National Intelligence Council Vice Chairman David Gordon to be Condi's Next Policy Planning Director
The first Director of Policy Planning at the State Department was George Kennan. The 25th will be National Intelligence Council Vice Chairman David Gordon. The formal announcement is likely to be made in the next two weeks.
David Gordon is an outstanding choice for this key position in America' foreign policy establishment. Gordon is polymathic and knows that there is an enormous gap between yesterday's threats and tomorrow's. He worries about the declining water table in China. He thinks about resource wars and about the proliferation of "half-states", or "failing but not quite totally failed" states. He has great facility with classic military and geostrategic thinking -- but he's been trying to work through the many dark nightmares outlined by people like Robert Wright, Robert Kaplan, and Bill Joy for some time.
A few years ago, I spent a great weekend with Dave Gordon and about 20 other top tier national security thinkers at a meeting organized by Al Gore National Security Advisor Leon Fuerth at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund's Pocantico retreat. We were all there to hammer through a futurist/policy planning framework that Fuerth has been developing for some time titled "Forward Engagement." Frankly, Fuerth's views deserve far greater discussion than they have thus far received (and if Fuerth reads this, I should get signed back up with his efforts).
Gordon was the perfect partner for this discussion on network effects and "forward engagement" to confront complex future policy challenges and was working then on his Global Trends 2015 report -- and gave a brilliant "chat" about China, its development and what hard choices China's rise meant for the rest of the world. The meeting was off-the-record but suffice it to say that virtually none of Dave Gordon's roster of concerns matched those in normal, smart wonk society. He was thinking about global competition on a different level, far beyond the simple, binary and immediate. I remember clearly, for instance, the two of us discussing China's deep political and economic involvement in Latin America and Africa, something that was not 'then' on the radar of most other policymakers or even China watchers.
I had originally recommended that the current "Acting Director" at Policy Planning, Matthew Waxman, be retained to provide a 21st century take on how American foreign policy and national security efforts could be reorganized -- perhaps via some vehicle like a modernized version of Eisenhower's brilliant Solarium exercise. Waxman is a younger version of David Gordon, and the two should make an outstanding team for the period of time they work together. (Recently, I spoke at a forum of well-heeled legal types in New York and met a dean or two of some prominent law schools and understand that a bidding war may be in play to lure Waxman to a teaching position). Whether Waxman stays or goes, it would be wise for the high priests in America's foreign policy establishment to keep someone of Waxman's talents and moral clarity "in the network" -- and working with Gordon.
Why is it only in the twilight of this administration that we are seeing highly sensible appointments -- and a new commitment to healthy "deal-making"? It is regrettable that someone of Gordon's intellectual capacity and stature now has just a year and half to try and do something constructive in his new role. The reality is that America's place in the world seems to be slipping -- perhaps from a globally hegemonic, ordering role to something like another better-than-average great power -- and most of George W. Bush's political capital has been spent, often on low-return battles like the recent Wolfowitz struggle.
On the bright side, Bill Clinton at the end of his presidency gave himself about 45 days flat to solve definitively the Palestinian-Israeli problem and to normalize relations with North Korea. Not enough time. But the Bush administration has 19 months to work vigorously to turn this dismal mess around.
The constructive players in the administration, at this point, include people like Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten (he has made HUGE difference in general change of course of this administration away from Cheneyesque pugnaciousness), Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Secretary John Negroponte (yes -- for all the critics who have a problem with Negroponte, you need to take another look -- he is winning bureaucratic battles for Condi now against Cheney's team), Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns (whose success at 'lots' of new international deal-making that was preempted in the last few years make him a great potential successor to Bob Barker on The Price is Right), Legal Adviser John Bellinger, and now David Gordon succeeding Stanford's Stephen Krasner in George Kennan's famous job.
Others on the side of light include Secretary of Defense Bob Gates who is strongly backing the Diplomatic Team (and by reports I've received is in the clear lead -- though not demanding credit -- in laying out a new strategic road map for American interests in the Middle East). Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of Defense, is running DoD far more competently than Paul Wolfowitz did. Mike McConnell at the Directorate of National Intelligence and Michael Hayden have completely turned around a convulsing, dysfunctional intelligence establishment that was being ravaged and distorted by Rumsfeld and Stephen Cambone into something far more ordered and constructively supportive of the current foreign policy and national security missions.
Make no mistake about my enthusiasm for the rising A Team here. I am supportive of them -- but I oppose what this administration did in Iraq and think that American power and prestige in the world have suffered because of a self-inflicted, disastrous mistake that has shaken global trust in American leadership and purpose. The adoption of a so-called "war paradigm" by the administration after 9-11 showed that our government doesn't have trust and faith in our own sacred norms as a democracy during times of stress.
Frankly, it's only during stress that the true character of a nation or political system become evident. Constitutional protections, civil liberties, transparent government and the like never matter when its only convenient -- but when there is a challenge to them.
There is still time to get some of America's foreign policy and national security house back in order. A team is assembling that can -- if driven and inspired by what is best for the nation rather than cynical political reasons -- make some progress.
Many believe that the Policy Planning perch at State has slipped in significance over the years, but in my view this perceived slippage had more to do with the massive increase in complexity of global challenges and threats and the failure thus far of any administration -- Democrat or Republican -- to compellingly reorganize American and global structures and resources to deal with this complexity. But the position, in my view, can be extremely important.
Other policy planning directors other than Kennan include a roster of some of America's most distinguished national security thinkers. These include Paul Nitze, Walt Rostow, Winston Lord, Anthony Lake, Stephen Bosworth, Peter Rodman, Richard Solomon, Dennis Ross, James Steinberg, Morton Halperin, Richard Haass, Mitchell Reiss -- and even Paul Wolfowitz should make this list of notables.
I think David Gordon is one of a small handful of people who can bring wisdom, excellence and policy entrepreneurship to the Policy Planning activities at the State Department. He will be surrounded by increasingly depressed people who know that the chance to "do great things" during this administration is becoming increasingly constrained by the realities that face every President near the end of his tenure.
Gordon is a fun guy -- and a funny guy, but he's also serious and should ignore the naysayers. That said, he can't win in this environment by being "the fun guy" too much. He needs to pick the one or two policy arenas in which he wants to make a profound difference -- and tenaciously fight for them.
There are a lot of new good people -- working together finally -- in this administration. But Vice President Cheney, and his national security spearcarriers -- David Addington, John Hannah, and David Wurmser -- will be out there to sabotage and oppose him at every turn. These rivals can't be seduced to support David Gordon's logic. They need to be out run, embarrassed, exhausted, pushed out of the room, or crushed.
That's how one wins against Cheney's followers. David Gordon's appointment is a sign that smart realists are ascendant.
-- Steve Clemons is Senior Fellow and Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation and publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Steve can always be counted on to gush over the conservative establishment. Oh, well. This is part of why TPM Cafe needs way, way more balance in foreign affairs. Seriously.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 1, 2007 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
John -- Do you really believe that my extensive writing on TPMCafe on US foreign policy, enlightened American internationalism, and strong opposition to Jesse Helms inpspired policies taken up by Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and others constitutes "gushing over the conservative foreign policy establishment"? That's ridiculous.
I offer praise when praise is due, and I believe that David Gordon is a vastly better choice for that job -- than say, David Frum. If you have drawn a line that says that everything this administration does is bad, no matter the logic, then fine -- I understand where you are coming from.
But I think that the administration is tacking in a better direction in part because of sensible commentary on blogs like this -- and because there are few other choices available to them that are rational.
But thanks for the feedback -- but don't mischaracterize my views please.
Steve Clemons
June 1, 2007 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Steve, I didn't mean to be rude. But basically you just praised unequivocally the entire Bush foreign policy team. I've, shall we say, issues with that.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 1, 2007 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
No worries John -- I may be in a different place that some. We have 19 months left with the Bush administration, and I'm not so sure a Democratic administration, if elected, would be dramatically different in some of the key foreign policy/national security areas I care about -- so it's important for me (and others) to try and lay groundwork for the kind of thinking and approach that needs to be extended into the future.
I am deeply concerned about Cheney's durable influence and the antics of some of his top staff -- but if the trend on other fronts is relatively positive, I think it's important to note that and to see what possibly could be achieved to provide some foundation for better thinking and policy in the future.
