Condi’s Big Challenges

Washington, D.C. When President Bush appointed Condoleeza Rice--known as Condi in the White House--to be Colin Powell’s successor as secretary of state, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) expressed widely shared misgivings: “My concern is that she appears to be very much in sync with the thinking of Don Rumsfeld and the vice president at a time when you need other voices around the table.” Mary Matalin, Cheney’s former assistant, confirmed the public’s perception of the President’s closeness to Rice: “She knows what he wants without even telling her.”

When Bush began considering a run for the presidency, he met Rice at the home of former secretary of state George Shultz where, for the first time, they discussed foreign affairs. “You could see that the two of them sort of clicked,” Shultz remembered. Bush nicknamed her “Guru” and had her tutor him on the many aspects of foreign affairs issues with which he was woefully unfamiliar.

Although Rice holds a doctorate in international relations (with an emphasis on Russia) from the University of Denver and has taught the subject at Stanford University, she never served as a diplomat and lacks first-hand experience in the Islamic and Arab world. Not gifted with the engaging personality and diplomatic skills of Colin Powell, she has so far received a decidedly unfavorable reception in the press overseas. Typically, the German news magazine Der Spiegel characterized Rice as “warrior princess,” “famous for not being charmable.”

After the invasion of Iraq, she baffled foreign affairs experts by bluntly proposing to “punish France, ignore Germany, and forgive Russia.” A short visit to Israel and the hard-line advice of the President’s pro-Likud advisers made her embarrassingly insensitive to the injustice of Sharon’s brutal occupation policies in the Palestinian territories.

Rather than offering the president distinct policy alternatives in her role as national security adviser, she pleased him by reinforcing his preference for unilateral action, as advocated by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other neo-cons. According to USA TODAY, “She once told a reporter that she saw her job as translating the president’s instincts into policy.” To this end, she played “fast and loose with prewar intelligence on Iraq’s purported nuclear program to justify the war.”

Since most foreign affairs professionals in the State Department disagreed with the President’s plans for the Mideast, Rice’s relations with them were strained throughout her tenure as national security adviser. Her former Stanford colleague Michael McFaul observed: “She now goes to work in this building where 90% of the employees were hoping to work for another president.” If she hires political loyalists as her main assistants, “The seventh floor of the State Department [the Secretary’s offices] will be disconnected from the rest of the building. Plenty of people over there will resist it and gut it out for four years.”

In administrative scope alone, the switch from the National Security Council (NSC) to the State Department will be a formidable challenge. Hitherto, Rice presided over 230 employees and an annual $8.9 million budget. At State she will face a complex bureaucracy with 28,716 employees and a $4.2 billion budget.

Most of the foreign policy problems she helped to create as national security adviser continue to burden the nation. She does not seem to understand that the worldwide scourge of anti-American terrorism cannot be stopped with military means alone, but requires anger-reducing initiatives, most of all a stern and even-handed American insistence on an Israeli Palestinian peace settlement.

When asked how she proposes to end the costly Iraqi insurgency, she evaded the issue with trite generalities: “When you have big historic changes, there are going to be ups and downs. … There are going to be peaks and valleys. Some things are going to go right. Some things are going to go wrong. But as long as the strategic direction is in the right way, that’s really what you have to judge.”

Regrettably, Rice still does not recognize that the strategyof forcing President Bush’s “freedom” with American occupation troops on angry Muslim societies is the main cause of America’s continuing troubles in the Middle East.

Wolf D. Fuhrig	Home	12-12-04
Condi’s Big Challenges
Washington, D.C. When President Bush appointed Condoleeza Rice--known as Condi in the White House--to be Colin Powell’s successor as secretary of state, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) expressed widely shared misgivings: “My concern is that she appears to be very much in sync with the thinking of Don Rumsfeld and the vice president at a time when you need other voices around the table.” Mary Matalin, Cheney’s former assistant, confirmed the public’s perception of the President’s closeness to Rice: “She knows what he wants without even telling her.” When Bush began considering a run for the presidency, he met Rice at the home of former secretary of state George Shultz where, for the first time, they discussed foreign affairs. “You could see that the two of them sort of clicked,” Shultz remembered. Bush nicknamed her “Guru” and had her tutor him on the many aspects of foreign affairs issues with which he was woefully unfamiliar. Although Rice holds a doctorate in international relations (with an emphasis on Russia) from the University of Denver and has taught the subject at Stanford University, she never served as a diplomat and lacks first-hand experience in the Islamic and Arab world. Not gifted with the engaging personality and diplomatic skills of Colin Powell, she has so far received a decidedly unfavorable reception in the press overseas. Typically, the German news magazine Der Spiegel characterized Rice as “warrior princess,” “famous for not being charmable.” After the invasion of Iraq, she baffled foreign affairs experts by bluntly proposing to “punish France, ignore Germany, and forgive Russia.” A short visit to Israel and the hard-line advice of the President’s pro-Likud advisers made her embarrassingly insensitive to the injustice of Sharon’s brutal occupation policies in the Palestinian territories. Rather than offering the president distinct policy alternatives in her role as national security adviser, she pleased him by reinforcing his preference for unilateral action, as advocated by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other neo-cons. According to USA TODAY, “She once told a reporter that she saw her job as translating the president’s instincts into policy.” To this end, she played “fast and loose with prewar intelligence on Iraq’s purported nuclear program to justify the war.” Since most foreign affairs professionals in the State Department disagreed with the President’s plans for the Mideast, Rice’s relations with them were strained throughout her tenure as national security adviser. Her former Stanford colleague Michael McFaul observed: “She now goes to work in this building where 90% of the employees were hoping to work for another president.” If she hires political loyalists as her main assistants, “The seventh floor of the State Department [the Secretary’s offices] will be disconnected from the rest of the building. Plenty of people over there will resist it and gut it out for four years.” In administrative scope alone, the switch from the National Security Council (NSC) to the State Department will be a formidable challenge. Hitherto, Rice presided over 230 employees and an annual $8.9 million budget. At State she will face a complex bureaucracy with 28,716 employees and a $4.2 billion budget. Most of the foreign policy problems she helped to create as national security adviser continue to burden the nation. She does not seem to understand that the worldwide scourge of anti-American terrorism cannot be stopped with military means alone, but requires anger-reducing initiatives, most of all a stern and even-handed American insistence on an Israeli Palestinian peace settlement. When asked how she proposes to end the costly Iraqi insurgency, she evaded the issue with trite generalities: “When you have big historic changes, there are going to be ups and downs. … There are going to be peaks and valleys. Some things are going to go right. Some things are going to go wrong. But as long as the strategic direction is in the right way, that’s really what you have to judge.” Regrettably, Rice still does not recognize that the strategyof forcing President Bush’s “freedom” with American occupation troops on angry Muslim societies is the main cause of America’s continuing troubles in the Middle East.

Wolf D. Fuhrig

Home

12-12-04

Condi’s Big Challenges