The Belgravia Dispatch: Oh Fun, "Process for the Sake of Process"

May 12, 2007

Oh Fun, "Process for the Sake of Process"

The Bush administration is undertaking much of its current Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy to appease the Arabs and Europeans, a top White House official told a group of Jewish Republicans recently, according to those present.
Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams said much of the heightened State Department activity with the two parties was "process for the sake of process" and being done to "assuage the Arabs and the Europeans, who haven't been happy with the United States [and are] happy to see that there's at least an attempt or energy being put into the peace process," according to one attendee at the closed-door meeting.

In response to a question raised at the event about whether "European and Arab pressure could put Israel in a corner," the National Security Council issued a statement saying that "ultimately, the United States provides an emergency brake."

Abrams also told the meeting that he would guard against the bureaucrats at the State Department taking over American Middle East policy, as well as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice falling into the "Clintonian mode" of needing to point to achievements to secure her legacy as her term concludes, according to someone at the discussion.

The source was referring to the increased pace of diplomatic arm-twisting in search of peace between Palestinians and Israelis on the part of president Bill Clinton in the waning days of his time in office.

Here we go again, as they say. One would yawn at the predictability of this lameness, if the stakes weren't so high. After all, it's a critical American national security interest that we make real forward movement on the Israeli-Palestinian front. But rather than the Administration work together in concerted manner, we have, at best, an amateur 'good cop, bad cop' routine going on, and at worst, wholly uncoordinated policy-making that sends conflicting messages to the key actors in the region.

I wonder how long Henry Kissinger or James Baker or George Schultz would have tolerated such crap emitting from an NSC staffer, even one who's been poking about the Beltway since Iran-Contra days. I think I know. Not for a moment. But, of course, we know where the real problem lies. It's Dick Cheney, and a President who still extends the benefit of any credence to Mr. Last Throes, and so too his coterie of post-Libby survivors still eking it out in DC.

P.S. Someone clue in Elliott that his shenanigans don't accrue to the long-term benefit of the Israelis either. The tiresome tripe he trots out might make for good show with various domestic constituencies, but "process for the sake of process" isn't going to help those actually living in Israel, or Palestine, over the long haul, not to mention the overall U.S. national security interest. But hey, who cares, let's play Potemkin shuttle and run the clock some, -k?

Posted by Gregory at May 12, 2007 03:53 PM

Comments

618 days and change to go. If Allah IS merciful, we'll muddle on through without any more colossal f___ups, just mind-boggling stupid things, like this...

Posted by: wendell at May 13, 2007 01:28 AM | Permalink to this comment

It says that something is very, very wrong when a dyed-in-the-wool peacnik progressive like myself is now actually nostalgic for the days of George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, et. al. It is, frankly, horrifying. But it's true: I would much prefer to see actually competent professionals deal with such profound international matters, no matter what my political and ethical differences are with them (re: South-East Asia, Latin America, etc.). If it is a choice between vigorous disagreement over foreign policy and outright humiliation for my nation combined with a growing sense of existential dread... well, I'd probably choose Mr. Kissinger nowadays.

As an aside, Mr. Djerejian, I personally beg you to post regularly. It is a purely selfish request, I am aware, but I ask nonetheless. Sorry!

Posted by: S.G.E.W. at May 13, 2007 02:25 AM | Permalink to this comment

I never worried about the likes of Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz. You could pretty much figure out what they were doing, and at most be a couple of months behind. But Abrams has been under the covers for this entire administration. We have no idea what he's really been doing. And that's why things are far worse than we can possibly imagine.

Posted by: srv at May 13, 2007 08:38 AM | Permalink to this comment

Interesting point with respect to earlier Secretaries of State.

Henry Kissinger's service in the Nixon administration actually began as a National Security Adviser who job was specifically to limit the influence of the State Department in foreign policy. George Schultz's worst mistake in an otherwise admirable tenure at State was in not objecting to an important foreign policy initiative designed to bypass the department, an effort to secure the release of American hostages taken by the Iranian front Hezbollah that grew into the Iran-contra affair. For good measure the foreign policy of the Carter administration was hobbled by its National Security Adviser's persistent undercutting of Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, which only ended when Vance resigned over the failed Desert One operation.

What all these episodes had in common was Presidential support for courses of action that placed responsibility for one or more foreign policy initiatives in hands other than those of the Secretary of State. In some administrations -- Nixon's (in his first term) certainly, and probably Carter's -- a threat by the Secretary of State to resign rather than accept subordination in the making of foreign policy would have been honored; by contrast George Schultz would have had a good chance of stopping the Iran-contra fiasco in its tracks by threatening to quit. No Secretary of State can take for granted that a President will always make foreign policy primarily through the department, but a Secretary who is not determined to go right to the limit to prevent being bypassed probably will be.

Greg is probably wrong to place the whole responsibility for Abrams' outsized (for a Deputy NSA) role in foreign policy on the Vice President. President Bush's electoral strategy has always emphasized frequent, overt gestures of sympathy for Israeli concerns, and thus for the concerns of Israel's passionate supporters in this country; moreover there is no reason to doubt that, apart from this, Bush's own emotional commitment to Israel is much deeper than anything he feels for other American allies. In short, Abrams is doing what the President wants him to do, though his personal tie to the Vice President is surely helpful in dissuading other officials from protesting the role Abrams has adopted of Israel's spokesman within the administration.

Having said that....look, Condoleezza Rice is entirely a creature of the Bush family as far as her career in government is concerned. I doubt it has ever occurred to her to make demands of her President; she may well resent Abrams' undercutting the public direction of American policy but -- and she has lots of company among officials who have served this President -- she would never respond to something like this by threatening to give up her position. All I'm saying is that to have a chance of avoiding the damage to American foreign policy, and incidentally the personal humiliation, that can result when subordinate officials undercut the official line in public, threatening to resign is what Rice would have to do.

At the end of the day it is a question of character; one has been appointed to manage American foreign policy, and if other officials are preventing that job from being done properly one either does something about it, or not. Rice won't.

Posted by: Zathras at May 13, 2007 08:09 PM | Permalink to this comment

It is a sign of this Administration's deep and utter contempt for anything resembling diplomacy that a known, unscruplus liar like Elliott Abrams has any position at all within it. This has little to do with Abrams being pro or anti-Israel, but everything with his ability to peddle whatever BS Bush & Cheney want peddled with no regard to the reality. Remember to Bush & Co., facts are useful only if they support what they want done. If reality gets in the way of their Ideology then its too bad for reality. Also in the case of that scum Abrams their is a family tie involved since his father-in-law is Norman Podhoretz, publisher of "Commentary" Magazine and ardent Bush cheerleader. For the elder asshole's latest piece on why we should bomb Iran see http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10882 (hat tip to Andrew Sullivan for the link)
The arrogance of idiots like Bush, Cheney, Abrams & Podhoretz is simply mind blowing. Do they really think that anybody outside of their own right-wing echo chamber believes, in light of the Iraq Fiasco, anything these schmucks say?

Posted by: David All at May 16, 2007 10:41 PM | Permalink to this comment

	« Strategically Adrift \| Main \| Another Vilnius Moment, This Time From the USS Stennis » May 12, 2007 Oh Fun, "Process for the Sake of Process" Charming: The Bush administration is undertaking much of its current Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy to appease the Arabs and Europeans, a top White House official told a group of Jewish Republicans recently, according to those present. Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams said much of the heightened State Department activity with the two parties was "process for the sake of process" and being done to "assuage the Arabs and the Europeans, who haven't been happy with the United States [and are] happy to see that there's at least an attempt or energy being put into the peace process," according to one attendee at the closed-door meeting. In response to a question raised at the event about whether "European and Arab pressure could put Israel in a corner," the National Security Council issued a statement saying that "ultimately, the United States provides an emergency brake." Abrams also told the meeting that he would guard against the bureaucrats at the State Department taking over American Middle East policy, as well as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice falling into the "Clintonian mode" of needing to point to achievements to secure her legacy as her term concludes, according to someone at the discussion. The source was referring to the increased pace of diplomatic arm-twisting in search of peace between Palestinians and Israelis on the part of president Bill Clinton in the waning days of his time in office. Here we go again, as they say. One would yawn at the predictability of this lameness, if the stakes weren't so high. After all, it's a critical American national security interest that we make real forward movement on the Israeli-Palestinian front. But rather than the Administration work together in concerted manner, we have, at best, an amateur 'good cop, bad cop' routine going on, and at worst, wholly uncoordinated policy-making that sends conflicting messages to the key actors in the region. I wonder how long Henry Kissinger or James Baker or George Schultz would have tolerated such crap emitting from an NSC staffer, even one who's been poking about the Beltway since Iran-Contra days. I think I know. Not for a moment. But, of course, we know where the real problem lies. It's Dick Cheney, and a President who still extends the benefit of any credence to Mr. Last Throes, and so too his coterie of post-Libby survivors still eking it out in DC. P.S. Someone clue in Elliott that his shenanigans don't accrue to the long-term benefit of the Israelis either. The tiresome tripe he trots out might make for good show with various domestic constituencies, but "process for the sake of process" isn't going to help those actually living in Israel, or Palestine, over the long haul, not to mention the overall U.S. national security interest. But hey, who cares, let's play Potemkin shuttle and run the clock some, -k? Posted by Gregory at May 12, 2007 03:53 PM Comments 618 days and change to go. If Allah IS merciful, we'll muddle on through without any more colossal f___ups, just mind-boggling stupid things, like this... Posted by: wendell at May 13, 2007 01:28 AM \| Permalink to this comment It says that something is very, very wrong when a dyed-in-the-wool peacnik progressive like myself is now actually nostalgic for the days of George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, et. al. It is, frankly, horrifying. But it's true: I would much prefer to see actually competent professionals deal with such profound international matters, no matter what my political and ethical differences are with them (re: South-East Asia, Latin America, etc.). If it is a choice between vigorous disagreement over foreign policy and outright humiliation for my nation combined with a growing sense of existential dread... well, I'd probably choose Mr. Kissinger nowadays. As an aside, Mr. Djerejian, I personally beg you to post regularly. It is a purely selfish request, I am aware, but I ask nonetheless. Sorry! Posted by: S.G.E.W. at May 13, 2007 02:25 AM \| Permalink to this comment I never worried about the likes of Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz. You could pretty much figure out what they were doing, and at most be a couple of months behind. But Abrams has been under the covers for this entire administration. We have no idea what he's really been doing. And that's why things are far worse than we can possibly imagine. Posted by: srv at May 13, 2007 08:38 AM \| Permalink to this comment Interesting point with respect to earlier Secretaries of State. Henry Kissinger's service in the Nixon administration actually began as a National Security Adviser who job was specifically to limit the influence of the State Department in foreign policy. George Schultz's worst mistake in an otherwise admirable tenure at State was in not objecting to an important foreign policy initiative designed to bypass the department, an effort to secure the release of American hostages taken by the Iranian front Hezbollah that grew into the Iran-contra affair. For good measure the foreign policy of the Carter administration was hobbled by its National Security Adviser's persistent undercutting of Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, which only ended when Vance resigned over the failed Desert One operation. What all these episodes had in common was Presidential support for courses of action that placed responsibility for one or more foreign policy initiatives in hands other than those of the Secretary of State. In some administrations -- Nixon's (in his first term) certainly, and probably Carter's -- a threat by the Secretary of State to resign rather than accept subordination in the making of foreign policy would have been honored; by contrast George Schultz would have had a good chance of stopping the Iran-contra fiasco in its tracks by threatening to quit. No Secretary of State can take for granted that a President will always make foreign policy primarily through the department, but a Secretary who is not determined to go right to the limit to prevent being bypassed probably will be. Greg is probably wrong to place the whole responsibility for Abrams' outsized (for a Deputy NSA) role in foreign policy on the Vice President. President Bush's electoral strategy has always emphasized frequent, overt gestures of sympathy for Israeli concerns, and thus for the concerns of Israel's passionate supporters in this country; moreover there is no reason to doubt that, apart from this, Bush's own emotional commitment to Israel is much deeper than anything he feels for other American allies. In short, Abrams is doing what the President wants him to do, though his personal tie to the Vice President is surely helpful in dissuading other officials from protesting the role Abrams has adopted of Israel's spokesman within the administration. Having said that....look, Condoleezza Rice is entirely a creature of the Bush family as far as her career in government is concerned. I doubt it has ever occurred to her to make demands of her President; she may well resent Abrams' undercutting the public direction of American policy but -- and she has lots of company among officials who have served this President -- she would never respond to something like this by threatening to give up her position. All I'm saying is that to have a chance of avoiding the damage to American foreign policy, and incidentally the personal humiliation, that can result when subordinate officials undercut the official line in public, threatening to resign is what Rice would have to do. At the end of the day it is a question of character; one has been appointed to manage American foreign policy, and if other officials are preventing that job from being done properly one either does something about it, or not. Rice won't. Posted by: Zathras at May 13, 2007 08:09 PM \| Permalink to this comment It is a sign of this Administration's deep and utter contempt for anything resembling diplomacy that a known, unscruplus liar like Elliott Abrams has any position at all within it. This has little to do with Abrams being pro or anti-Israel, but everything with his ability to peddle whatever BS Bush & Cheney want peddled with no regard to the reality. Remember to Bush & Co., facts are useful only if they support what they want done. If reality gets in the way of their Ideology then its too bad for reality. Also in the case of that scum Abrams their is a family tie involved since his father-in-law is Norman Podhoretz, publisher of "Commentary" Magazine and ardent Bush cheerleader. For the elder asshole's latest piece on why we should bomb Iran see http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10882 (hat tip to Andrew Sullivan for the link) The arrogance of idiots like Bush, Cheney, Abrams & Podhoretz is simply mind blowing. Do they really think that anybody outside of their own right-wing echo chamber believes, in light of the Iraq Fiasco, anything these schmucks say? Posted by: David All at May 16, 2007 10:41 PM \| Permalink to this comment		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Awake" --New York Times "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan Recent Entries A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz Search Search this site: About the Author Email the Author English Language Media New York Times Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Non-English Language Press Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily The City Curbed Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Archives March 2009 January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2007 Belgravia Dispatch