Posted on 12/12/2004 6:33:14 AM PST by JustaCowgirl
WASHINGTON — One of the most talked-about jobs in Washington might not register with most Americans. But as President Bush rebuilds his Cabinet for his second term, Beltway cognoscenti are focusing on the unfilled No. 2 job at the State Department for clues about the direction of foreign policy.
To those who study the frequently secretive Bush administration's moves in the hope of divining its intentions, Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites)'s choice for her top deputy will be crucial.
"It's a Washington exercise, but not an unimportant Washington exercise," said Morton Abramowitz, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey and Thailand now with the Council on Foreign Relations. "The fact that the country doesn't pay attention to it doesn't mean it's not important."
If Rice picks a neoconservative as her deputy, Washington insiders predict business as usual: a hard-nosed foreign policy with President Bush continuing to wage the war on terrorism on his own terms. Conservatives would hail a hawkish appointee as a person who "recognizes that we are living in a post-Sept. 11 world," while liberals would rant about "four more wars."
If the No. 2 job goes to someone considered to be a pragmatic realist — especially one who served under the president's father — then liberals will hail a kinder, more multilateral foreign policy, while conservatives will hyperventilate about the danger that the president's policies won't be carried out by weak-kneed State Department bureaucrats.
Few Washingtonians, let alone most other Americans, can even name the last five people to hold the post of deputy secretary of State. And not all deputies have been power players. "Who remembers Kissinger's deputy?" asked Gary Schmitt, executive director of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.
Nevertheless, under the most recent No. 2s — current deputy Richard L. Armitage and Clinton-era deputy Strobe Talbott — the job has been one of the most powerful in Washington. The deputy secretary manages the vast State Department bureaucracy and all of its embassies and consulates, keeps global problems from becoming global crises, puts policy stamp on all but the most crucial issues and is supposed to be the secretary's most trusted advisor.
Because Bush's foreign policies have been so controversial — and because Rice in her tenure as White House national security advisor appears to have sided sometimes with the neoconservatives and sometimes with the realist camp — the deputy's post is topic A of diplomatic speculation.
Foreign officials are pumping their American contacts for insights in reading the tea leaves. And amid talk of purges of State Department officials who are seen as "not on board" with the president's policies, the deputy's job has prompted fear and loathing among some inside the sprawling State building — so much so that several officials refused to discuss it even on condition of anonymity.
A prominent neoconservative who served in a former administration said some of that fear was justified.
"A lot of people that were in the State Department [under Secretary Colin L. Powell] had an incredibly free hand to dissent, to drag their heels and to be obstructionist about the president's policy," the former administration official said. "Needless to say, they're worried that Condi is being put in as secretary of State to end that — and they'd be right."
Some predict there could be considerable turnover as a result of the departure of Powell, who resigned after Bush won reelection.
"There's going to be a big turnover," said a Department of Defense (news - web sites) official, who compared the coming housecleaning to the "de-Baathification" process in Iraq (news - web sites) and to the shakeups underway at the CIA (news - web sites) under its new director, Porter J. Goss.
"No. 2 is critical because No. 2 is usually the ax man," the official added.
Those closest to the Bush administration say they have no idea who will be chosen, or even whether names in the rumor mill are really the leading contenders for the job.
But those most often mentioned as candidates for the job include:
• John R. Bolton, undersecretary of State for arms control and international security, is the neoconservatives' choice. Tough, outspoken and loyal, Bolton is believed to be favored by Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites). But he is feared by many of the State Department rank and file.
• Arnold Kanter, who held the No. 3 job in the State Department in the early 1990s under President George H.W. Bush. Kanter, a principal with the consulting group run by onetime national security advisor Brent Scowcroft, is seen as a foreign policy realist. But his boss, Scowcroft, publicly opposed the Iraq war. Kanter would be welcomed by many at the State Department, but Cheney is rumored to oppose him.
• Robert M. Kimmitt, who preceded Kanter as No. 3 at State under Bush's father and was later U.S. ambassador to Germany, is a senior executive and lobbyist for Time Warner Inc. He is seen as a traditional conservative but is said to be on good terms with the neoconservative camp.
