By Shashank Joshi - US politics- Last updated: December 21st, 2012
165 Comments- Comment on this article
Chuck Hagel (left) with Barack Obama
If plebgate is getting you down about Westminster, it may be therapeutic to turn your attention, briefly, to the epically dysfunctional state of American politics. You might assume that the Obama administration, having won re-election for a second term, is actually free to form a government – what with being the executive branch and all. This would be a misapprehension.
A startling number of positions in the US government require that candidates be reviewed and then "confirmed" by the Senate. During the Kennedy presidency, there were about 280 such jobs. Now, there are around 1,400. The average time for confirmation is more than 10 months. These include such grand offices of state as "Advisory Board for Cuba Broadcasting" and the "Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation".
While there are obvious benefits to allowing the republic’s legislators to scrutinise and approve the government’s various ministers, the practical effect is frequently less constructive. This, remember, is the most polarised, work-shy and perhaps incompetent Congress in American history. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the process by which it assesses candidates is less than rational.
This season’s first casualty was Susan Rice, currently the US Ambassador to the United Nations and widely mooted as Hillary Clinton’s replacement as the Secretary of State. Rice had the misfortune to represent her government on morning talk-shows after the September 11 attacks on US diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. She spoke from talking points supplied by the US "Intelligence Community", a term that covers not just the CIA but also a plethora of other agencies.
To cut a long and horrendously convoluted story short, Republicans took issue with her testimony and turned it into grounds to oppose her (hypothetical) nomination. This despite the fact that she could not possibly have borne any responsibility for errors of fact or interpretation passed on to her by others, or that Condoleezza Rice had been confirmed in the same job during the Bush years after far more egregious mistakes in the run-up to the Iraq War.
There are, of course, perfectly reasonable grounds for condemning security lapses in Benghazi three months ago – but to blame Rice was to gratuitously shoot the messenger. In the face of this unrelenting Republican hounding, Rice was eventually worn down and withdrew her name from consideration.
Now, after that unedifying episode, we find ourselves facing another theatre of the absurd. Chuck Hagel – a distinguished former Republican Senator, war veteran, and foreign policy heavyweight – is widely understood to be the administration’s first choice for Leon Panetta’s successor as Secretary of Defense. But, almost as soon as his name was leaked, and despite his long service as a Republican, the smears quickly came flying.
According to Right-wing editor Bill Kristol, Hagel had demonstrated “anti-Israel, pro-appeasement-of-Iran bona fides”. According to others, Hagel was as good as an anti-semite. One particularly execrable piece of analysis even concluded that "if he’s nominated, it would basically mean the administration has come to terms with Iran getting the bomb".
Needless to say, these are all ludicrous suggestions. They have been plucked from the air by excitable and partisan hacks. Nothing could better illustrate just how far American political discourse on Israel, Iran and the Middle East has grown untethered from reality, couched in wild hyperbole, and flecked with meaningless accusations of racism.
Ten years after the Iraq War, what we so desperately need is a sober and serious debate about Iran that is grounded in the facts, and guided by an understanding of the limits to using military force. What we have instead is a situation where anyone in Washington who favours anything other than carpet bombing Iran is tarred as a dangerous subversive. Such alarmist rhetoric is to be expected during election season but, over a month on from voting day, it’s time to grow up.
Let’s be clear: as with Susan Rice, it’s by no means clear that Chuck Hagel is the best person for the job (for a start, there are perfectly qualified Democrats). But it is impossible to overstate just how cynical and evidence-free this entire process has become. This would not be the first time a cabinet nominee has been targeted with spurious allegations of anti-semitism, and it will not be the last. Whatever your political allegiance, this is no way to run a country. Barack Obama should hold his ground, show that he will not be bullied, and put up a fight for Chuck Hagel’s nomination.
Shashank Joshi is an Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). He is also a doctoral student of international relations at Harvard University’s Department of Government. Read more about Shashank here.
*** 177 Comments
Read more: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/shashankjoshi/100195275/the-fight-over-the-secretary-of-defences-appointment-shows-how-detached-from-reality-us-politics-has-become
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog".
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
23122012
___________
Cộng sản Việt Nam là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC/
No comments:
Post a Comment