the title would be a phrase that sticks in people’s memories – such as Lost Rights, Freedom in Chains, or Attention Deficit Democracy.

The person who suggests the winning title will receive $100 and will be mentioned in the book’s acknowledgments. (Second prize is two mentions in the acknowledgments).

Send suggestions to jim@jimbovard.com

Thanks for the help!
Jim Bovard
www.jimbovard.com
****
UPDATE: Thanks to everyone who is suggesting titles. I really appreciate the time and thought that folks are putting into their title proposals. Some fine zesty stuff here! 2/16

So says Thomas Ricks, author of Fiasco and The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008, on last night’s Daily Show.

“General Odierno says he would like to see 35,000 troops there (Iraq) in 2015. What that means is that we may be just halfway through this thing.”

A very sobering interview, especially for one on Jon Stewart’s show.