Generals Perturbed By Senators’ Obstruction of Chris Hill
I don’t think I’ve posted yet on John McCain and Lindsey Graham acting to hold up veteran diplomat Christopher Hill’s appointment to serve as Ambassador to Iraq. Hill’s a career foreign service officer whose views are sufficiently compatible with conservative politics that George W. Bush made him Ambassador to Poland, Ambassador to Korea, and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia. But neocons are mad that in that last role he helped avert a war with North Korea, so they’re holding up his appointment. There’s no real prospect of blocking him, but McCain and Graham are managing to annoy some of their erstwhile friends. Laura Rozen reports:
There’s one as yet unremarked constituency increasingly disturbed by some Republican senators’ efforts to block the confirmation of former North Korea envoy Christopher Hill to be the next U.S. ambassador to Iraq: the U.S. military.
Sources tell The Cable that Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus, top Iraq commander Gen. Raymond Odierno, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are frustrated by the delay in getting a U.S. ambassador confirmed and into place in Iraq, and support Hill’s confirmation proceeding swiftly.
That said, the nominal source of opposition to Hill is not his work in North Korea but his lack of experience in the Arab world. I think this is a concern that deserves to be taken seriously, but anyone who’s serious about it would recognize that it’s a systemic issue. One might think that the Foreign Service ought to be organized around regional or cultural areas of specialty. But that’s not generally how our system, which prefers to emphasize a form of generalized diplomatic expertise, works. It may be worth reconsidering this choice as a general matter. But there’s no reason to single out one senior FSO for problems here, and everyone knows that their real issue is Cheneyite opposition to the North Korea policy that Hill, Condoleezza Rice, and Bush followed at the end of the Bush administration.
16 Responses to “Generals Perturbed By Senators’ Obstruction of Chris Hill”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 19th, 2009 at 9:47 am
This is nonsense, and not for the reasons you give. In fact, the US right has generally opposed the development of particular expertise in the Arab world, because people with that expertise tend over time to be rather sceptical of US policy there. Cf Freeman, Chas, and ranting at Arabists more generally.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:56 am
What Republicans really want is someone who’s spent a great deal of time in the Middle East, developed a deep expertise there, and have cultivated friendships with its peoples and leaders. Is that too hard a desire to fulfill?
Well, I guess there is the additional qualification that the person with those qualities should also want to slaughter every last Arab. Minor, though.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:00 am
A bit part of the reason why the Foreign Service is set up like it is is that there’s a big fear of people “going native”. There’s something to that- if you work in a place a lot you’re likely to take the concerns of the people there more seriously than if you are there just a few years and know you’ll move to another place soon. Why get invested? But the idea that just general knowledge is good enough, or that the long-term interests of the US should be seen as significantly in conflict with local interests, is, I think, a pretty dubious one and one that hasn’t served us very well. I wish we’d move away from it.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:45 am
“Of course there is, when this is our most important Ambassador in the world. It’s not like the guy is our Ambassador to Guinnea-Bissau or Paraguay.”
So who should we nominate, Al?
March 19th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Seriously?
March 19th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Actually, the ambassador to Iraq should be a general (or admiral). An ambassador is not only the senior diplomat but also has authority, in theory, over all US military personnel in-country. Of course, modern wars are fought through regional joint commands which means the chain of command bypasses the ambassador and runs through the four-star leading, say, NATO or Central Command forces.
However, there is still a shooting war in Iraq, and if the State Department wants to be in charge of foreign policy again, it needs diplomats who have the knowledge base to push back when the military or the CIA wishes to do something stupid. It doesn’t need ambassadors who speak Arabic, it needs ambassadors who speak General.
If you’ll recall, General Jim Jones (Obama’ NSA) offered Anthony Zinni the post and then un-offered it… after Vice President Biden had called to congratulate General Zinni. I’d note that Zinni has Middle East experience from his time leading Central Command.
Sen. McCain is a retired Navy Captain from a long line of career officers. Sen. Graham is a reserve AF Colonel who only left active duty to raise his orphaned kid sister. I think their opposition to Hill is because they’re pissed off to see a brother officer (even if he a Marine) treated so shabbily.
To quote from the Graham/McCain statement, “The next ambassador should have experience in the Middle East and in working closely with the U.S. military in counterinsurgency or counterterrorism operations. Mr. Hill has neither”.
March 19th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Al says “this is our most important ambassador in the world.” Really?! It’s certainly a big deal given our continuing troop presence, but do you think this is more important than the ambassador to China, Russia, India, Japan, Saudi, Canada, Mexico, or UK? To quote John McEnroe…
As for the FSO system, the “going native” concern is one reason why we throw diplomats from one region to the next. Also, for recruiting purposes, the prospect of a diplomatic life sounds more “fun” if you know that you’ll get to live in 5 or 6 (or more) different places around the world during your career.
March 19th, 2009 at 11:51 am
It’s inappropriate for generals to complain about what senators are doing with an ambassadorial nomination; the fact that we side with the generals in this case shouldn’t make their complaints any less repugnant.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Al, you’re right, I shouldn’t have put UK on the list; that’s not hugely important. But the others, particularly China, Japan, Saudi, Canada, and Mexico, are countries with whom we have big-time economic relations. Those ambassadors are really big deals, given that trade disputes with those countries have significant effects on US economic welfare. I can in fact name several of the past and present ambassadors to those countries without checking google. (And no, I do not work for government or in a diplomacy-related field.) The Iraq ambassador is “important” for different reasons, but I don’t think it outranks the ambassadors for these other countries. And these days I think the ambassador to Pakistan (as well as Holbrooke’s role as “special envoy” or whatever to Af/Pak) is pretty damn important as well.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Beowulf, you are straight nuts if you think we shoudl ever put an active duty military person as ambassador anywhere. You know that whole civilian control. Also the amabssador does not have control over the US military in Iraq. All of those troops are not under Chief of Mission authority. The ambassador would never have control over US troops in a active military situation.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“It’s inappropriate for generals to complain about what senators are doing with an ambassadorial nomination; the fact that we side with the generals in this case shouldn’t make their complaints any less repugnant.”
Really? It’s inappropriate to complain that you’re conducting operations in a fledgling nation without a US ambassador? Really?
March 19th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I’d say that generals should not be complaining publicly about what specific Senators are doing, but should certainly complain about the situation. The political use of a general’s complaints by non-uniformed people is fair game.
I was about to say that there’s no shortage of people willing to complain about the acts of individual senators, but sadly, that really isn’t true.
March 20th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Nathaniel,
Active duty, no. Retired (or reserve) officer yes. And as I noted in my original post, the ambassador doesn’t have control of military forces in Iraq (the chain of command runs through Central Command), the issue is when the CIA and the Defense Department are sitting at the table working out issues with an ambassador in a country we have troops fighting in, its important that the State Department’s man on the scene be able to speak knowledgeably about military issues.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
My fellow on Orkut shared this link with me and I’m not dissapointed that I came here.