Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Realists v. Hawks: Baker Returns

It may be that four or five months from now:. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz will have heard the siren song of...

Print Friendly

It may be that four or five months from now:

  • Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz will have heard the siren song of academia and returned to teach in ivy-covered halls somewhere; and that
  • His deputy, Undersecretary for Policy, Douglas Feith, will have decided he can’t really afford to put his young kids through school on a government salary, and that it’s time to return to a lucrative law practice; and that
  • Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton will have been advised that the sustained excitement of defending U.S. national sovereignty against all comers–from Al Qaeda, to the French, to Amnesty International–was simply too much for his nervous system, and that it was time to take a long vacation with lots of rest; and even that
  • Vice President Dick Cheney will have been sternly warned by his doctors that his chronic heart problems make his participation in a rigorous reelection battle simply out of the question and that he will have to take himself off the ticket for the sake of his own survival, if not for that of his deeply concerned family members.

Fantasy? Mindless speculation? Wishful thinking? Desperation?

Perhaps, but that doesn’t change the fact that such scenarios suddenly appeared far more real when former Secretary of State James Baker returned in the flesh this week to take up his new office in the White House as President George W. Bush’s personal envoy for persuading other countries to forgive tens of billions of dollars in Iraqi debt.

In returning, Baker, the long-time consigliere to the Bush family whose last mission on its behalf was to secure all of Florida’s electoral votes for George W. in 2000 regardless of the state’s actual voting laws or how people actually voted, made what was already a bad week for administration hawks much, much worse.

As one unnamed “senior administration official” quoted by the New York Times said in noting that Baker has a vastly greater influence on the Bushes than Secretary of State Colin Powell, his fellow realist, could ever hope to have: “Baker is Bush. Other countries know that Powell doesn’t win all the (intra-administration) battles.”

“If you deal with Baker, you know you’re going to get what you need,” said the source in a phrase that must have sent chills down the backs of the neoconservatives and their right-wing fellow travelers, most notably Cheney himself.

Of course, it is not yet known how much Baker, the master diplomatic puppeteer of the first Gulf War, who also served as White House chief of staff and Treasury Secretary under Ronald Reagan, intends to weigh in on policy decisions that go beyond his specific brief.

But the fact that Baker is now in the White House and dealing directly with all of Washington’s major allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East on the future of Iraq, if not the entire region, placing him in the thick of the administration’s foreign policy, to put it mildly. From now on, very little is likely to be decided on anything that affects Iraq or U.S. alliances without his “input.”

One can only imagine what kind of input he has given Bush on Wolfowitz’s incredibly timed decision to make Baker’s task far more difficult and expensive by announcing that the allies with most of Iraq’s debt will not be permitted to bid on some $18.6 billion in reconstruction contracts.

If Baker chooses to interpret Wolfowitz’s move as a deliberate effort to sabotage his mission from the get-go (as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman did Friday), the consequences for the former dean of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, whose hopes of becoming secretary of state in a second Bush term were already on the wane, could be severe.

But the threats posed by Baker’s presence to the hawks, especially the neoconservatives both in and out of the administration, reach far beyond personal score-settling in which Baker has historically shown little interest; they are strategic. By all accounts, Baker believes their dominance of U.S. foreign policy since September 11, 2001 and as illustrated in the Iraq invasion, has been disastrous for the country–and for Bush Jr.’s reelection.

On Iraq, Baker made no secret of his opposition to waging unilateral war before the U.S. invasion. However, Baker was more discreet about it than Bush I’s national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, with whom he remains close.

Baker, like other realists, has also been deeply skeptical, not to say incredulous, about neoconservative ambitions to "remake the face of the Middle East" by exporting democracy. Long associated with Big Oil, Baker would find the radical change in the region of the kind promoted by the neocons unacceptably risky and destabilizing.

Moreover, he has always disdained the Likud Party in Israel. It was Baker who threatened to cut off housing guarantees if then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir did not take part in the 1991 Madrid peace talks (that led eventually to the Oslo peace process). This stance deeply dismayed and angered neoconservatives like Perle, the powerful former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Douglas Feith, and Elliott Abrams, the current Middle East director on the National Security Council.

Baker has also sided consistently with those, like Powell and Bush’s father, who have favored constructive relations with Beijing–a position which Bush Jr. has clearly come to share, as he showed this week during the visit of Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. Indeed, the younger Bush tilted so far, at least rhetorically, in China’s direction at the expense of Taiwan this week, that top neocons outside the administration claimed for the first time since he came to office that Bush himself was guilty of “appeasement”–a charge most unlikely to generate warm feelings in the White House.

Finally, as secretary of state Baker gave top priority to close ties to traditional European allies, including Germany and France, or what the neocons and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld have disdainfully referred to as “Old Europe.” In that respect, Wolfowitz, in issuing his directive banning German and French contractors from bidding on reconstruction contracts, not only made Baker’s job more difficult (and more costly for the U.S. taxpayer), but also lent new weight to those who charge that the hawks have their priorities upside down.

Baker, Scowcroft, Powell, and other Republican realists had already reached that conclusion 12 years ago when some of the neocons, like Wolfowitz and Perle, were furious that the Gulf War ended without the U.S. army in Baghdad.

Similarly, it was Wolfowitz and his boss, then-Secretary of Defense Cheney who kept up a stream of strident warnings that Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev remained a committed Communist whose designs for global conquest were no different from his predecessors right up until … well, right up until the Soviet Union collapsed. Even then, they thought it might be a trick.

