The Bargain of Serving in Government
I would like to offer a few thoughts on Geof Stone's question about how best to express disagreement with a policy decision. When you are on the inside of government, you argue your case privately as best you can. But if you do not prevail, you support publicly what is decided. That is the bargain of serving in government. When you are on the outside, you have the freedom to disagree publicly, which is what I have done. Hence War of Necessity, War of Choice and the other work I have produced on this subject.
As I noted in my earlier post and in the book, I argued against the decision to go to war with Iraq in 2002 and 2003. I did not, however, resign. Many people, both at the time and since, have asked why. There are two reasons for leaving. The first is when you disagree with a major decision so fundamentally that you cannot live with the outcome. The Iraq War certainly qualifies as a major decision, but I did not resign because my disagreement was not fundamental. It was, as I explained earlier, 60/40, given my assumption from the available intelligence that Iraq possessed biological and chemical weapons. Had I known then what is now known, i.e., that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction, I would have resigned had President Bush proceeded with the war. However, that was not the situation as I understood it at the time.
The second reason to leave is when a pattern of decisions makes clear that an official is simply a poor fit for the administration. This is the conclusion I reached in 2003, and it is in part what led me to move to my current position.
Aside from making arguments inside the administration and resigning, are there other options to express dissent, as Mr. Stone suggests? Leaking classified information and otherwise undermining a policy decision is not dissent but disloyalty. A culture in which such actions became the norm would endanger national security by making it impossible for the government to debate in private how best to make foreign policy.
I would add one other thought. At a certain point while I worked in government, it became clear to me that the decision to invade Iraq had been all but made. What I mainly did at this point was seek to influence the second-order but still important questions of how the administration would go to war. Would it consult the Congress and the United Nations? Would it plan appropriately for post-war Iraq? I worked on these issues in order to increase the chance that if war came, it would be fought in a way that minimized the human, financial, and strategic costs to the United States, Iraq, and U.S. foreign policy. Clearly this effort on my part met with at best limited success. But had I resigned I would not have been able to attempt even this.
"Aside from making arguments inside the administration and resigning, are there other options to express dissent, as Mr. Stone suggests? Leaking classified information and otherwise undermining a policy decision is not dissent but disloyalty. A culture in which such actions became the norm would endanger national security by making it impossible for the government to debate in private how best to make foreign policy."
I guess it's the word "disloyalty" that separates you from a hero.
June 15, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just think the pain and suffering and lost resources in the last eight years we could have been avoided if we had at least one Daniel Ellsberg instead of sheep such as Haass. Disloyal indeed!
June 15, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's no sheep. He's a wolf trying on sheep's clothing, and we're all just laughing at the nerve of the wolf, fangs and claws still obvious to most.
June 15, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You knew they were lying about the nuclear program, however.
An ordinary citizen, with no clearance at any level, who had been following the 'aluminum tubes' story, could figure out that the government was lying about Iraq's nuclear program.
There were no centrifuges purifying Uranium. The 'aluminum tubes' story had been debunked before Rice et al resurrected it. The humbug was clear to any newspaper reader.
Rice in particular was lying every day: lying outrageously; lying her head off nonstop. You say you did not know this ?
Once it was clear Rice et al had no compunction about lying, everything they said had the odor, the stink, of fakery and sham.
Sorry, sir: your story is another evasion. Why not admit you knew there was a big fat lie being foisted on the American public ?
June 15, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I agree with your assessment.
I think however Mr. Haass is also saying that going to war with Iraq even on fake evidence of a threat--which as you say was abundantly evident to most thinking people in America and abroad--was not a deal breaker for him. Not sufficient to resign, leak or do anything else of the kind. He also notes that if it became a common practice it would lead to instability in our government.
What he fails to acknowledge is that going to war with Iraq on false pretenses was not some kind of humdrum affair that is common practice. It was both criminal and a strategic blunder. A public official who has the best interests of the nation at heart had a duty to try to stop it or at least that’s the way I see it.
