Richard Nixon, not known for his sense of humor, used to joke
that he was an “expert” on Vietnam because he had visited it
nineteen times. He would then admit most of these sojourns were
refueling stops on the way to somewhere else. Staff would laugh and
agree the boss was truly expert on the region. Hillary Clinton has
developed the same sort of foreign policy credentials, but without
the humor.
Yes, it’s true that she has been to many conferences and had
many meetings with foreign dignitaries, but as far as actually
having worked or studied in distant areas of the world, her
experience is non-existent. Her husband learned all about the U.K.
during his year at Oxford — through a cloud of pot smoke and pints
of beer. Somewhere along the line this made him supposedly well
versed in Anglo-Saxon culture — at least enough to satisfy Tony
Blair.
The point of all this is to note that many — most — of the
people in Congress and at the White House have little or no real
field experience in foreign affairs. Spending one’s career at a
desk in the DC area, whether it’s Langley, or Foggy Bottom, or any
of the other appropriate sites, does not qualify as field
experience. A tour in a comfortable European capital does not
qualify as field experience. What does qualify is fifteen or twenty
years at various posts around the world even if it’s regionally
specialized. Chris Stevens had this type of background.
At one point during the Carter days, Stansfield Turner, the
newly appointed Director of the CIA, stated that he preferred to
fire all operations personnel over 55 years of age because they
learned everything they knew from their experiences during WWII and
the Cold War through 1976. This he held was out-of-date knowledge
and experience. They should all go, he said, and so they did. When
the special assistant in charge of this house cleaning was
finished, he, too, was retired. In spite of later efforts to
rebuild, the Agency never completely recovered its institutional
memory or agent relationships.
The reality is that the institutional memory and international
contacts, as well as definitive intellect, of both the government
agencies and Congress that uniquely qualified Washington as a world
power center now for the most part have been diminished. All the
old guys and gals sit around grumbling in their retirement — many
not even yet old enough to be eligible for Social Security. Except
for the regular appearances on TV of a few select retired military
brass or opportunistic “Intel” types, the past brain power is
squandered in consultancies at the think tanks and defense
industries, both of whom are interested only in selling something
to the USG.
Of course there is the usual disposal of highly qualified senior
and even middle-ranking personnel who do not fit the political
profile of the moment. This is done not merely by firing the
top-ranking job holders, but also by shunting others of lesser rank
into far less important posts irrelevant to their experience. The
Defense Department is famous for this device. When Nixon and Reagan
came into office, the personnel picture changed as radically as it
did under Carter or Clinton. So, for those complaining about the
Obama White House, there has been plenty of precedent.
Undoubtedly there is a useful aspect to all this winnowing out
process. There are definite advantages to be gained by discarding
the “old wood.” The problem, however, is in the balance between new
fresh ideas and vigor and accumulated knowledge and experience. In
the field of foreign affairs there is always a need for both, but
knowledge and experience in Washington’s bureaucracy and
legislative politics does not relate equally to far more
hard-earned overseas diplomatic and intelligence activity. In the
same manner, years in academia do not equate with the
pressure-filled environment of intelligence analysis.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a smart, well-educated veteran of the
Washington wars — of all sorts. She has traveled nearly one million
miles and visited 112 countries in four years. Unfortunately such
roaming about does not equate to accomplishment. Depending on one’s
personal and political viewpoint, Hillary Clinton has been either a
great Secretary of State or an indefatigable tourist. The latter
seems much more defensible.
Chuck Hagel’s background includes two Purple Hearts and a proven
ability years ago to hump a sixty-pound pack along Vietnamese
trails with people shooting at him. That gives him a basic
understanding of war — but not of the intricacies of
political/military coordination on an international scale. He’ll be
learning on the job about working with American allies and those
who aren’t. John Kerry has his own unique set of credentials. He’s
quite qualified to play golf and tennis with Abdullah of Jordan,
though he should definitely not get into a judo contest with the
little king and certainly not Vladimir Putin.
The bottom line is that a great portion of the talent base for
the United States’ international affairs lies fallow. So what’s
new? Where’s John Quincy Adams when you need him?
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