It was, of course, Wolfowitz and his top deputy, I. Lewis Libby–who is now Cheney’s powerful chief of staff–who prepared the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) draft in which they called for the U.S. to pursue a strategy of global domination and preemption, nuclear if necessary, against rogue states and possibly emerging rivals.

Baker, Scowcroft, and then-Armed Forces Chief of Staff Powell, not to mention Bush Sr., were so alarmed–as were senior lawmakers and U.S. allies in Europe after parts of it leaked to the New York Times–that it was only Cheney’s promises to overhaul the text that saved the jobs of the two main authors. However, their radical proposals became the core of U.S. national security strategy after the 9/11 attacks a decade later.

In many ways, therefore, the hawks themselves already see Baker as their nemesis. In any case, they have been steadily losing power over the past several months.

Bush’s harsh words for Taiwan’s leader this week, and the readiness with which neocons, like Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, to accuse him of appeasement testify to the serious strains between the White House and the neocon network, which until recently has carefully avoided attacking the president himself for any disagreements it has had with the administration.

In addition, intra-administration fights over Iran, Syria, and North Korea in which the hawks appeared to have the upper hand after the Iraq war have been tilting back toward the realists. This week’s decision by the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), for example, to disarm and deport the Iranian Mojahadin e Khalq marked a signal defeat for Cheney and the neoconservatives, who have wanted to use them against the Islamic Republic. Similarly, the acceleration of “Iraqification” without a thoroughgoing “de-Ba’athification” marks a triumph of the realists.

Indeed, Baker’s arrival in some ways may crown the successful development of an effective “counter-network” within the administration that has gradually eroded the hawks’ authority since September 2003. Aside from Powell and senior officers in the uniformed military and the intelligence community who were always dubious about the hawks, key members of this group include the National Security Council’s (NSC) Coordinator for Strategic Planning, Amb. Robert Blackwill, who came on board in September, and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) chief, Amb. L. Paul Bremer, in Baghdad.

Both are former foreign service officers who are conservative but not ideologues, Bremer and Blackwill have known each other since they both worked for arch-realist Henry Kissinger in the early 1970s. Blackwill is particularly interesting, both because he was Rice’s boss as NSC director for European and Soviet Affairs under Scowcroft in the first Bush administration who, in that capacity, clashed with Wolfowitz and Cheney over Gorbachev. He reportedly met Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a political officer in the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv and has remained on good terms, although he disdains neoconservatives.

When hired by Rice, Blackwill’s job was to assert firm White House control over Iraq policy, which had been seen increasingly between August and October as having been botched by the Pentagon, especially Feith’s office. By most accounts, he has made so much progress in that regard that he also has begun weighing in on overall Middle East policy, possibly at Abrams’ and the neoconservatives’ expense.

Of course, the situation in Iraq is the most important single factor in changing the balance of power within the administration. But Blackwill was also brought in to ensure that the NSC enforces discipline–something which Rice on her own was unwilling or unable to do–over all the policy agencies, particularly the Pentagon which, under Cheney’s protection, has often appeared to act on its own. The fact that Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, who warned several months ago that there should be “no more wars” before the November election, also supported these changes has also had its impact.

Indeed, some analysts believe that Baker’s return was promoted by Rove as part of a discreet “dump-Cheney” campaign. Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer and political columnist for The American Conservative, wrote this week that Baker and Scowcroft are “orchestrating” a Rove-backed campaign to blame Cheney and the neoconservatives around him and in the Pentagon for botching Iraq and, with it, Bush’s reelection chances.

But the larger foreign policy impact of the realist resurgence of the realists–capped by Baker’s return–are already tangible.

While Sharon clearly is under growing domestic pressure to take steps to reinvigorate peace negotiations with the Palestinians, his recent moves–as well as Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s unexpectedly far-reaching proposals for territorial compromise–may suggest that the Israelis themselves perceive a shift in the administration’s internal balance of power that needs to be accommodated.

In that context, Powell’s recent meetings with Israeli and Palestinian peace activists, not to mention the cosponsorship of Houston-based Baker Institute for Public Policy of a poll that showed a majority support among both Israelis and Palestinians for the recent Geneva Accord, may take on added significance.

If Baker’s European interlocutors next week suggest that real pressure by Washington on Israel–perhaps of the kind Baker wielded back in 1991–could make them more amenable to reducing Iraq’s official debt, the larger implications of Baker’s appointment become more tangible. In any event, Wolfowitz’s timing has clearly given Mssrs Chirac, Schroeder, Putin, and other European leaders more leverage to raise issues of this kind.

For the hawks, even the recognition that the Europeans enjoy significant leverage over U.S. foreign policy is very bad news, indeed. It’s the kind of news that makes Dick Cheney’s heart go “Thump-a, Thump-a, Thump.”

Jim Lobe writes for Right Web (rightweb.irc-online.org), Foreign Policy In Focus, and Inter Press Service.

 

For More Information James A. Baker II Institute for Public Policy
http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/BakerIns/index.html

Right Web Profile: Richard Cheney
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/cheney_r/cheney_r.html

Right Web Profile: Paul Bremer
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/bremer/bremer.html

Right Web Profile: Paul Wolfowitz
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/wolfowitz/wolfowitz.html

Paul Krugman, “A Deliberate Debacle”
New York Times, December 12, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/opinion/12KRUG.html

 

 

Citations

Jim Lobe, "Realists v. Hawks: Baker Returns," IRC Right Web (Somerville, MA: Interhemispheric Resource Center, December 15, 2003).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share