The Wall Street Journal, evidently keen readers of this blog, devoted an editorial on Friday to my criticism of Barack Obama's foreign policy team. Its November 28 editorial, entitled "Obama's War Cabinet," quoted thus from a piece I posted here last week. The Journal began:

The names floated for Barack Obama's national security team "are drawn exclusively from conservative, centrist and pro-military circles without even a single -- yes, not one! -- chosen to represent the antiwar wing of the Democratic party." In his plaintive post this week on the Nation magazine's Web site, Robert Dreyfuss indulges in the political left's wonderful talent for overstatement. But who are we to interfere with his despair?

Despair might be too strong a word. But certainly glum fits. As the Journal gloats:

If reports are correct, on Monday the President-elect will ask Robert Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense and name retired Marine General James Jones as National Security Adviser. ... The Gates selection is an implicit endorsement of President Bush's "surge" in Iraq and its military architect, General David Petraeus. ... Both these men can help Mr. Obama check the worst reflexes of his anti-antiterror base. Starting in Iraq. ...

Mr. Obama deserves credit for making flexibility a principle in assembling his Administration. As he said last year, "people should feel confident that we'll be able to hit the ground running." So far on security, not bad.

One pick that may not be announced today is that of John Brennan for CIA director. Brennan dropped out of the race for the CIA post after reports surfaced that he had supported torture of suspected terrorists.

After a letter from 200 academics and psychiatrists criticized Brennan for his alleged support for torture, Brennan took his name out of the running. "The challenges ahead of our nation are too daunting, and the role of the CIA too critical, for there to be any distraction from the vital work that lies ahead," he wrote, in a letter to Obama.

However, in my opinion, this is a canard, and it's too bad that Brennan isn't going to get the job. He's a veteran of decades spent at CIA, and he served as the founding chief of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).

I've interviewed Brennan on a number of occasions, and he impressed me as an intelligent and thoughtful critic of President Bush's entire so-called War on Terrorism. Brennan was one of the first top officials to ridicule the idea of calling it a "war," and he is a supporter of a far more nuanced, supply-side approach to dealing with terrorism. He is a proponent of dealing with the root causes of terrorism, not just fighting its manifestation. As he told the National Journal in an interview in March:

I am a strong proponent of trying to focus more of our efforts on the upstream phenomenon of terrorism. I make the analogy to pollution. We learned that pollutants kill us when they get into the water we drink or the fish we eat or the air we breathe. But I think we also learned that we have to go upstream to identify and eliminate those sources of pollution. Terrorism is a tactic, and we have to be more focused upstream. Since 9/11, understandably we've focused downstream, on those terrorists who might be in our midst or trying to kill us, the operators. I think there needs to be much more attention paid to those upstream factors and conditions that spawn terrorists.

When I interviewed Brennan last, for a piece for The Nation this summer, he told me on the record -- as an adviser to then candidate for president Barack Obama -- that he thought that Obama would, as president, talk to both Hamas and Hezbollah. Brennan is an astute observer of political Islam, and he knows what he is talking about when he mentions these groups. He's under no illusion about their views, but at the same time he is enough of a realist to know that you can't ignore these groups and hope that they go away, and you can't kill them.

It's true that Brennan has been obtuse, at times, when it comes to torture. In his letter to Obama, he pointed out, however, that he had no part in shaping CIA or administration policy on torturing detainees. It's possible that his obtuseness did him in, in terms of getting the CIA post. But I'd look elsewhere. It's far more likely that Brennan was shot down, behind the scenes, by the Israel lobby and its allies inside the Obama camp. This needs looking into.

Comments (11)

1. Mr Dreyfuss, we get it....

   you're disappointed Obama didn't establish Kucinich's "Department of Peace" and appoint Todd Chretian Secretary of State.

   But the people he did appoint represent a mainstream Democratic tradition on national security and COMMON SENSE that was of course sorely lacking from Dubya and Co.

   We weren't going to exchange one extreme for the other.

   Fortunately.

   Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 09:18am

2. "200 academics and psychiatrists" have spoken, God bless them, and we understand that they disapprove of John Brennan's indifference toward torture as an instrument of US foreign policy. I am grateful to know this, but neither the Washington Post article nor Dreyfuss's web article tells us everything we need to know.

