Now, I may be wrong. In which case, my credibility as an
"insider" will be shot. But I am not an
"insider" and my conclusion comes only from putting myself in
Barack Obama's shoes and realizing that Chas Freeman represents almost
nothing--forgive my pretension--that I do. And why
"almost"? Freeman actually represents nothing for which
the president stands.
My first objection is a professional matter. You see, Freeman has
absolutely no experience in intelligence. Yes, you read me
right. Still, he would be picking for the president's early morning
reading what secret information and analysis he would see and what he
would not.
From his diplomatic past, moreover, Freeman inherited the terrible habit
of clientalism, a mixing of loyalty between the place to which he had
been posted and the United States. This is not an unknown
phenomenon. Lots of diplomats turn out to be ambassadors from the
places to which they were posted. And maybe Freeman truly loved
Saudi Arabia, its subtle variety of cultures and its spiritual
freedoms. Did he miss seeing women on the street? I found
this the most discordant part of my long-ago visit. Actually, if
you visit the ARAMCO-owned and vaguely extra-territorial city of Dharan,
you can see a woman's face (and also see women driving cars) plus legally
drink from your host's tub "cousin of gin," as it is so coyly
called. In any case, Freeman became one of Riyadh's high-paid
flacks back home. And just as likely, he probably also adored
China, finding in the communist dictatorship just the right amount of
room for one of the most voracious capitalisms on earth. From
People's China, he also received much more than a living wage. He
seems to have a way with generous paymasters. That is, from
People's China's exploitative investments elsewhere in the third world,
particularly from as a board member of the China National Overseas Oil
Corporation. Much of this is detailed in Eli Lake's comprehensive
review of Freeman's sordid
professional life.
I mentioned above my long-ago visit to Saudi Arabia. One of my
companions reminded me a day ago that we had visited with Ambassador
Freeman. Frankly, the first image that came to mind right then and
there was his gluttonous face, smug and anxious at once. Some of
the members of our group were actually experts on Saudi Arabia, and the
rest of us had read up quite deeply on such scholarship as there
was. Freeman took our inquiries as attacks with which he had no
patience. Our hosts, mostly Saudi princes, actually better
understood and appreciated what we asked and were interested in our
actual experience in and impressions of the country. Not
he. I had a certain sympathy for the Saudi monarchy, given
the fact that it was matched against brutal "republican"
tyrannies like Iraq and Syria. But the fact is that I never wrote
about our visit because it had left me confused.
Although Freeman's appointment has been announced, it turns out that his
vetting has not been completed. A usually reliable informant told
me a few hours ago that Freeman had not taken--or perhaps merely not
finished--his lie detector or polygraph. Moreover, there are more
voices in Congress being raised against his designation to this pivotal
position. Michael Goldfarb reports on his Thursday blog in the
Weekly Standard, "Schumer's Call to Rahm," much other political
and journalistic attention to the perhaps now-stymied intelligence
posting.
The worst sign for Freeman is that virtually no one, even in the
administration, has come to his defense. The rest of his protectors
are the likes of Stephen Walt, co-author of The Israel Lobby and U.S.
Foreign Policy. Walt's words almost clinch the argument of the
opposition. Or some Jewish lefties who never were exercised about
China's brutality or Palestinian terror.