But don't worry, there will be times in the near future when I seem less gushy about what the administration is doing -- particularly if they are up to something nonsensical. But in my view, David Gordon was a good choice for policy planning and fits a broader positive framework that may be emerging.
More later -- and thanks,
steve clemons
June 1, 2007 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, I don't know if (the other) John shares my opinion, but I have huge problems with people who are in any way defined or who identify themselves as conservatives in any position where important policy decisions are to be made. If that defines a majority (or worse the vast majority) of those in the intelligence community, were in big trouble.
That's a rather sweeping generalization and invites instant dismissal as trollish nonsense. (So don't read any further if you want). However, the problem in my view is the manner of thinking that leads one to define oneself as "conservative". There appears to be a tendency among conservative thinkers to consider issues in stark terms, to resist change (especially to their world view) and to rely on "conventional wisdom". More generalizations, yes, but I would argue these derive from an established world view that defies reality.
I will then step into the "pit of doom" and state that this often applies to liberal wonks and analysts. It's just a different world view. Either approach leads to erroneous conclusions in a dynamic and changing world. It also tends to induce "group think" and the pronounced tendency of conservatives and liberals to ignore data that challenges their partiicular view of "conventional wisdom".
Praising David Gordon's "forward" thinking over China's involvement in Latin America and elsewhere strikes me as the "smart guy in the dumb row" phenomenon. But if your point is that he's the smatest guy in the dumb row and and that's the only row to pick from, then I'm all for it.
But it's your backhanded endorsement of Wolfowitz that really leads me to suspect your judgment. Here is a man who managed the data to fit his world view and did it in the worst possible fashion. At best he should be hired by a think tank that operates the way he does; then go find a man named Montressor to finish it off.
If there is such a thing as a rational thinker in the intelligence community I suspect they are way ahead of David Gordon. Needless to say, I suspect anyone with those characteristics was probably fired or quit sometime in the last 6 years.
IMWO (w=warped) we would be far better off as a country if intelligence analysts and wonks were required to undergo scientific training. The discipline of science requires skepticism and invites constant challenge to conventional models and thinking. It also forces one to take the data in hand and develop testable models rather than take the model and look for data to support it. It also encourages a willingness to change the model when the data doesn't support it. Just think where we would be today if that characterized Wolfowitz.
Scientists are often characterized as liberals, but that is from the warped world view of those who like to create such definitions and operate within them.
June 1, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good God.
Comes now Steve Clemons to praise some very good picks by Condi Rice to augment her stable of policy planners. The response from his Democratic friends? Some of the Usual Suspects show up to throw cold water on Steve for even offering praise to Rice and Negroponte for promoting damned good people who would be fine policy planners in any administration.
One of the failings of the modern Democratic Party in opposition has been the seduction of partisanship for partisanship's sake. The inability of activists to see the good in people like David Gordon, or John Bellinger, simply because they work for the Princess of Darkness, is maddening to those of us on the Republican side of the aisle who wonder is a Democratic Administration would be serious in what Sun Tzu called the most serious business of the state: war, and the waging of it.
Suffice it to say, this reaction not only doesn't surprise me, it doesn't even disappoint me. " Indeed, John S's towering summa about conservatives who darken the halls of Foggy Bottom with their very presence, sums up the attitude of liberal Eloi everywhere:
Jesus wept.
Haven't read Edmund Burke, much, have we? Or Buckley, or Mr. Churchill, or Friedman, or Chambers. Oh well, we'll keep the porch light on for ya'.
Look, it is not a healthy thing for a Democratic Party that is quickly losing its mojo to start casting about for enemies and demons on the other side of the aisle. You've all been assuming that you'll end up with President Hillary. Big Mistake. You'll probably end up with President Giuliani. However, Rudy is not dumb enough to put people like Gordon and Bellinger out to pasture, and I suspect you'll still see Rice and Negroponte in command in D.C. during the Rudy Years.
Which will give Steve plenty to write about. I suspect he'll have a job, as well.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."-Winston S. Churchill
June 1, 2007 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve,
this entire transformative effort hinges on the Iran talks.