   So these academics and psychiatrists didn't like Brennan. Well then, which candidate would the petitioners recommend, if any? What is the name of their organization? Have they published their protest letter?

   This is information that would contribute greatly to the public debate. I agree with Dreyfuss that shooting down a moderate appointee is no cause for celebration in and of itself, particularly if the next appointee is one who is not less, but more congenial to the intransigent holy warriors whom Dreyfuss suspects also are exerting secret pressure upon the President-elect.

   The holy-warrior class may work best in the shadows, particularly if what they are defending is holy torture. But the class of public intellectuals who tried to pressure Obama from the left cannot possibly do so in secret. They need to criticize both openly and constructively, and we, the public, need to hear these criticisms. It would also help if we were given an opportunity to sign their petition. But it seems that these intellectuals -- or perhaps the journalists who reported on their activities -- have failed to understand that real progress (even if it comes from the right, as it does on rare occasions) requires more than direct mail to Obama. It requires the public dissemination of complete and constructive criticism.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 12/01/2008 @ 09:38am

3. 'But I'd look elsewhere. It's far more likely that Brennan was shot down, behind the scenes, by the Israel lobby and its allies inside the Obama camp. This needs looking into.'

   I think your argument has merit. The ambiguity regarding torture - hmmmmm. In the NY Times article cited below, his stance toward Iran appears to have carried equal weight, and was the major direct quote from Brennan included.

   'In his own words: "A critical step toward improved U.S.-Iranian relations would be for U.S. officials to cease public Iran-bashing, a tactic that may have served short-term domestic political interests but that has heretofore been wholly counterproductive to U.S. strategic interests. Rather than stimulating a positive change in Iran's behavior, politically charged and wholesale condemnation of Iranian policies has energized and emboldened Iranian radicals at the expense of Iranian moderates." (from "The Conundrum of Iran: Strengthening Moderates without Acquiescing to Belligerence," in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 2008.)'

   Excerpt: New York Times - The New Team - John O. Brennan By MARK MAZZETTI Published: November 14, 2008

   Posted by OneVote at 12/01/2008 @ 09:48am

4. "and you can't kill them"? That is pure BS, you certainly Can kill them and you must, as long as they are determined to kill "us" and other non muslims in their war on civilized society. The so-called root causes are not all that complicated. These guys are drivin by a theology that generates barbarism and regression. Islam needs a reformation, much like Christianity went through, plus a long time to stomp out the dirt.

   Posted by pyeatte at 12/01/2008 @ 9:59pm

5. "It's possible that his obtuseness did him in, in terms of getting the CIA post. But I'd look elsewhere. It's far more likely that Brennan was shot down, behind the scenes, by the Israel lobby and its allies inside the Obama camp. This needs looking into."

   I'll second that.

   As Chairman and CEO of the nascent ABORT OBAMA campaign, this issue of zioncon manipulation of U.S. policy and personnel is paramount. It goes with the major campaign event that de-legitimizes his election: he made a deal with the AIPAc Devils, a quid pro quo that landed Rahm-bo Emanuel in the same position Martin Bormann had to Hitler. At least that's how the record of his kow towing to the Israeli lobby must look, unless refuted. He made a deal that sold out America's soul in order to get himself, a black man's son, elected.

   More power to him for knocking out the sock puppets. But that was supposed to be done by a white man. A white man, not a woman or one of mixed race -- a white man -- was demanded by the nation's legacy and pride, to confront the right wing as the pathological liars and psychotic killers the repube party represents and they follow. I announced early on, but few seemed to take my candidacy seriously, at least openly, even while it became clearer and clearer that everythig I said was right and everything anybody said who disagreed was wrong, which is basically where we are now.

   NOW WE'VE GOT TO ABORT OBAMA, RETAINING WHAT HE'S GAINED, OR KISS AMERICA GOOD BY.

   HEY HEY HO CHI MIHN HEZBOLLAH IS GOING TO WIN

   Posted by jones at 12/02/2008 @ 12:22am

6. Jones and Onevote, you are right on the money in your analysis; Obama sold out to AIPAC and they will set his foreign policy agenda. In return, they may help him with some of his domestic programs. If Obama keeps a distance from the Middle East Peace Process, AIPAC may well help him secure a second term. America is an Israeli Occupied territory and needs to be liberated badly.

   Posted by CripThink at 12/02/2008 @ 01:51am

7. If Obama strays from the imperial project path, as it was thought JFK might do, he's finished.

   And he knows it.

