The Foreign Service Journal, April 2009

policy, in November makes clear ( www.federaltimes.com/index.php? S=3798588 ). Yet advocates of urgently building up a civilian response capability in the State Department and USAID — where, they argue, such a civilian force properly belongs—are concerned that the DODmove only further militarizes America’s engagement with the world and potentially undermines State’s abil- ity to get funding and support for the peacebuilding initiative. The Friends Committee on National Legislation, which was active in securing congres- sional passage of legislation and fund- ing for State’s Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, has called for Congress to review the new directive ( www.fcnl.org ) . — Susan Brady Maitra, Senior Editor Controversy Points to Foreign Policy Dilemma On March 10, Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis C. Blair announced that Ambassador Charles W. “Chas” Freeman had asked that his selection as chairman of the National Intelligence Council “not proceed,” a request Blair accepted “with regret.” Freeman’s decision followed a vitri- olic campaign by critics that showed no sign of abating. The incident raises questions about the health of the na- tion’s foreign policy process and about the prospects for an effective U.S. Mid- dle East policy, in particular. The retired Senior FSO and former ambassador to Saudi Arabia had been appointed chairman of the office re- sponsible for producing the National Intelligence Estimate that guides na- tional security policy on Feb. 26. Free- man, who was also a top Defense Department official during the Reagan administration and whose experience ranges from the Middle East to Africa and China, is well known for being an independent thinker and realist. “Ambassador Freeman is a distin- guished public servant who brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise in defense, diplomacy and intelligence that are absolutely critical to under- standing today’s threats and how to ad- dress them,” ODNI Director Blair had stated in announcing the appointment. ( www.dni.gov/press_releases/2009 0226_release.pdf ). The attack on Freeman was launched in mid-February, when the appointment was still a rumor, in a blog by Steve Rosen, the former official of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee who was indicted for pro- Israeli espionage in a long-running AIPAC scandal ( www.thenation.com/ blogs/dreyfuss ). The salvo was broad- cast by Fox News and then surfaced in the pages of the Wall Street Journal , where one Gabriel Schoenfeld of the Witherspoon Institute labeled Freeman a “China-coddling Israel basher” who would fill the NIE with his own “out- landish perspectives and prejudices” ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123 552619980465801.html ). In a detailed review of the contro- versy, The Cable , a branch of Foreign Policy magazine, reported that many experts believed the controversy to be more about President Barack Obama’s policy orientation than about Freeman ( http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/ posts/2009/02/25/the_controver sy_over_chas_freeman ). Many of Freeman’s critics opposed Obama him- self as well as other high-level appoint- ments, such as National Security Advi- ser Gen. James L. Jones — accusing them of being insufficiently pro-Israel or too even-handed. Meanwhile, the appointment was applauded by many others. “Chas is a highly experienced, perceptive, and well-regarded U.S. diplomat,” said for- mer senior NIC official Paul Pillar, now a professor at Georgetown. Wrote David Rothkopf on ForeignPolicy.com : “Few people would be better for these tasks than Chas Freeman. Part of the reason he is so controversial is that he has zero fear of speaking what he per- ceives to be truth to power. You can’t cow him and you can’t find someone with a more relentlessly questioning worldview.” In a statement following his resigna- tion, Freeman points to the incident’s broader implications: “I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Mid- dle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that fac- tion to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. A P R I L 2 0 0 9 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 11 C Y B E R N O T E S T he biggest problem of our region is not territory and not the Palestinian conflict. We must create new priorities in the old Middle East. I think everybody who lives here understands that our biggest problem today is Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq and only after this the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. — Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party and possible incoming Israeli foreign minister, March 1, www.washingtonpost.com