by Alemayehu G. Mariam
On September 2, 2012, Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., delivered a nauseatingly sentimental oration at the
funeral of Ethiopian dictator Meles Zenawi. She called Meles “selfless
and tireless” and “totally dedicated to his work and family.” She said
he was “tough, unsentimental and sometimes unyielding. And, of course,
he had little patience for fools, or idiots, as he liked to call them.”
The “fools” and “idiots” that Rice caricatured with rhetorical gusto
and flair are Ethiopia’s independent journalists, opposition leaders,
dissidents, political prisoners, civil society leaders and human rights
advocates.Watching the video of her eulogy, one
could easily say she “had gone native” completely. But it was clear
that her aim was to deliver the last punch to the gut of Meles’
opponents as a sendoff present.
As the old saying goes, “birds of a feather flock together”. Rice, like Meles, likes to insult and humiliate
those who disagree with her. She had a reputation in the State
Department as boor and a bit of a bully; or as those who knew her say,
she was a “bull-in-a-china-shop”. She is known for verbal pyrotechnics,
shouting matches and finger wagging at meetings. On one occasion, she is
reported to have flipped her middle finger at the late Richard
Holbrooke, the dean of American diplomats, at a senior State Department
staff meeting. Prior to the onset of the air campaign in Libya in March
2012, France’s U.N. ambassador, Gerard Araud, advised Rice that the
European Union would seek a no-fly zone resolution from the Security
Council regardless of U.S. support. She gave Araud the verbal equivalent
of a kick in the rear end: “You’re not going to drag us into your
shitty war.” She later tried to claim full credit for the effort: “We
need to be prepared to contemplate steps that include, but perhaps go
beyond, a no-fly zone at this point, as the situation on the ground has
evolved, and as a no-fly zone has inherent limitations in terms of
protection of civilians at immediate risk.” This past July when China
and Russia at the U.N. blocked adoption of language linking climate
change to international security, she lambasted them as “pathetic” and
“shortsighted” and accused them of “dereliction of duty.
”
That was
then. In the past several days, Rice was on the receiving end.
Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham virtually called Rice
a fool and an idiot for her statements following the U.S. Consulate
attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 in which four Americans were
murdered. Rice appeared on five national Sunday talk shows five days
after the attack and made the boldfaced claim that the attack on the
consulate “was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had
transpired in Cairo in response to this very offensive video that was
disseminated”. According to Rice, the protest by a “small number of
people who came to the consulate” was “hijacked” by “clusters of
extremists who came with heavier weapons.”
Senator McCain showed
“little patience for fools, or idiots” and fairy tales when he angrily
threatened to block Rice if she were nominated to become Secretary of
State: “Susan Rice should have known better, and if she didn’t know
better, she’s not qualified. She has proven that she either doesn’t
understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its face. There
is no doubt five days later what this attack was and for.” Rice’s Benghazi story was reminiscent of the bedtime stories of the late Meles Zenawi.
Truth
be told, only a “fool” or an “idiot” would not know or reasonably
surmise the attack on the U.S. consulate was a terrorist act. CIA
Director David Petraeus recently testified that from the moment he heard
of the attack, he knew it was a terrorist act. He included this fact in
the talking points he sent to the White House which somehow got
redacted form Rice’s public statements. The experts and pundits also
called it a terrorist act. For Rice, it was a protest gone wrong.
But
there remain a number of puzzling questions: Why was Rice selected to
become the point person on the attack in light of President Obama’s
defense that Rice “had nothing to do with Benghazi.” Why didn’t Hilary
Clinton step up to explain what happened? Did the White House throw Rice
under the bus to save Hilary? Was Rice supposed to provide plausible
deniability and political cover until the election was over by calling a
manifest terrorist attack a protest over an offensive anti-Muslim
video? Did Rice have to fall on the Benghazi sword to divert attention
or delay accountability for the Administration’s failure to take
appropriate preventive action in Benghazi as the price for nomination to
the job of Secretary of State? Or was the White House trying to
showcase Rice’s diplomatic adroitness and savvy in a futile attempt to
bridge her unbridgeable competence and “stature gap” to become America’s
foreign policy chief?
President Obama was ready to drive a lance
through the heart of Republican villains hell bent on capturing and
devouring his prevaricating damsel in distress. He told McCain and
Graham to bring it on. If the Republican duo and their buddies “want to
go after somebody, they should go after me. But for them to go after the
U.N. ambassador? Who had nothing to do with Benghazi? And was simply
making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received? To
besmirch her reputation is outrageous.” That was great drama staged by “no drama Obama.”