   When AIPAC was working him over as far back as last winter, the message was sent on the front page of the NYTimes ... a "news analysis" piece about Obama's possible assassination. No one else's assassination, certainly not the Times' endorsed candidate Hillary's – she who was so hated, so unlike no-drama Obama – just Obama's death.

   A truly chilling, irresponsible piece of journalism, based on utterly unsubstantiated daydreaming ... and loaded with message.

   Obama got the message.

   And the NYTimes never apologized.

   Posted by sloper at 12/02/2008 @ 06:02am

8. Posted by sloper at 12/02/2008 @ 06:02am

   So AIPAC killed Kennedy????

   Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 07:28am

9. Robert Dreyfuss wrote:

   "Brennan is an astute observer of political Islam, and he knows what he is talking about when he mentions these groups. He's under no illusion about their views, but at the same time he is enough of a realist to know that you can't ignore these groups and hope that they go away, and you can't kill them."

   Posted by pyeatte at 12/01/2008 @ 9:59pm

   "'and you can't kill them'? That is pure BS, you certainly Can kill them and you must, as long as they are determined to kill "us" and other non muslims in their war on civilized society. The so-called root causes are not all that complicated. These guys are drivin by a theology that generates barbarism and regression. Islam needs a reformation, much like Christianity went through, plus a long time to stomp out the dirt."

   Dreyfruss was referring specifically to Hamas and Hezbollah. These two organizations, whose politics and theologies I abhor, nonetheless are not engaged in a war to kill "us" or "on civilized society." Whatever their tactics, they are focused on the struggles between the Palestinians and the Lebanese Shites and Israel, respectively. Not to mention, they are both mass movements and we'd have to engage in a mass murder of tens of thousands or more, a la our client Suharto and the 250,000 Indonesian Communists he had killed in 1965(?).

   Now, killing Al Queida is another story completely...

   Posted by cka2nd at 12/02/2008 @ 12:44pm

10. Mr Dreyfuss, we get it....

    you're disappointed Obama didn't establish Kucinich's "Department of Peace" and appoint Todd Chretian Secretary of State.

    But the people he did appoint represent a mainstream Democratic tradition on national security and COMMON SENSE that was of course sorely lacking from Dubya and Co.

    We weren't going to exchange one extreme for the other.

    Fortunately.

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 09:18am

    Mask, we get it...

    Rather than respond to what an author actually writes, you put words in his mouth to make him seem naive or stupid. In other words, you lie so you can get your shots in.

    As for the "a mainstream Democratic tradition on national security and COMMON SENSE" that you say his appointments reflect, you fail to note that the vast, vast majority of the Democratic Party's base, along with a significant portion of both indepenents and Republican, have rejected this tradition and forged its own common sense (in its meaning as representing the sense of the large majority of the people) based on diplomacy and opposition to pre-emptive war.

    Returning to that habit you have of lying, Dreyfuss is only looking for a place at the table for liberal or progressive voices on national security, and would even be happy to see a somewhat moderate person appointed at the CIA, and you act as if he wanted a bunch of peaceniks in ALL of the positions Obama has filled so far. I guess we're back to you building up strawmen to knock down again.

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/02/2008 @ 12:53pm

11. If the Wall Street Journal reads you, a lot of the general public will read you too. I caught the tail end of remarks by former Florida Senator Graham of Florida, and he was on the terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction kick that the Bush Administration used to hype the Iraq War. He seemed to be of the opinion that we would have to go after all terrorist organizations, because they might get the hands on Weapons of Mass Destruction. I do not believe that nuclear weapons, poison gas, or germ warfare would be useful weapons for Hamas or Hezebollah as they live in close proximity to Israel, but there may be as much stupidity in the Obama Administration, as there is in the Bush Administration. The Indian Government is indulging in similar tactics in blaming the Pakistani government for Mumbai. It wants Pakistan to control an area that the might of the British Empire could not control. Not to mention the facts that the President of Pakistan lost his wife to terrorism, and the people of Pakistan face terrorism almost on a daily basis. Terrorism is sometimes a regional problem and sometimes only a national one. Regional terrorists problems require regional cooperation, and simple minded accusations do not solve problems.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/02/2008 @ 5:24pm

Posting a comment requires registration. Click here to register