Clarke’s Subtle Criticism

I haven’t been talking much about the ongoing hearings, though I certainly have a few things to say about a former Illinois Governor’s performance during them, but one thing that strikes me about Clarke’s point isn’t how explosive it is, but how the actual criticism is very subtle.

Most of the focus on his testimony has focused on his specific charges against the Bush administration. Of those, his claims that they ignored or at least put terrorism on the back burner are the most focused upon.

This shouldn’t be surprising to the American public though. Americans weren’t concerned about large scale terrorism despite having a federal building blown up just a few years ago. Bush ran a campaign that focused on strategic threats of nation-states. In fact, this is one of my many criticisms of his candidacy in 2000. It was a foreign policy borne out the past where nation states were the primary security threat.

Worse, was the choice of Condi Rice for national security. While a very bright and competent woman in her field, her field is the problem–Kremlinology. Kremlinology is a word used in Political Science to deride those who studied the Kremlin and its personalities more than using the scientific method. While Kremlinology was somewhat useful in conducting foreign policy, it wasn’t really a useful field. It was outdated by 2000 on top of everything else.

All that said, the American people don’t care about the above. They didn’t vote for Bush or Gore because of their foreign policy except for a small portion of the public. They didn’t see a threat and so foreign policy was a secondary debate amongst political junkies and the foreign policy establishment.

I doubt most Americans care much if Bush did not put terrorism on the frontburner after the 2000 election. The people didn’t so why should he? Obviously we hope our leaders stay ahead of the curve, but in general, Al Qaeda seemed like a distant threat while more traditional nation-states had been tremendous problems and were projected to be tremendous problems in the future.

So taking 8 months to develop a nearly identical policy to that of the Clinton Administration isn’t that bizarre of a move. Silly and petty yes. Unusual or careless–not really. Every administration thinks they will be far more effective than the last and they think they can come up with solutions that are far superior. The reality is that in the complex world, the options chosen are usually the least worst under the constraints imposed on a nation and inevitably the same least worst solutions are found.

What is subtle about Clarke’s claims as I interpret them is that everyone failed and that is horrible, but it happens. What he seems truly upset about is that Bush is now running on his record of combating terrorism when Bush was ineffective in Clarke’s view. Clarke seems to accept that such things happen, but then can’t believe the chutzpah of running on an ineffective policy.

So far, the news media has avoided what I think is a subtle, but perhaps more damning argument from Clarke, that while Bush made a mistake, that is forgivable, but running on that mistake is bizarre.