Getting 'super-real' about the Freeman incident is to confirm everyone's worst fears about the extent of AIPAC's influence on US foreign policy. That an unelected body can usurp democratic government should make every American (who is not a Christian or Jewish, Zionist)extremely nervous and hugely frustrated that it is apparently so easy to thwart the democratic process. Is this the type of democracy that we wish to impose on Iraq and Afghanistan?
That's exactly how I feel. But one thing that we're giving up with this is a realist viewpoint in that office [from which will flow the raw assessments that will be the starting point for debates about how to deal with Iran -- how far along they are or are expected to be on the bomb at any given point in time] because one of the lead Freeman critics (Jonathan Chait) used as his fig leaf the assertion that Freeman's realism makes him a radical ideologue. Freeman's views are mainstream within realism, which itself was the default way of looking at the world in government as recently as 1993 (at the earliest!). I wouldn't think the likelihood that the next NIC nominee will be a realist is very great now. So there has been considerable collateral damage to the quality of U.S. governance in the foreign/intelligence are over this, the stigmatization of realism being just one component of that.
I'm no expert on foreign policy, but I think suggesting that war with Iran is more likely because one guy isn't going to be advising the president is a bit silly.
Ditto!
Seems to me the Obama people have done more to extend an olive branch to Iran than the US has done in a very, very long time.
Well, you're wrong about that. This tells me that Obama will cave to Israeli interests more easily than I thought, and we know that Israel wanted to bomb Iran last year -- before Bibi was elected.
50% more likely was too high, though, no doubt. I would say it rose in my mind from a likelihood of 10% to, say, 35%. Still more unlikely than likely. But it definitely jumped. A good part of the jump, maybe two thirds, probably relates to what I thought about Obama before, and what this tells me (willingness to confront pressure, stick by his people/decisions, etc.) But some part of it relates to the reality of what this demonstration of power means for how future NIEs will be spun in the media, how emboldened American Israel hardliners will be because of it, and also simply what the NIEs will say. (That will depend partly on who replaces Freeman, but I don't imagine it will be more of a realist or questioner of U.S. support for what the Israel government wants than Chas Freeman would have been.)
Getting 'super-real' about the Freeman incident is to confirm everyone's worst fears about the extent of AIPAC's influence on US foreign policy. That an unelected body can usurp democratic government should make every American (who is not a Christian or Jewish, Zionist)extremely nervous and hugely frustrated that it is apparently so easy to thwart the democratic process. Is this the type of democracy that we wish to impose on Iraq and Afghanistan?
March 11, 2009 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly how I feel. But one thing that we're giving up with this is a realist viewpoint in that office [from which will flow the raw assessments that will be the starting point for debates about how to deal with Iran -- how far along they are or are expected to be on the bomb at any given point in time] because one of the lead Freeman critics (Jonathan Chait) used as his fig leaf the assertion that Freeman's realism makes him a radical ideologue. Freeman's views are mainstream within realism, which itself was the default way of looking at the world in government as recently as 1993 (at the earliest!). I wouldn't think the likelihood that the next NIC nominee will be a realist is very great now. So there has been considerable collateral damage to the quality of U.S. governance in the foreign/intelligence are over this, the stigmatization of realism being just one component of that.
March 12, 2009 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm no expert on foreign policy, but I think suggesting that war with Iran is more likely because one guy isn't going to be advising the president is a bit silly.
March 11, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto!
Seems to me the Obama people have done more to extend an olive branch to Iran than the US has done in a very, very long time.
March 11, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you're wrong about that. This tells me that Obama will cave to Israeli interests more easily than I thought, and we know that Israel wanted to bomb Iran last year -- before Bibi was elected.
50% more likely was too high, though, no doubt. I would say it rose in my mind from a likelihood of 10% to, say, 35%. Still more unlikely than likely. But it definitely jumped. A good part of the jump, maybe two thirds, probably relates to what I thought about Obama before, and what this tells me (willingness to confront pressure, stick by his people/decisions, etc.) But some part of it relates to the reality of what this demonstration of power means for how future NIEs will be spun in the media, how emboldened American Israel hardliners will be because of it, and also simply what the NIEs will say. (That will depend partly on who replaces Freeman, but I don't imagine it will be more of a realist or questioner of U.S. support for what the Israel government wants than Chas Freeman would have been.)
March 12, 2009 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink