Yes, yes, I've been a delinquent blogger lately, and it's not because nothing has happened worth writing about. I've simply been too busy with preparing the May-June issue of The American Interest, and with getting my Jewcentricity book finally to Wiley & Sons to press. And then there was Purim, and a presentation I had to prepare for my neighborhood civic association group's pre-Purim party, which we hosted. I am a board member of the association (I believe in local community and local government, you know -- my insistence on metis and subsidiarity), and later, sometime or other, I will explain the reasons for having a Purim party in the first place. But not now. 

Now I want to comment briefly on three things: the Chas Freeman affair; the POTUS comments on science in the context of the stem-call research ban removal; and his pre-proposals concerning education. Today I'll do the first, the second tomorrow and the third, well, after that.

On the Chas affair, it is, to me at least, amazing how much ink got spilled on this little business in so short a time--most of it unfortunately splashed about. I have no intention of wading through it all, or dragging you with me even were I to do it in private (which I more or less have done). So I will be relatively brief. 

NDI Denny Blair made a bad choice in picking Chas Freeman for the job of Director of the National Intelligence Council, what everyone in this town who knows the govenment calls the NIC ("nick"). That job is important, and because of its nature requires someone who is buttoned down, someone who keeps his personal opinions to him or herself, someone who can attend an official function and, like a skilled referee in a basketball game, manage to become more or less invisible. It is not a job for someone who likes to make headlines, likes to talk to the press, or carries even an impression of having sub rosa dealings with other countries. Chas, for those who do not know him, is a born contrarian, a provocateur (mainly in a good way), a guy who is a pretty much what-you-see-is-what-you-get kind of guy. Not the right personality for the NIC, not even close.

So why did Blair do this?  I don't know; I only know him slightly. But several people have suggested to me that this is just something admirals tend to do.  Anyone who has ever commanded a large ship inherently becomes a kind of autocrat, and begins to imagine that context is what he says it is. Maybe this is so. I have no better explanation for this mistake.

However it came to be, how it ended reflects poorly on the overall personnel vetting problem in what still appears to me to be a highly sub-adult administration, at least when it comes to internal management. How could the White House personnel people let a man who has made comments about China and human rights like Chas Freeman has be appointed to a post like that without first clearing it with Nancy Pelosi and others?  This is just too clumsy for words. Did Blair do this entirely on his own, with no White House vetting process?  We don't know, or at least I don't know. If that's the case, it's a helluva way to run the show. If it's not the case, then someone screwed up, and Rahm Emanuel should by now have his or her balls in his pocket (assuming it wasn't Rahm Emanuel who is the one who screwed up). Either way, a real mess.

Now, a lot of nasty things have been said about Chas Freeman in the past few weeks. Many of them could only have been said by people who do not know the man, who've never had a single face-to-face conversation with him.  One blog, by my friend Rod Radosh, even claimed he is a Jew, if I read it right. This is, I think, not possible. Not only was Chas born in Rhode Island, and not only does he give every appearance of being a dyed-in-the-wool WASP, but he was, after all, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.  The Saudis would never have accepted, and we would not have dared appoint, a Jew to that position--not, anyway, if we wanted a useful ambassador there. 

Opposition to Freeman arose on two separate grounds: one his views on China and Tiananman Square, and the other his views on Israel and the Middle East. It was, pretty clearly I think, his views on China that got him cashiered. His views have been widely quoted and there is no reason for me to repeat them here, but basically, Chas is a realist--both self-styled and really. His observation that Tiananman would never have happened if the Chinese leadership had not been so irresolute at the beginning is not a value judgment; it is an analytical judgment. And I think it is inarguable. His contention that China will become liberal and even democratic in due course is arguable, but it is not reprehensible. Again, it is an analytical judgment, not an indication that Chas dislikes democracy or admires Asian authoritarianism. What it shows, I think, is that Chas dislikes those who wear democracy promotion and human rights on their sleeves to make themselves feel noble, even when doing so often has counterproductive consequences on the ground. Well, I agree with Chas on this. That is a separate matter from whether someone so outspoken on the subject should be at the NIC. 

As for Israel, Chas's views, as best I can make them out, are not much different from the standard State Department realist view. He has referred to Israel's settlements policies as a form of colonization, and as taking land from Arabs. This wounds a lot of pro-Israeli Jews, I know. But it is factually wrong?  Has the State of Israel expropriated privately owned Arab land for settlements?  Sometimes it has. It is incendiary to call this colonization?  Maybe, but it's not literally false according to a dictionary definition of the term, which many Israelis will have no qualms about telling you. 

