Politico Magazine is another outlet for liberals that seems permanently caught in the media/Democrat bubble. A good example of this is the article by Nik Steinberg who denounces Rex Tillerson for destroying the State Department. Steinberg was a political appointee of president Obama at the UN mission of the USA. He is apoplectic because many of the so called professional staff at the UN have left the government for the private sector. Supposedly, the secretary of state is destroying the future of the department by forcing these folks out.
We can argue about whether or not any of them have been forced to leave, but before we do let's take a look at those who Steinberg describes in detail who have left. Here's his description verbatim:
[T]he sanctions expert who, each time North Korea carried out an illicit nuclear or ballistic missile test, could walk us through previous negotiations of U.N. sanctions—where China had resisted tightening the screws, and where Beijing might be pushed to apply more pressure—because he’d sat on our side of the table during many of those discussions. Or the former military officer who, when we were scrambling to determine the most efficient way to airlift supplies into West Africa during the Ebola outbreak, knew offhand the logistical capacities of every U.N. peacekeeping base in the region. Or our Syria expert, a native Arabic speaker who had developed a network of aid workers and civilians on the ground, providing a crucial source of information about the ongoing sieges and chemical weapons attacks. Or the legal adviser who knew the U.N. Charter by heart and had an encyclopedic knowledge of precedents that could be called upon for drafting Security Council resolutions in a crisis, as when Russia invaded Crimea.
Just think about those people. The first one knew all about previous negotiations about North Korea and could guide the USA delegation through future talks on the subject. Okay, he's gone, but remember that all those past negotiations were complete failures. They ranged from deals struck by the USA with the NK's on which the North Koreans cheated and continued their nuclear programs while getting aid from the USA to deals where we tried to get the NK's to stop building nukes but failed. Why do we need to know the nuances of those past deals? Surely, America would not want to repeat past mistakes; yet, that is the "guidance" that this person would provide. We need fresh ideas and fresh viewpoints, not the moldy failed views that prevailed until now.
Then we have the Syria expert who supposedly provided crucial info about chemical weapons attacks. Remember that Obama waited for 18 actual chemical attacks over many months before ever responding to the problem. President Obama consistently said that there was no proof of those attacks even when countries like France and Canada publically concluded that these attacks were ongoing and required a response. That means that the sources of the Syria expert were either unable to confirm what the world knew was happening, or the president was getting the truth and just lying to the American people. Either way, that Syria expert doesn't seem to have added much to the discussion.
Then there's the legal expert who knows the UN Charter so well; he helped drafting the resolution when Russia invaded Crimea. Of course, resolution or not resolution, the Russians remain in Crimea. In fact, Russia formally annexed Crimea and nothing was done in response. That expertise in the arcane workings of the UN might matter if the UN mattered, but other than as a forum to talk, virtually nothing of moment happens there. The legal expert may have great expertise, but it is in a subject of little importance. He's like the historian with encyclopedic knowledge of Egypt in the Late Bronze Age. He may be an expert, but it is in a subject that has little relevance to the real world.
That leaves the person who knew the logistics capabilities of bases in West Africa. That sounds good, but can it really be that but for that expert it would have been difficult to determine these facts? Of course not. There are not that many bases for UN peacekeeping bases in the region. After a phone call or two, all of the information could have been gathered in probably less than a half hour.
So let's put all this together. Let's assume that Steinberg is correct when he says that career employees of the State Department at the UN are leaving the government. Is that really so bad? Do we really want to have the mistakes of the past, of which there are many, repeated by people who just seem to want to do the same things again and again? Or, do we want fresh ideas and fresh viewpoints? The reality is that Steinberg's own arguments make a rather convincing case for getting a new look at some of the fossilized methods and views of the US state department. Steinberg is actually making the opposite point from the one he thinks he is proving.
We can argue about whether or not any of them have been forced to leave, but before we do let's take a look at those who Steinberg describes in detail who have left. Here's his description verbatim:
[T]he sanctions expert who, each time North Korea carried out an illicit nuclear or ballistic missile test, could walk us through previous negotiations of U.N. sanctions—where China had resisted tightening the screws, and where Beijing might be pushed to apply more pressure—because he’d sat on our side of the table during many of those discussions. Or the former military officer who, when we were scrambling to determine the most efficient way to airlift supplies into West Africa during the Ebola outbreak, knew offhand the logistical capacities of every U.N. peacekeeping base in the region. Or our Syria expert, a native Arabic speaker who had developed a network of aid workers and civilians on the ground, providing a crucial source of information about the ongoing sieges and chemical weapons attacks. Or the legal adviser who knew the U.N. Charter by heart and had an encyclopedic knowledge of precedents that could be called upon for drafting Security Council resolutions in a crisis, as when Russia invaded Crimea.
Just think about those people. The first one knew all about previous negotiations about North Korea and could guide the USA delegation through future talks on the subject. Okay, he's gone, but remember that all those past negotiations were complete failures. They ranged from deals struck by the USA with the NK's on which the North Koreans cheated and continued their nuclear programs while getting aid from the USA to deals where we tried to get the NK's to stop building nukes but failed. Why do we need to know the nuances of those past deals? Surely, America would not want to repeat past mistakes; yet, that is the "guidance" that this person would provide. We need fresh ideas and fresh viewpoints, not the moldy failed views that prevailed until now.
Then we have the Syria expert who supposedly provided crucial info about chemical weapons attacks. Remember that Obama waited for 18 actual chemical attacks over many months before ever responding to the problem. President Obama consistently said that there was no proof of those attacks even when countries like France and Canada publically concluded that these attacks were ongoing and required a response. That means that the sources of the Syria expert were either unable to confirm what the world knew was happening, or the president was getting the truth and just lying to the American people. Either way, that Syria expert doesn't seem to have added much to the discussion.
Then there's the legal expert who knows the UN Charter so well; he helped drafting the resolution when Russia invaded Crimea. Of course, resolution or not resolution, the Russians remain in Crimea. In fact, Russia formally annexed Crimea and nothing was done in response. That expertise in the arcane workings of the UN might matter if the UN mattered, but other than as a forum to talk, virtually nothing of moment happens there. The legal expert may have great expertise, but it is in a subject of little importance. He's like the historian with encyclopedic knowledge of Egypt in the Late Bronze Age. He may be an expert, but it is in a subject that has little relevance to the real world.
That leaves the person who knew the logistics capabilities of bases in West Africa. That sounds good, but can it really be that but for that expert it would have been difficult to determine these facts? Of course not. There are not that many bases for UN peacekeeping bases in the region. After a phone call or two, all of the information could have been gathered in probably less than a half hour.
So let's put all this together. Let's assume that Steinberg is correct when he says that career employees of the State Department at the UN are leaving the government. Is that really so bad? Do we really want to have the mistakes of the past, of which there are many, repeated by people who just seem to want to do the same things again and again? Or, do we want fresh ideas and fresh viewpoints? The reality is that Steinberg's own arguments make a rather convincing case for getting a new look at some of the fossilized methods and views of the US state department. Steinberg is actually making the opposite point from the one he thinks he is proving.
No comments:
Post a Comment