This Perspective originally appeared as an op-ed in the April 26, 2005 edition of the Newark Star-Ledger.
At a time of continued criticism of the United States abroad, the Bush administration cannot afford to send John Bolton to the United Nations.
Despite all that has been said and done, there is still an opportunity for Republicans on Capitol Hill - and in the administration - to decide not to remain locked into the all-too-familiar Washington spectacle of an administration and its supporters in Congress pressing forward with a flawed nominee as if no others could be found. Continuing allegations relating to Bolton already have had a considerable impact on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (on both sides, it would seem). But the administration so far seems unmoved, doubtless hoping it can nudge wavering Republicans on the Hill back into line, which would allow the White House to ram home Bolton's confirmation come next month.
Sadly, Vice President Dick Cheney, in an apparent effort to sweep aside the derogatory information that has come to light regarding Bolton's past behavior, has reportedly declared, "I have looked at all the charges that have been made. I don't think any of them stand up to scrutiny." Once, some years ago, I was on the receiving end of an attempt by another senior State Department official to suppress intelligence analysis, somewhat similar to what has been described in connection with Bolton. It happens. I also stood my ground, my boss backed me up and in the end we were vindicated.
Former Bureau of Intelligence and Research Assistant Secretary Carl Ford – a conservative who called himself as a "reluctant witness" – has described Bolton as a "serial abuser." I had the great privilege of serving under Ford in the bureau and spending many, many hours working alongside him. Ford is a model of integrity. His word is as good as gold, period.
Meanwhile, to make matters even more difficult to sort out, issues clouding Bolton's confirmation are being framed by many as questions confined solely to "management style." I would be the last to downplay Bolton's reported abuse of subordinates and disruption of proper information flow, but to channel debate into only this one area of behavior ignores and trivializes a far more ominous issue: basic objectivity – perhaps even integrity. How many times has a foreign policy mistake been described as an "intelligence failure" when, in fact, what actually occurred was the insertion of spin into the process that ignored, distorted or reached beyond the intelligence to advance a policy objective. And there is a world of difference between healthy questions concerning intelligence analysis and politicized efforts to alter it or make it go away. Once intelligence analysis is exaggerated or rejected and dissenting analysts waved off, senior officials place us on the slippery slope to policy failure.
I agree with the president that we should "put aside politics." And in that spirit, Bolton's supporters must step back from the political fray and ask exactly how effective he would be in New York at this point if confirmed. One certainly could not expect Bolton, in some future crisis, when the chips were down, to advance effectively the American position at the UN, especially if doing so in any way involved "intelligence." The last thing this country needs is a UN ambassador who many around the world doubtless already believe has tried to cook intelligence or has mistreated, ignored or distanced himself from those who have merely attempted to offer clear-headed judgments that were inconsistent with a certain political agenda.
And that may be the bottom line: Regardless of how the administration feels about Bolton, it is hard to believe that his credibility abroad can ever be restored following the testimony that has been heard, let alone what might lie in the wings. And as the administration moves vigorously on various fronts to improve its international relations, why saddle itself with a significant liability so early in the game?
Wayne White is an adjunct scholar with the Middle East Institute. White spent more than twenty-five years with the US Foreign Service, most of it devoted to intelligence and research analysis. Before his retirement in 2005, he served as Deputy Director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's Near Eastern Division and coordinated Iraqi Intelligence for INR.
Disclaimer: Assertions and opinions in this Commentary are solely those of the above-mentioned author(s) and do not reflect necessarily the views of the Middle East Institute, which expressly does not take positions on Middle East policy.
Related Resources
Countries
Regional Issues
This Perspective originally appeared as an op-ed in the April 26, 2005 edition of the Newark Star-Ledger.
At a time of continued criticism of the United States abroad, the Bush administration cannot afford to send John Bolton to the United Nations.
Despite all that has been said and done, there is still an opportunity for Republicans on Capitol Hill - and in the administration - to decide not to remain locked into the all-too-familiar Washington spectacle of an administration and its supporters in Congress pressing forward with a flawed nominee as if no others could be found. Continuing allegations relating to Bolton already have had a considerable impact on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (on both sides, it would seem). But the administration so far seems unmoved, doubtless hoping it can nudge wavering Republicans on the Hill back into line, which would allow the White House to ram home Bolton's confirmation come next month.
Sadly, Vice President Dick Cheney, in an apparent effort to sweep aside the derogatory information that has come to light regarding Bolton's past behavior, has reportedly declared, "I have looked at all the charges that have been made. I don't think any of them stand up to scrutiny." Once, some years ago, I was on the receiving end of an attempt by another senior State Department official to suppress intelligence analysis, somewhat similar to what has been described in connection with Bolton. It happens. I also stood my ground, my boss backed me up and in the end we were vindicated.
Former Bureau of Intelligence and Research Assistant Secretary Carl Ford – a conservative who called himself as a "reluctant witness" – has described Bolton as a "serial abuser." I had the great privilege of serving under Ford in the bureau and spending many, many hours working alongside him. Ford is a model of integrity. His word is as good as gold, period.
Meanwhile, to make matters even more difficult to sort out, issues clouding Bolton's confirmation are being framed by many as questions confined solely to "management style." I would be the last to downplay Bolton's reported abuse of subordinates and disruption of proper information flow, but to channel debate into only this one area of behavior ignores and trivializes a far more ominous issue: basic objectivity – perhaps even integrity. How many times has a foreign policy mistake been described as an "intelligence failure" when, in fact, what actually occurred was the insertion of spin into the process that ignored, distorted or reached beyond the intelligence to advance a policy objective. And there is a world of difference between healthy questions concerning intelligence analysis and politicized efforts to alter it or make it go away. Once intelligence analysis is exaggerated or rejected and dissenting analysts waved off, senior officials place us on the slippery slope to policy failure.
I agree with the president that we should "put aside politics." And in that spirit, Bolton's supporters must step back from the political fray and ask exactly how effective he would be in New York at this point if confirmed. One certainly could not expect Bolton, in some future crisis, when the chips were down, to advance effectively the American position at the UN, especially if doing so in any way involved "intelligence." The last thing this country needs is a UN ambassador who many around the world doubtless already believe has tried to cook intelligence or has mistreated, ignored or distanced himself from those who have merely attempted to offer clear-headed judgments that were inconsistent with a certain political agenda.
And that may be the bottom line: Regardless of how the administration feels about Bolton, it is hard to believe that his credibility abroad can ever be restored following the testimony that has been heard, let alone what might lie in the wings. And as the administration moves vigorously on various fronts to improve its international relations, why saddle itself with a significant liability so early in the game?
Wayne White is an adjunct scholar with the Middle East Institute. White spent more than twenty-five years with the US Foreign Service, most of it devoted to intelligence and research analysis. Before his retirement in 2005, he served as Deputy Director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's Near Eastern Division and coordinated Iraqi Intelligence for INR.