What
is mindboggling is the fact that Rice would believe and earnestly
propagate such a cock-and-bull story about the Benghazi attack. Rice is a
person with extraordinary credentials. She is a graduate of Stanford
and Oxford Universities and a Rhodes scholar to boot! She was a top
official in the National Security Agency and an Assistant Secretary of
State for African Affairs in the Clinton Administration. She has two
decades of solid high level foreign policy experience. Yet five days
after the attack, Rice shuttled from one news talk show to another
telling the American people the Benghazi attack was not an act of
terrorism. Is that willful ignorance, foolishness or idiocy?
The
fact that the attack occurred on September 11 – a day that shall live
in infamy in American history — and the attackers used their trademark
“heavier weapons” (to use Rice’s words) of terrorism — pickup mounted
machine guns, AK-47s, RPGs, hand grenades, mortars and IEDs — meant
nothing to Rice. The fact that in Libya today there are all sorts of
militias, rebel groups, Islamist radicals and terrorist cells are
operating freely did not suggest the strong possibility of a terrorist
attack for Rice. The fact that Gadhafi made Libya a state sponsor of
terrorism for decades provided no historical context for Rice. Simply
stated, in the Benghazi attack Rice saw something that looked like a
duck, walked like a duck and quacked like a duck, but she concluded it
was a giraffe.
The race card-ists and race baiters came out
in full battle dress to defend Rice against charges of “incompetence”.
Rep. Jim Clyburn, House Assistant Democratic Leader, was the first to
strike a blow by politicizing Rice’s incompetence. “You know, these are
code words. These kinds of terms that those of us — especially those of
us who were grown and raised in the South — we’ve been hearing these
little words and phrases all of our lives and we get insulted by them. Susan Rice is as competent as anybody you will find.”
A group of democratic lawmakers delivered a second salvo charging
“sexism and racism”. That was the shot across the bow and the message to
the Republicans is clear:
Obama wants
Rice as Secretary of State. He has won re-election. Rice will be
nominated. Republicans who oppose her will be tarred and feathered as
racists, sexists and misogynists persecuting a competent black woman.
They will be demonized, dehumanized and discredited in the media. The
democrats have 55 votes in the Senate and will be able to peel off at
least 5 Republicans to end a filibuster. Rice will get the job of
Secretary of State. Republicans will have eggs on their faces and will
look like fools and idiots at the end of the day.
Such is the
Democrat game plan and screenplay for victory and triumph in the Rice
nomination. The Republicans will probably put up a nominal fight but
will eventually fold under a withering Democrat attack. Rice will rise
triumphant.
Rice’s confirmation as Secretary of State will be a
sad day for American foreign policy because she is simply not qualified
to be America’s diplomat-in-chief. Her confirmation will mark the
saddest day for human rights throughout the world and particularly in
Africa. The tired, the poor, the huddled masses of Africa yearning to
breath free will continue to find themselves in the iron chokehold of
African dictators for another four years as Rice turns a blind eye to
massive human rights violations. African dictators will be beating their
drums and dancing in the streets. They will be happier than pigs in
mud. They know she will have their backs for another four years. With
Rice at the helm, there will be more money, more aid and more loans for
African dictators. But the truth must be told. Calling Rice
“incompetent” is a fact, not a racially coded denigration of African
Americans. To paraphrase Clyburn, Rice is as incompetent as you will find.
The
Peter Principle essentially states that in an organization where
promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that
organization’s members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of
ability. In other words, “employees tend to rise to their level of
incompetence.” The Dilbert principle states organizations tend to
systematically promote their least-competent employees to higher
management positions in order to limit the amount of damage they are
capable of doing. If Rice succeeds Hilary Clinton, she will be a living
example of the fusion of the Peter and Dilbert Principles at the highest
level of the American government.
Let the truth be told: Susan
Rice is simply not competent to become U.S. Secretary of State! To be a
competent diplomat-in-chief of a great country, fundamental moral
integrity is a necessity. Rice is incompetent because she lacks not only
the moral judgment to tell right from wrong and truth from falsehood,
but she is also incapable of distinguishing between two wrongs. In March
2012, Rice scathingly condemned Iran, North Korea and Syria “for their
mass violations of human rights”. On September 2, 2012, she delivered a
canonizing oration at the funeral of one of the ruthless dictators in
recent African history. Twelve days before Rice recited Meles’
hagiography, Human Rights Watch issued a report stating, “Ethiopia has
seen a sharp deterioration in civil and political rights, with mounting
restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and assembly. The
ruling party has increasingly consolidated its power, weakening the
independence of core institutions such as the judiciary and the
independent media that are crucial to the rule of law.”