Sure if the official came to know that the president was having sex with an intern, there is no ground to resign or leak the information because no national security issue or any other kind of policy issue hangs on it, but that’s another matter.
June 15, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank for your responding to Geoff Stone's question, Richard.
Was what Daniel Ellsberg did morally wrong or morally right in your view?
I guess I am led to wonder if you may privately believe that there are or may be very rare instances where leaking classified information to the press might be the right thing to do, even if this is rarely the case and even if a culture in which this is done with any degree of frequency would make it far more difficult for senior foreign policymakers to engage in relatively candid discussions. [A side question: how prevalent do you believe the leaking of classified information is in fact, now, based on your extensive experience?]
But I guess if you believe as much and shared that here, that would no longer be a private view, would it? And you may wish to serve in government at some future point again--or at least may not be ready to potentially rule that out as a possibility. If that is your private view, disclosing it here comes along with potentially severe and important consequences for you, with no benefit other than whatever satisfaction you might derive from contributing the view of a seasoned, thoughtful public servant to this most delicate issue. I do understand the predicament you may be in in considering the question.
So I guess I'll just invite you to say anything else you'd like to say on the matter, or not as the case may be.
But in any case, thank you for responding to the question--I for one genuinely appreciate it.
June 15, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richard,
after reading all your posts on TPM I think what you did was try to find some kernel of reason regarding Iraq and WMD to avoid resigning and keep your job.
Listen to Mr. Haass' answer to this questioner on C-SPAN'S Washington Journal. The questioner comes on at the 7:00 mark. He addresses April Glaspie and what Haass says is Saddam's "contempt" for the USA.
http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/06/01/WJE/A/19291/Richard+Haass+Author+War+of+Necessity+War+of+Choice.aspx
June 15, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Haass,
Did you have any inkling during your time in the administration of the stovepiping of intelligence that sold the idea of the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Was there any discussion of the qualifications and motives of the Office Of Special Plans?
What was your view of Wolfowitz's activities during the build up to war? Did the fact that Wolfowitz was party to the wrong intelligence analysis of the Soviet Union when he was in Team B when GHW Bush was running the CIA have any bearing on anybody's assessment?
I don't ask these things as an indictment. Just curious if you can shed any light on these sources of misinformation within the administration.
June 15, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a private citizen, with no access to classified information, and I knew with absolute certainty that Iraq was no threat to our country. To admit that you, an employee of the government, with some access to classified information, and with full access to the discussions going on at that time in the administration, couldn't decide that Iraq was not a threat, is an admission that should embarrass the Hell out of you. Does it? I am also quite certain that I would never want you in a position with any power in the future.
June 15, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that Hoppy. Mr. Haass tells us he assumed there were WMD. I had a boss who used to lecture the team on the results of ASS-U-ME.
June 15, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
I got one word for Haas. Criminal Negligence. And he'd better not tell me those are too words. It's a bit late for accountability.
June 15, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haass is an important man, with access to other important people. He cannot answer basic questions.
So we have to hypothesize.
Hypothesis : he and others knew there was a big hoax, a faked-up set of reasons to invade and occupy, being promoted by their colleagues. They knew the intelligence was not 'faulty' but FAKED.
Haass and others wanted to stick around because 1.) Something big was going on and they did not want to miss it; 2.) If it turned out to be a huge success they did not want to miss it; 3.) The plotters of the war seemed to have a future of unlimited power in the USA and were the only game in town; 4.) The plotters of the war are a bunch of ruthless bastards and would certainly wreak revenge on anyone who crossed them.
Some day Haass and his friends may tell us what really was going on in their heads and their hearts. But let's not hold our breath.
June 15, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't buy it. Sure, there are plenty of times that people in government have to zip it up and go with the program. Everyone has to do that in any job, but we aren't talking about any job or any policy.
The issue was WAR. I don't want to single out Haass for my contempt here. I reserve that for the Democrats in Congress who knew better and went along with hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. We have one of these as Secretary of State right now.
June 15, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink