I just wrote my Congresswoman, Jane Harman, to ask her to aggressively support the IG investigation of Freeman’s appointment as Director of the NIC, and I’d suggest you write yours as well.

I’ve been reading Freeman’s writings and listening to his speeches. Here, Freeman talks about Taiwan and China.

Now I don’t see what he suggests as somehow outside the bounds of policy discourse; but I interpret this as saying that he believes that it ultimately is our interest to support the reintegration of Taiwan into China. For a variety of reasons (many of them set out in Robert Kaplan’s article in the current Foreign Affairs), I think that a China that divides its attention between Taiwan and the Indian Ocean is a China that I’d personally be happier with – and one in a situation that better suits the interests of the United States.

Here’s is Freeman talking about Iraq, in late 2007.

Note that – even on the tail end of the success of the Surge, he’s talking about a level of disorder and rick of civil war that have – in the months since his speech – declined dramatically. Iraq is certainly not “done” but it’s certainly on the road to there. If we had adopted his policies and announced withdrawal in 2007 – instead of pressing forward with the Surge – would Iraq be better or worse off? Would US interests in the region be better or worse off?

And here’s Freeman talking about Hamas (the opening audio is choppy, but it gets better)

Again, Hamas is ‘besieged’; they are a passive victim of outside forces. But my favorite is that “while Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, they do recognize that Israel does exist”. Not a word about the murder of Fatah political rivals; not a word about the plunder of aid that is then diverted to military resources.

And, I’ll point out Martin Kramer’s neat catch of Freeman’s reversal on the meaning and role of Israel in Middle East politics:

How important has resentment of Israel been to Al Qaeda’s terrorism? Here is one side of the argument, by an American who knows Saudi Arabia well:

The heart of the poison is the Israel-Palestinian conundrum. When I was in Saudi Arabia, I was told by Saudi friends that on Saudi TV there were three terrorists who came out and spoke. Essentially the story they told was that they had been recruited to fight for the Palestinians against the Israelis, but that once in the training camp, their trainers gradually shifted their focus away from the Israelis to the monarchy in Saudi Arabia and to the United States. So the recruitment of terrorists has a great deal to do with the animus that arises from that continuing and worsening situation.

And here is the opposing view, by an American who knows the Kingdom equally well:

Mr. bin Laden’s principal point, in pursuing this campaign of violence against the United States, has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with the American military presence in Saudi Arabia, in connection with the Iran-Iraq issue. No doubt the question of American relations with Israel adds to the emotional heat of his opposition and adds to his appeal in the region. But this is not his main point.

So now you’ve heard two sides of the debate. Who made the first statement? Charles “Chas” Freeman, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and the Obama administration’s nominee to head the National Intelligence Council (NIC). Who made the second statement? Charles “Chas” Freeman, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and the Obama administration’s nominee to head the National Intelligence Council (NIC).

The first quote dates from January 2004, the second from October 1998. The difference between them is 9/11, when it became the Saudi line to point to Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians as the “root cause” of the September 11 attacks. The initial promoter of this approach in the United States (well before Walt and Mearsheimer) was Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed. “At times like this one,” Alwaleed announced a month after 9/11, “we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack. I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause.” That statement led then-mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani to return a $10 million check Alwaleed had just presented to him for a special “Twin Towers” relief fund.

There’s is no question that Freeman is a smart and experienced man. But there are questions about his vision of America and America’s interests.

Now the defenders of Freeman’s views – most recently James Fallows – point out that he’s a ‘call it like he sees it’ contrarian. Quite possibly, and that’s a good thing in many cases.

But in this political environment – are his views all that contrarian? Really?

Possibly President Bush would have been well-served by having someone like Freeman in the intelligence process. But I’ll suggest that President Obama isn’t likely to be.

–