Bush played a role in helping China gain market entrance first. China writes our war checks, so Bush talks on their points vis-a-vis their underwritten endorsement.
Witness Lebanon getting bomed and rockets raining on israel in revenge. Nothing was said. For too long a time. The world expected to hear from America on this. Silence.
China says something about it. Then we issue a statement immediately afterward. Israel bombs a UN Observer post manned by persons from China the next day with accurate ordinance supplied by the USA.
It's clear they are a fly in the ointment for the traditional west client state model of Israel and the Sauds and their south Lebanon parallel effort. Using Sunni terror as proxies they've channeled money their way to out the Shi'ite sympathizers who were best in place to work with neighbor Syria(Ariri assassinations included).
The move is to put Israel or Saud backed venture groups in control of south Lebanon for the Trans Iraqi Pipeline. The Trans Arabian Piepline also flows there. The plan was to hide post peak returns by intersecting lines and refineries with untapped Iraqi sources. Israel planned a cut of it by moving more security teams of soldiers to South Lebanon.
The Iran talks in Iraq last week, a move needed to stabilize that land, could let the oil concessions of the USA and Britain that Bush's puppets want to secure a reality. Iran has the most to offer in terms of ground solutions there. Iraq probably finds their interests allied with Iran in this and the reduced risk for Americans, added to client state backing, means we can develop markets to deeper degrees with less risk than planned. Bush played against Iran rhetorically, the move isolated them to an extent it helped China secure market access. Mission Accomplished.
Reverse engineer where we are now from a few weeks ago. Then reorder what happens chronologically. China gets long term deals with Iran energy resources, then a bipartisan summit for Congress occurs in Syria. From there talks with Iran are announced in Iraq. This opens a door to have the biggest state actor come in, one best able to limit the civil war going on against our presence as we scale back and redeploy.
Iran and Syria can coordinate help for Lebanon, the sister state solution of south Israeli occupation will not work, so we must address this through a group willing to work overall in effect for regional gains. The announcement of efforts to develop a NATO base in Northern Lebanon is again an effort to keep western influence there and give Lebanon legit security presence vs. interests more in line with Putin's long term goals. This could of course revitalize NATO, in desperate need of such help, and the benefit of stable energy markets a secure Lebanon provides helps all parties. It also triangulates some items with Israel, and puts more of a presence around Turkey to try and accord them forwards towards EU membership or client state status.
Iran, with China's backing, could be the major mideast player. They'll underwite the deal, we probably help as advisory role. Think of it as a good cop/better cop role. China just makes sure the neighborhood is okay and sends us as help, but we actually ask people how they are doing, and Iran takes this as authority to keep things in order. East Precint, West Chief of Police, Neighborhood Sgt. becomes beat cops.
Regionally Iran becomes a leader. China gets the growing energy demand met, and the Sauds are placated by a stable Lebanon and continued market share. Since the East takes the fuel they retain fairly good return on western customers.
Essentially we let Iran pay for the Iraq rebuild as they exert regional cooperation, with China's business growth fueling it. It removes demands for our troops to be at maximum risk and hedges our own client states to concede items.
The main person in opposition is Cheney. His UAE/Dubai Halliburton move was a slap in the face to Iran's recent history. He's tight with the Sauds(Michael Sheldon Cheney directed ARAMCO's PR department going back to Lend-Lease, Roosevelt and truman). He wants the Sunni/Saud models in place for Lebanon and he wants the traditional West allies in OPEC(Saudis and Dubai) calling the shots(both of whom have the most terror funding ties).
Strategically, instead of regionally, this becomes a model to leverage client states(Israel, Arabia, and new partner Iran) through two close working actors(USA and China) vs. the Russians in classic triangulation. Putin is the one with the most to lose from a stable Lebanon, it competes directly with his Eastern Europe energy market control and the venture pipelines there through Georgia that he wants to make reality along the Black Sea.
Look out for Cheney, Putin, and classic West model plausibles(Israel and Saudis) to be at work. Much of the recent stories push vs. the Sunni and Kurds for Iran/Baker friendly pieces, or vs. the Shit'ites and especially Iran or Syria for Saud/Cheney interests.
