Stand With Sam Brownback
According to my latest information, which is just short of a day old now, the nomination of Chris Hill was to go to the Senate floor yesterday, where it was expected to get more than enough votes to close debate. Under Senate rules, Senator Brownback now has his chance to go to the floor and speak, to see if he can change a few more minds. I’ve passed him as much ammunition as time has allowed. Now, the rest is up to the Senate. The odds heavily favor Hill’s confirmation today, but Brownback is prepared to go down fighting.
I often hear conservatives say that their party has run aground because it doesn’t know what it stands for. Christopher Hill typifies the rudderless, unprincipled, and failed Republocrat foreign policy that mislabels itself as “realism.” Brownback was the man who tried to stand in its way then, when Bush was in office, and he’s doing the same now that Obama is in office. Plenty in the press see fit to ridicule Brownback for being principled, because they happen to disagree with the principles themselves. History will continue to reveal that Brownback is right, and the rest of them are wrong.
I’m going to contact both of my liberal Democratic senators today, knowing full well that it’s unlikely to matter and that Hill — America’s most conspicuously unsuccessful diplomat — will probably be confirmed anyway. If this quixotic cause matters to you, I hope you’ll do the same. Here’s what I will be writing:
Dear Senator Mikulski, Please vote against the confirmation of Christopher Hill as Ambassador to Iraq until you have an opportunity to study Hill’s extensive record of disregard for the law, for dishonesty with Congress, and for professional incompetence in his dealings with North Korea that have made North Korea a greater danger to the United States. Some of Ambassador Hill’s efforts to mislead Congress about his diplomatic efforts to deal with North Korea are detailed at this article:
http://newledger.com/2009/04/christopher-hill-deep-kimchee-for-iraq/
Among Ambassador Hill’s deceptions furthered his efforts to avoid raising the issue of North Korea’s horrific concentration camps with that country’s government, which you can learn more about here:
I am also gravely concerned that Hill’s nomination results from his personal friendship with Richard Holbrooke, rather than his record or qualifications. Ambasador Hill has no middle eastern experience and speaks no Arabic. His prior qualifications do not suggest that he is prepared for the political, military, or cultural challenges he will soon confront. Many other, better qualified candidates could do this job better than Christopher Hill. I urge you to study Ambassador Hill’s record of failure carefully before voting on his confirmation.
I agree that we need an Ambassador in Baghdad as soon as possible, but let’s choose the best qualified person for such an important job.
Thank you for your tireless work on this Joshua and many thanks to Sen. Brownback for his stand. I’ve contacted both my TX Senators and hope others do the same. It only takes a minute. Thanks again.
Calling Hill a realist is being a bit unfair to realism, Joshua.
A realist foreign policy entails a prudent calculation of what can be done and cannot be done. It emphatically does not mean prematurely capitulating and giving up the game as unwinnable–which seems to be the position of Hill and his mendacious ilk. Moreover, it also sanctions taking some risks, if the potential benefit justifies it. Both Metternich and Kissinger–the two arch practitioners of the craft–were more than willing to clamp down and play hardball when the occasion warranted it.
I think what Hill exhibits instead is (aside from unprincipled, sordid careerist ambition) is closer to a Leftist Wilsonian delusion–probably an occupational hazard at the diplomatist circles, as well as perhaps in the Obama circle–that there are no intractable inter-human problems that talk cannot resolve or at least manage. And I agree with you (and Dr. Lankov and Dr. Myers) 100 percent that Pyongyang’s interests and Washington/Seoul’s interests are so misaligned that mere talk will only lead to blackmail, while Pyongyang gives up nothing–whether it be liberalizing its regime/economy or dismantling its WMD program.
In fact, I have been re-reading Xenophon’s Anabasis, and I think its lessons apply in particular to Obama/Hill & co., as one of the book’s fundamental message is that no negotiation is possible when interests are irreconcilable.
To summarize the crucial beginning of the story, the Greek mercenaries who went along with Cyrus the Younger’s project to seize the Persian throne is left in a quandary after the Battle of Cunaxa. While Cyrus and his Greeks were victorious, Cyrus is himself killed, leaving the Greeks hostless in an unknown country. The Persian King approaches and asks the Greeks surrender their arms in exchange for a safe passage out of Persia. One faction of the Greeks, led among others by Proxenus–the pupil of Gorgias the Sophist (who believed that rhetoric is all-powerful and can resolve any problems)–wants to negotiate. An opposite faction, inspirited most prominently by Xenophon himself, insists on the folly of talk when realpolitik considerations prevent the Persian King from letting the Greeks leave unharmed. Moreover, Xenophon knows that the absurdity of surrendering one’s arms even if one were inclined to negotiate, given that by forfeiting arms, one forfeits one’s life as well.
Proxenus’ faction unfortunately wins, and virtually all of the Greek leadership (among whom, interestingly enough, were also those who were past victims of Persian mendacity) is murdered at the negotiations, leaving the Greek mercenaries headless and on the verge of catastrophe–a fate averted by only the singular, adaptable genius of Xenophon, who knew when to fight and when to negotiate, how to use both the beast and the human in man, to use one of Machiavelli’s favorite parlance.
Do we hope against hope regarding Pyongyang’s conversion, as Proxenus and his followers did?
I’ve sent it to my 2 senators in my state. I hope they keep that in mind.
I think the misappropriation of the word “realist” is what’s most unfair to realists. Suddenly, it’s fashionable to refer to every ill-informed fantasy as “realism.”
I see a bubble inflating, and I’m waiting patiently for the first glint of a sharp pin.