Some unabashedly pro-Israel proponents in Washington successfully orchestrated a multi-pronged defense of their own interests through a 21st century witch hunt while, with the same strike, potentially weakening the security of the United States.
Since the publication of President Barack Obama’s intention of appointing Ambassador Charles ‘Chas’ Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council, pro-Israel ideologues expressed outrage at his even-handed deference towards Israel and the Palestinians alongside decrying his previous relationship with Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, Congressional critics on the Intelligence Committees questioned Freeman’s lack of direct espionage experience.
As Chairman of NIC, Freeman would serve as the chief advisor to Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair on long-term strategic decisions, such as confronting Iran over nuclear weapons. NIC accomplishes its mission through coordinating analysis efforts both inside and outside the government in order to generate National Intelligence Estimates on threats to the nation.
Freeman’s résumé speaks for itself, through his posts as the State Department’s Director for Chinese Affairs, U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia throughout the first Gulf conflict, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and President of the Middle East Policy Council.
In the highly fragmented intelligence community, Freeman brings a swath of expertise from positions in a variety of federal agencies and private center entities, enabling him to bridge the ideological and systematic gaps between the various analysts working with NIC, regardless of the fact that he lacks direct espionage experience.
Freeman dedicated his career towards knowing and understanding some of the greatest threats facing the United States, particularly through his various Asian and Middle Eastern posts. This intimate knowledge of the cultures and personalities in these regions provides Freeman with an innate knack for understanding the unique intricacies of these threats.
Blair hand-picked Freeman due to his vast qualifications and irrefutable knowledge of these regions and staunchly defended the decision in a recent letter to Congress. Throughout the correspondence, he accentuated NIC’s role as an analysis, not policy, focused agency with multiple levels of review to ensure an accurate, un-biased assessment of security threats to the nation.
In the letter, Blair confronts Freeman critics who question his allegiance to the United States due to his relationship with Saudi Arabian officials and donations from the Kingdom given to Freeman’s former organization. These opponents targeted Freeman’s right to associate and in McCarthy-fashion infused doubt into a benign relationship. Blair clearly defines the transparent review of these associations to uproot any conflicts of interests.
Instead of adhering to the libeling of a public servant as incapable of objectivity and professionally defending his country, the State Department Inspector General and government lawyers should assess Freeman’s dossier and independently inform Congress of their own assessment, one which Blair resolutely believes would vindicate Freeman.
Even though Freeman lacks a staunch pro-Israel stance, some Administration officials, such as Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel and State Department Special Advisor Dennis Ross, more than make-up for any remotely sympathetic views towards Arabs and the Palestinians. In fact, Freeman emphasized his pragmatism towards the region in 2000 when he penned an op-ed in The New York Times, “A U.S. Role is Crucial for Peace,” advocating a proactive American presence in the region for a two-state solution, the same position espoused by his critics. He calls for an end to rhetoric and emotionally charged oratory in exchange for a coherent strategy to advance the peace process according to U.S. interests.
Aside for the unfounded criticisms levied against Freeman, the Administration’s duty revolves first and foremost in protecting the United States, not ensuring a pro-Israel policy in the White House. Instead of capitulating to the demands of ideologues who distort the image of a civil servant to serve their own interests, the government should reinforce national security with the most qualified and able Americans seeking to serve their country.