The extent to which Hastert's lobby from Turkey is acting becomes an item too, they're pretty mad against the Kurds if we take into account recent articles, it should help Kurd parties work to agree things along Iran's border and within Iraq. Perhaps Edmonds could be referenced there as well, provided any recent works.
June 2, 2007 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good people, my nose. Is this the Joshua Bolton who has been stage managing the worst White House in history, who The Times in May called "close" to Cheney, and who is quoted in the same article as decrying the Libby verdict as a horrible travesty of justice? Is this the Robert Kagan who is the leading spokesperson for the most bellicose and U.S.-centric version of "realism," enough to make Kissinger a peacenik? Is this Rice, Bush's babysitter during the run-up to a horrible, horrible war assembling her team? Is this the Negroponte whose previous job of directing intelligence, at a time when the administration was manipulating intelligence?
Look, I know they're not all Neocons, but have we set the bar that low? I do want again to assure Steve that I am not questioning his integrity and not intending this as about him personally. It's also not about merely demonizing anyone remotely connected with Bush. It's about the Beltway version of the political process that we have to escape simply to survive. In all his past posts, he's taken pains to politely state his disagreement with all those he insists are dear friends and whom he respects. Now he just praises the current make-up of the Bush foreign policy team.
I'm thrilled Rice is trying diplomacy, even if feebly and thus far ineffectively. But even then it's in the spirit of who we can persuade one-on-one, implicitly through our strength. Even then, it suggests no concessions on what the United States will do or stands for, as well as no efforts to bring these second parties working together. Europe, too, might as well not exist at all. Even something as centrist as James Baker seems worlds away. I apologized already, but I am still angry at the uniform foreign policy slant of TPM Cafe. It is far to the right of even the DLC.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 2, 2007 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Baker elements are in play, the Rice faction had to cool vs. Putin for buying off false war rationales(nuclear well head penetrators supposedly missing in poland, feared as dirty bomb components, nound for Nigeria and later found not missing, simply laxly accounted for, as are many items in the conventional nuclear use market of the old Iron Curtain.
Vlad gladly obliged, knowing the US was going to a hornet's nest. He gave them war for market share and future expected venture gains. Gaming Israel into a mistaken strong point vs. Lebanon to further leverage northern pipeline passageways off resulting instability. It allowed him to reduce pressure internally using Israel to migrate some internal expats and channel additional contacts in the growing New World Era of proliferation markets.
Rice is finally coming out of her homespun cacoon, shoe sale frenzy fever notwithstanding. The insular nature of "us vs. them" rhetoric Bush used in the war's run up and subsequently shaped policy is finally being reworked.
Baker-Hamilton was the first effort to phrasing things in ways best able to accomodate demands of Iran. Ifg we get China and Iran to pay off rebuilding Iraq and yet retain some policy input in the meantime it's a major victory.
It's classic triangulation vs. Russia as well. The emerging state allows Iran to shape sister states in Iraq and Afghanistan to the benefit of developing oil markets for massive sectors of the new model(China vis-v-vis Iran, India Vis-a-vis Chevron and Oilstans, Iraq and western venture backing vis-avis Iran as big brother security regional partnerships).
Sauds buying into the Chinese armaments for use in supporting radical elements for a putsch into North Africa now have to weigh what is being done with Iran and must start a regional arms race. Mission accomplished. Israel and Arabia find new means to run parallel interests horizontally vs. emerging Iran, reliant upon longstanding American client state support.
If each market entry item is made right, India and China secure competitive sectors to Condi's venture profit portfolio and the west remains on OPEC pricing models for the most part minus enough to game Putin's influence in EU markets to the east of Europe.
The major coup would be to see China agreeing to get oil USA dollars as we develop USAID programs. A foothold on retaining dollar influence in the strongest emerging mideast state would work wonders for us on macro scales. That would game Putin's EU backing with his energy sector and stave the accelerating decline of our influence, in ways China nominally agrees since they control much of current funding model and maintain competitive leverage.
June 2, 2007 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pushback story by reporters now getting out, saying Gates is critical of Iran, mention's Cheney statements from the deck of an aircraft carrier this past week in/near the Persian Gulf...
Alan Aldad and Valerie Plame WIlson about to speak on Cspan2booktv.
June 2, 2007 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink