The Secretary of State: Dereliction of Duty by Design?
Impasse in US-Iraqi forces talks
Iran rules out halt to enrichment
Rally directs anger at Musharraf
Pakistan's truce effort comes at cost of US battle against militants
Diplomacy has been conspicuously absent from a Bush Administration foreign policy that has thus far failed to foster political stability in places most threatening to our national security. It has been nearly seven years since 9/11 yet successes in America's on-going struggle against dangerous ideological fanaticism have been fleeting at best. In Iraq the question of America's long-term participation is up for debate, and it's revealing a growing rift between the Iraqis and the Bush Administration. In Iran no progress has been made on the nuclear confrontation, dangerous saber rattling continues, and the Iranians seem to be steadily gaining in influence in Iraq. In nuclear Pakistan, possibly the most important of all of the hot-spots, our "ally" has been rocked by one disaster after another recently-- the Red Mosque siege, the revolt of the judges, the Bhutto assassination, the government in tatters, the Taliban and Al-Qeada holed up in its mountains. These are no trifling matters. So where is the Secretary of State through all of this?
Ms. Rice occasionally surfaces here and there, usually in a mop-up role apologizing for mishaps like Blackwater or as a figurehead sent to lend legitimacy to some controversial actions taken by an ally. Rarely does Condie appear in proactive deliberations with anyone other than our staunchest allies-- the Bush Doctrine after all calls for preemptive war not preemptive negotiations (like an energy summit for example). Yet the Secretary of State is the highest ranking cabinet position, in both line of succession and order of precedence, the official most responsible for America's foreign policy next to the President. It has traditionally been the country's second most visible office-- not with Condoleezza Rice. You rarely ever even see her. Case in point: Israel has recently entered into talks with Syria and Hamas and is on the verge of negotiating with the Lebanese leadership, a hopeful development that has already yielded results in form of the Hamas truce, yet the U.S. delegation is nowhere to be found. I wrote about this last year and nothing has changed. If anything she has faded even further from view? Question: what will Dr. Rice's legacy be? I can't think of any major foreign policy successes during her tenure, can you? So is it the person or the office itself that has been relegated to stand-in status?
The Secretary of State has always served as America's foreign policy mouth-piece, both outward to the world and inward as the interpreter of policy and intentions to the press and therefore to we the people. In our system the Secretary of State is immensely influential in policy-making and has traditionally attained a level of notoriety; names like Marshall, Acheson, Dulles, Kissinger, Schultz, Albright and Powell are all remembered as being right in the thick of America's most wrenching foreign policy decisions, from WWII through Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. Whether in agreement with their actions or not, one can't deny the centrality of each to the histories and public memory of these important events in the American story. We are now once again living in a crucial period in the Country's development. Unfortunately our foreign posture has been eroding steadily under the unbearable weight of the current administration's unyielding unilateralism-- we are in two foreign wars, our reputation in the world has plummeted to an all-time low, there is chaos right in the heart of the most important hot-spots for our national security-- diplomatic osteoporosis has set in. And the Secretary of State? Whereabouts unknown.
As is usually the case these days it has been Defense Secretary Robert Gates who makes most public statements. The rise of Defense to the detriment of State is not a new development, far from it in fact, it has been the trend under Mr. Bush from the start. It makes perfect sense; the Bush administration has consistently taken the bully position in foreign affairs ("you're either with us or against us") displaying a brand of ideologically driven unilateralism that has made much of the world and millions of Americans cringe. Bush/Cheney decided they would give the orders after 9/11 and they rarely negotiate. When engagement becomes a dirty word, what do you really need a Secretary of State for? Window dressing I think. Instead the publicly presented face is that of the Secretary of Defense-- to show the world we mean business-- we're not here to talk, we're here for action.
And so Mr. Rumsfeld had more influence than Mr. Powell at that crucial moment when Iraq's fate was decided. It didn't take Mr. Powell long to realize afterward that in this new U.S. diplomatic structure the Secretary of State didn't figure so prominently, so he wisely cut his losses. Ms. Rice on the other hand appears to be satisfied to play the part of the apologist as the dismantling of State's influence continues unabated under her watch. She is like the captain of the Titanic declaring to doomed passengers and crew: "no reason to fear, we've only stopped to take on a little ice." The rise of DOD has coincided with the Bush administration's fanatical push to consolidate ever more power in the hands of the Executive. As one might expect there has been a corollary increase in militaristic thinking coming from the Oval Office-- with Dick Cheney leading the onslaught (the top hawk is a former Secretary of Defense and has been evangelical in his zeal for increasing the power of the Executive and the Military). This is an unfortunate development. We know that John McCain will certainly continue to favor militarism over dialog, his campaign makes no bones about that fact.Barack Obama on the other hand seems eager to abandon intimidation as the primary foreign policy tactic. If so, we can hope for a stronger Secretary of State if he wins.