• Elliott Abrams, who is working for Rice on Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council, is a hawk. Rice is said to be closer to him than any of the other candidates. He is seen as likely to accompany Rice to State in some capacity because of the importance of Middle East diplomacy during Bush's second term. But Abrams, who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of failing to answer questions truthfully to Congress during the Iran-Contra scandal, might not want to subject himself to a combative Senate confirmation hearing
The last five deputy secretaries of State are: Armitage, Talbott, Clifton Wharton Jr., Lawrence S. Eagleburger and John C. Whitehead. Henry Kissinger had three deputies, Kenneth Rush, Robert S. Ingersoll and Charles W. Robinson.
I'm hoping for Newt.
That would be a terrific choice, IMHO. Somehow I can't see Newt accepting a role as Condi's deputy, though.
I think this position has to have confirmation, too, and Newt would probably be skewered by the Dems for any position for which he was nominated.
Paul Wolfowitz
He'd be skewered, sure, but he'd have the votes. And given that he's already publically testified on how State is undermining Bush, he's the perfect person to be put in charge of cleaning house.
Some predict there could be considerable turnover as a result of the departure of Powell, who resigned after Bush won reelection.
May she appoint whoever these Rats like least!
Another good choice. Definitely a hawk.
Good points both. Maybe they've already done everything to him that they can, and he would just have to ride it out.
I think Newt would kick some major tail in that position. But would Condi have to listen to the same innuendos that Dubya has had to put up with about Cheney (i.e. that Cheney is the real president, makes the decisions, etc.) That has died down a lot since it's become clear that the President is his own man.
But I think the VP still works very hard to make sure that the President is front and center, and that it's clear that the President makes the decisions. I don't know whether Newt would be as careful about maintaining a lower profile or not.
The question is, does the "person X is a puppet of person Y" argument really matter? I don't think anyone listens to it, even the people who believe it.
Newt might not be able to keep a low profile, but his profile would definitely be lower than Condi's, who I think will be in the news plenty over the next 4 years. Assuming Condi runs for President in 2008, or doesn't want to stick around State after 4 years, Newt would be in an excellent position to become full SecState--imagine State run by two competent people in succession.
**May she appoint whoever these Rats like least!**
I'd call that an excellent measuring stick!
**The question is, does the "person X is a puppet of person Y" argument really matter? I don't think anyone listens to it, even the people who believe it.**
Maybe it really doesn't matter, almost certainly not in the long run. Most of it is idle blather, I agree. I've never seen any real evidence that it hurt Dubya much. Like so many other artificial controversies raised around him, he simply let it run its course.
And one can look at it the opposite way too - at times Dick Cheney also served as a lightning rod that deflected criticism and attention from W. There are times when I believe he did that purposely. So maybe Condi would find having a high-profile deputy useful, for that reason alone.
I also don't know what Newt's future political plans are, and whether this would fit his plans or not. I do agree it's a shame to let such prodigious talent go to waste (maybe it's really not being wasted now, I don't know.)
Interesting article, but calling Bush's foreign policy decisions 'so controversial' is a bit much. We are at war, after all, but hey, it's the LATimes. Maybe they'd feel differently if two buildings and three thousand LA residents had been blown to bits.
Newt's writing great books.
This is what probably passes for a balanced article at the L.A. Times, LOL.
With regard to whether they would feel differently if the attack were in L.A., who knows. The indifference of many Americans to the attacks, 9/11 and its predecessors, is just amazing to me, and I can't fathom their thought processes. Just look at the number of New Yorkers who apparently could care less.
It seems no wakeup call is going to work on these people, they must be dead from the neck up.
**Newt's writing great books. **
Yes he is, and I should have specified 'going to political waste.' He obviously is making excellent use of his time. I don't know how much he's interested in being a part of the mainstream political process now. Somehow I just have a feeling he has active politics in his blood, and would get back in the fray with the right opportunity.
I admire Newt, but I don't see him at state. His forte is elective domestic politics. Given the racist sexism we have seen about Rice appointment, I think this speculation is just a way to diminish her further.
Of all mentioned, Bolton seems to be the best man.
**Of all mentioned, Bolton seems to be the best man.**
I agree. Based on what the article says, Bolton sounds like a very good candidate!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.