Leaks, Loyalty and Public Responsibility
Beyond the questions of internal dissent and eventual resignation, there is the question of whistle-blowing. It is one thing to argue against a war (or other policy) within the councils of government, and another thing entirely to reveal publicly information that would explain one's opposition to the government's policy. This is what Daniel Ellsberg did with the Pentagon Papers, and what still unknown officials in the Bush administration did with respect to the NSA Surveillance Program and the Torture Memos. At this point the issue goes beyond salving one's conscience by severing one's ties with the government and raises serious questions of both loyalty and public responsibility. I wonder whether Richard Haass faced any of these dilemmas after leaving the government and, if so, how he resolved them.
Well, Richard Haas didn't turn out to be the man he said he was when he first arrived at TPMCafe. When he first got here he presented himself as a guy who was against Gulf War II. Then Todd Gitlin pointed out that he had witnessed Haas arguing in public for the war in the months that led up to it.
So Haas ammended his position -- he was only 60-40 against it and for some reason felt obligated only to defend the administration when speaking to the public. Why didn't he, as you suggest, act as a whistleblower? I guess the answer is that he didn't feel that strongly about it.
I guess it's up to us to not treat him as if he was ever some sort of voice of reason on the issue. He wasn't.
June 11, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
haass: I write a good deal in the book about my discomfort with the policy - and my efforts to argue against it - when I served at the State Department. "On many occasions," I write, "I had to rebut in public or in meetings with foreign counterparts precisely the arguments I myself had put forward inside the U.S. government. That this occurs on occasion is inevitable and part of what any professional must expect and deal with. But when it becomes the norm it is time to consider whether what you are doing makes sense."
see good soldier syndrome (ibid. shoah, bay of pigs, my lai, no gun ri, iran-contra, fallujah ...)
if haass was someone's "good solider," e.g., a powell lieutenant fighting the dark forces of wurmser/bolton/cheney, a cheney mole undermining powell's resistance or credibility, or even a double-agent and/or mercenary intent on self-preservation -- so what?
haass took an oath to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the constitution. if haass knowingly & publicly promoted a casus belli to the diplomatic community and american public that he knew to be false, does it matter what he said or did behind closed doors?
haass the good soldier? who cares. haass the good citizen bearing true faith and allegiance to the constitution? apparently not.
June 12, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good questions. I hope to see a reply from Richard Haass.
June 12, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink