Weekly Shredder 25:
Senator Feingold's Statement on Condi Rice
by James Norton

Real political heroes have always been rare. Politicians everywhere live and die by the practicality of their decisions — there is nothing less courageous than acting in concert with the overwhelming tide of public opinion and than immediately touting your own political "bravery."

There's also nothing more typical. Even the boldest leaders spend a lot of their time carefully managing their political capital and looking after their core constituents' — and core contributors' — pet concerns.

So when a senator does something such as vote against the USA PATRIOT Act in defiance of his 99 colleagues, you've got to give him credit — he's courageous, if not crazy.

For archives, audio, and background about the column, click here.

Or, incredibly shrewd. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., was re-elected this year by a wide margin despite his state's barely blue tinge, and despite — or perhaps, because of — his controversial vote, which anticipated the objections that civil libertarians and un-shellshocked liberals would eventually have to the poorly written bill.

Now, Feingold is taking another controversial stand on a seemingly uncontroversial topic: the nomination of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to the post of Secretary of State. Without opposing her nomination outright, the senator has registered a spate of objections and questions about the direction of US foreign policy that may heat up the public discussion of her candidacy in a hurry.

On Tuesday, the president announced the nomination of National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice to be the next US Secretary of State. I admire Dr. Rice's obvious intellectual gifts and her communication skills, and I congratulate her.

A gracious start. And like so many other gracious starts in the adjacent worlds of law and politics, a taste of sugar before a tsunami of bile.

But I am deeply troubled by the signal that this nomination appears to send — a signal suggesting that the modest moderating influence of the State Department over the last four years will disappear, and that the next four years will be guided even more closely by the voices that shouted loudest in the first term, and that led our country into seriously flawed foreign policies. Our country cannot afford to continue down the foreign policy path that was forged during the first term of the Bush administration.

The only thing easily debatable about this claim is whether Colin Powell's tenure as head of the State Department actually moderated the worst excesses of the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz axis, or whether his reassuringly moderate profile falsely led observers to assume that there was serious dialogue within the US government about major questions of foreign policy. On the big questions, Powell lost again and again and again, and it was Powell's despicable presentation to the United Nations that sold many domestic critics on the invasion of Iraq.

Over the past four years, we have witnessed the greatest loss of a very valuable type of American power in our history: our power to lead, to persuade, and to inspire. As Joseph Nye has pointed out, this power will not convert the extremists who oppose us no matter what. Those people must be eliminated, pure and simple. But it can thwart their plans, by denying them new recruits, undermining their appeal and their message, and unifying, rather than dividing, Americans and the rest of the international community. Rather than bolstering this asset, which has helped to make us the most powerful country on earth, I'm afraid we have squandered it.

Although Feingold doesn't cite the Defense Science Board's recent report, his words echo much of its substance. In the name of "getting tough" on terrorism, the United States is throwing away huge chunks of its own diplomatic power and influence, sources of strength that could be used to defend innocent lives at home — and abroad.

We have relied upon a doctrine that fails to recognize that our enemies do not rely on explicit state sponsorship of terrorism. By focusing primarily on possible state sponsors of terror, the administration failed to realize that our terrorist enemies operate effectively in weak and failing states and without the backing of national governments. This is a new enemy waging a new war against us, but the administration appears still to be stuck in an old cold war mindset.

Another echo of the Defense Science Board report, and a direct hit for anyone who was surprised at the US tactic of defining an "Axis of Evil," greatly damaging the prospects of Iranian moderates while totally missing the point of modern, stateless terror groups like Al Qaeda.

At this point, the senator delivers a litany as serious as any to have hit the public record during one of the roughest political seasons in decades.

The administration's Iraq policies in the first term painted a picture of an American government

that isn't so sure it rejects torture;

that isn't competent and careful enough to properly vet intelligence presented in major speeches and briefings;

that willfully rejects the lessons of history and the advice of its own experts;

that is surprised when disorder results in massive looting;

that misleads taxpayers regarding the costs and commitments entailed in its policies;

that spends billions upon billions without any effort to even budget for these extremely predictable costs; and

that is willing to politicize issues fundamental to our national security in the ugliest possible way.

What's amazing, and disheartening, is that this isn't lightweight rhetoric. Every one of these statements can be backed up. Feingold is right about the government's attitude on torture. Right about the presentation of intelligence. Right about ignoring the advice of experts. Right about the looting, the hidden costs and the politicization of national security.

The administration's record of the past four years suggests a foreign policy careening out of control, driven by ideologues who want to test their theories in the laboratory of the Middle East one minute, by domestic political considerations the next, and by spiteful attempts to punish those who disagree with their methods the next.

Where is this going? Who is in charge? Who knows? No one ever seems to be held accountable for the blunders, the failures, the wildly inaccurate presentations and projections or the painfully ineffective initiatives.

I look forward to the opportunity to raise these concerns with Dr. Rice when she testifies before the Foreign Relations Committee, and to receiving some assurance that she will work with Congress to put our country's foreign policy on a better, more effective footing.

We're looking forward to it too, Mr. Senator.

E-mail James Norton at jrnorton@flakmag.com.

— graphic by Derek Evernden (derek@ocellus.net)