A
competent Secretary of State must have a working knowledge of military
operations. Rice is clueless about military and paramilitary operations.
She said the Benghazi attackers used “heavier weapons” but she could
not connect the signature weapons of terrorists to the attackers who
used them. Cluelessly or disingenuously, she tried to convince Americans
and the world that a coordinated assault on a U.S. consulate in
Benghazi was caused by “a small number of people” whose “protest” had
gone awry!
A competent Secretary of State must have sound
political judgment. Despite her stellar education and broad experience
in foreign policy, Rice has traded intellectual integrity and prudence
for blind political ambition. She seems incapable of discerning truth
from falsehood even when it is obvious. She seems to have little concern
for the truth or falsity of what she says; and evidently, she will say
anything to advance her political ambitions in reckless disregard for
the manifest truth. As Senator McCain perceptively observed, “she either
doesn’t understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its
face”. She also does not seem to understand or appreciate the fact that a
high level public official in her position has an obligation to
undertake due diligence to find out what is true and what is false
before swaggering in public peddling boldfaced lies.
A competent
Secretary of State diplomat must subordinate his/her political ambitions
to his/her patriotic duty to those who put their lives on the line to
defend American values. Rice is incompetent because she will put her own
political ambitions and loyalties to her political party above her
patriotic duty to her fallen compatriots. She is a person for whom
political expediency and opportunism are the creed of life. She will
blindly tow the party line and support a policy without regard to
principles or scruples. In other words, Susan Rice is a party hack
and not material for the job of America’s diplomat-in-chief.
A
competent Secretary of State must have intellectual courage and
conviction. Rice is incompetent because she lacks intellectual courage,
commitment and conviction. In a scholarly writing in 2006, Rice
energetically argued that “Mali [as] an example of a well-governed
country that suffers from capacity gaps that extremist groups have been
able to exploit. Mali cooperates fully with the United States on
counterterrorism matters.” In April 2012, when radical Islamist rebels
took over Northern Mali and split the country in half, all she could
offer was an empty statement calling on “all parties in Mali (including
murderous terrorists) to seek a peaceful solution through appropriate
political dialogue.” She folded her hands and watched for nearly four
years doing nothing as Mali spiraled from a “well-governed country” to a
divided strife-stricken country half of which today is a haven for
murderous terrorists. Rice will talk the talk but not walk the talk.
A
competent Secretary of State must be tempered in language and demeanor.
Rice is incompetent because she lacks diplomatic temperament and
thrives on being antagonistic, condescending and disrespectful to
colleagues and other diplomats. A bullying and loose cannon Secretary of
State cannot perform his/her job competently. She has a disgusting
scatological lexicon. She is intolerant and arrogant and will try to
vilify into submission those who disagree with her.
It is said
that “stupid is as stupid does”; so “incompetent is as incompetent
does”. I hope President Obama will not nominate Rice to replace Clinton.
But I believe he will and we will all get to see a Shakespearean
mini-drama at the confirmation hearings: “To be, or not to be (Secretary
of State): that is the question (for Rice):/Whether ’tis nobler in the
mind to suffer (for all the lies she has told)/ The slings and arrows of
outrageous fortune (in a Senate confirmation hearing),/ Or to take arms
against a sea of troubles (by coming clean and telling the truth)…/.
I
believe Rice will be will be exposed for what she really is at the
confirmation hearing– a grand obfuscator of the truth, an artful dodger
and a masterful artist of political expediency and intrigue. In 1994,
when the Clinton Administration pretended to be ignorant of the terror
in Rwanda and the death toll continued to rise by the thousands, Rice’s
concern was not taking immediate action to stop the genocide and saving
lives but the political consequences of calling the Rwandan tragedy a
“genocide” and saving her job and others in her party. She had the
audacity, moral depravity and sheer callous indifference to ask, “If we
use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the
effect on the November [congressional] election?”
Did Rice
avoid using the word “terrorism” in explaining the Benghazi attack
because she was concerned about the political costs the President would
have to pay in the November election if the voters were to see him as
doing nothing to prevent it?
At the end of the day, what
Rice told the American people five days after the Benghazi attack, to
quote Shakespeare, “is a (tall) tale told by an idiot, full of sound and
fury, signifying nothing.”
Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam teaches political science at California State University, San Bernardino.
No comments:
Post a Comment