But has Chas ever called for Israel's destruction? Has he ever said that Zionism is racism? Has he ever whitewashed Palestinian or Arab terrorism?  Not that I have ever heard. To some people, like Steven Walt, Chas's criticisms of Israeli policy are "mild." To blood-on-the-saddle American supporters of Israel there are neo-genocidal, to judge by some of the comments. I'd say his comments are slightly beyond mild as criticisms, but there are nowhere in the vicinity of hateful or extreme. It is the critics who are more often extreme. 

Certainly, those critics who exaggerated his views are blameworthy. Certainly, too, those critics who insinuated, without evidence, that Chas has acted as an agent for a foreign government are way out of line. That is slander. It's not wrong to wonder, given Chas's apparent vulnerability to forms of localitis. But it is wrong, very wrong, to make accusations without evidence. These people should be ashamed of themselves. 

Unfortunately, Chas has failed to understand the reasons for his nomination's collapse. In a parting shot, he blamed the Israel Lobby for what happened to him. This is really unfortunate, and makes me sad. Here is what he said, not in part, but in full, with the key parts, for my purposes, in italics: 

"To all who supported me or gave me words of encouragement during the controversy of the past two weeks, you have my gratitude and respect. You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them."

Chas is right and justified to defend himself against slander. But his comments about the Israel Lobby are manifestly false. Rather than say so in my own words, let me instead quote from today's Washington Post editorial on the matter, which is spot on: 

"For the record, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman's appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. If there was a campaign, its leaders didn't bother to contact the Post editorial board. According to a report by Newsweek, Mr. Freeman's most formidable critic -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- was incensed by his position on dissent in China.

But let's consider the ambassador's broader charge: He describes `an inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics.' That will certainly be news to Israel's `ruling faction,' which in the past few years alone has seen the U.S. government promote a Palestinian election that it opposed; refuse it weapons it might have used for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities; and adopt a policy of direct negotiations with a regime that denies the Holocaust and that promises to wipe Israel off the map. Two Israeli governments have been forced from office since the early 1990s after open clashes with Washington over matters such as settlement construction in the occupied territories.

What's striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that 'it is not permitted for anyone in the United States' to describe Israel's nefarious influence. But several of his allies have made themselves famous (and advanced their careers) by making such charges -- and no doubt Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention. Crackpot tirades such as his have always had an eager audience here and around the world. The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence estimates would have chosen such a man to oversee them."

As I say, this is spot on. Freeman does the same as Mearsheimer and Walt. He imagines all supporters of Israel to be a monolith--the hallmark of a conspiracy theory. By claiming that those opposed to it are not allowed to speak, he utters not only obvious bullshit, but in fact does precisely what he accuses the Lobby of doing -- preemptively muzzling or trying to discredit any other view. 

It is true, however, that even if AIPAC did not take a formal position on the nomination, there was a campaign, informal but widespread, to scuttle it. This was, in the main, a stupid thing to do. The China stuff would have sunk him anyway, so why add fuel to the imaginary fires stoked by the Mearsheimer/Walt camp?  There really are, unfortunately, Israel partisans in the United States who are so blind to other points of view, so ignorant even of what most Israelis think and worry about, that they make claims and use such shrill language that only do their own cause harm.  But you can never tell a zealot that; they just think you're part of a conspiracy against them for they, too -- and this is the shocking truth -- are conspiracy mongers. Chas Freeman isn't part of any anti-Israel conspiracy. He is not pro-Arab either; he is pro-U.S. as he sees it. He may be mistaken about some of this matters -- I think he is -- but he's neither hateful nor disingenuous. He is also, not that it much matters, a lot smarter and vastly more experienced than most of his critics. 

Even though I disagree with Chas on a lot of things, I still admire him in some ways. When he was Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, he tried to assemble all the regional U.S. ambassadors in Riyadh to talk stuff over.  Logical and wise, you may say? Well, sure, but totally against State Department policy. That kind of thing can only be ordered from 22nd and C Streets by the Assistant Secretary of State for that region, except that it wasn't happening. So Chas took the initiative, knowing that he could get canned for it. Others may hail the kind of Foreign Service Officer who never raises his head above the trench, who never has an idea to express, a criticism to make in public, who just waits until it's time to collect the pension and go make silly speeches to senior citizen groups. Chas was not like that. He broke some China (and that's not a pun). He made some useful trouble for people who needed it made. It's a damn shame, as I see it, that his public service has been marred by Denny Blair's poor judgment and by Chas's own unfortunate reaction to it.