Having
taken the fall for President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton in the wake of the Benghazi scandal, U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations, Susan Rice is poised to make her way up the career ladder as the “top
contender” for the position of national security adviser to the President.
The
proposed appointment as Secretary of State, a reward for going on television
and spreading the administration’s outright lies about the Benghazi attack, was
swiftly derailed by the backlash to her appearances. If appointed as national
security adviser, she will not have to be approved by the U.S. Senate, thus
avoiding its oversight and consent.
The
obvious question is “What does Susan Rice know about national security?” though
she did serve on President Clinton’s National Security Council. As the
Assistant Secretary of State on the Africa desk when the Rwanda genocide
occurred in 1994, both Clinton and she were missing in action. He later would
say it was one of the biggest mistakes of his time in office.
Her area
of expertise for many years has been Africa and, in that capacity, even The New York Times noted that in 1998 she celebrated a “new generation” of African leaders,
many of whom turned out to be despots after having been rebel commanders.
One
example The Times cited was Meles Zenawi, the late prime minister of Ethiopia
who she eulogized in September as “brilliant” and “a son of Ethiopia and a
father to its rebirth.” The Times noted that “Mr. Meles dismantled the rule of
law, silenced political opponents and forged a single-party state.” Others whom
Ambassador Rice found little to criticize were Isaias Afwerki of Eritrea, Paul
Kagame of Rwanda and Yoweri K. Museveni of Uganda, all still in power.
Richard
Grenell, who served as the spokesman for four U.S. ambassadors to the UN, wrote
a scathing commentary which was published by Fox News in November 2012.
Referring to the Benghazi attack and its aftermath, Grenell wrote “To veteran
foreign policy observers, Rice’s performance that Sunday was one of many
blunders over the last four years.”
“The case
against Susan Rice has been building for years with little fanfare,” wrote
Grenell. “Not surprising, the mainstream media reporters based at the UN have
either ignored her mistakes or strategically covered them up.”
“”Rice’s
diplomatic failures and silence in the face of outrageous UN antics have given
the United States pathetic representation among the 193 members of the world
body,” wrote Grenell. “UN members, not surprisingly, prefer a weak opponent.
Rice is therefore popular with her colleagues. It may explain why she ignored
Syria’s growing problems for months.” Grenell noted that “Rice didn’t even show
up for the first two emergency Security Council meetings on the unfolding Arab
Spring revolution last year” and “when she actually does show up, she is a
miserable failure.”
Even more
surprising, given her status as a diplomat, Ambassador Rice is widely described
in the most unpleasant terms as abrasive and difficult to work with. Her
mentors have been former Secretaries of State, Madeline Albright and Hillary
Clinton, and if getting along with one’s boss is the key to success—and it
is—her pending appointment to the National Security Council is proof of that.
Even so, the White House has rolled out word of it to test the waters and see
if she draws too much fire.
When she
was being considered for Secretary of State—from which she withdrew—Benjamin H.
Friedman, a research fellow in defense and homeland security at the libertarian
Cato Institute, had some unkind thoughts about her, noting that “she has
supported just about every proposed U.S. military intervention over the two
decades. The president should nominate someone that occasionally opposes a
war.” In retrospect, that would appear to be a fair judgment. Obama ran in 2008
opposing the war in Iraq, but also increased troop levels in Afghanistan in an
effort to score a few points before setting in motion the U.S. withdrawal from
there. Both wars have proved to be deeply unpopular.
The Rwanda
experience no doubt increased Ambassador Rice’s preference for intervention,
but the “lead from behind” intervention in Libya has not turned out well.
Indeed,
little in the way of foreign policy in the Middle East has turned out well for
either former President George W. Bush or his successor, Barack Obama. Moreover,
Africa has become a new battleground for al Qaeda and a place where Western
interests and workers are now attacked, kidnapped, and killed with increasing
frequency.
Ambassador
Rice’s rise through three administrations will likely culminate with her
National Security Council appointment. It is doubtful that the new Secretary of
State, John Kerry, or the new Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, will turn out
to be in any hurry to intervene anywhere for any reason. No doubt Ambassador
Rice will put her finger in the wind and go in whatever direction it blows.
© Alan
Caruba, 2013
Much like everything else associated with Obama and his regime of incompetence, she is, well, another person that has been *Peter Principled*...
ReplyDelete@Fred: Good point, all of those around Obama, including himself, are well passed their levels of competence.
ReplyDelete"well passed their levels of competence" I had to laugh at that one Alan. Indeed.
ReplyDelete