Robert Maranto appropriates my line
Political scientists sometimes do think alike. I’ve argued repeatedly that the way to understand Richard Clarke’s position vis-à-vis the Bush administration has been that of a pure bureaucratic actor: Richard Clarke is the perfect bureaucrat. I mean that in the best and worst senses of the word. In the best sense, it’s clear that Clarke ...
Political scientists sometimes do think alike. I've argued repeatedly that the way to understand Richard Clarke's position vis-à-vis the Bush administration has been that of a pure bureaucratic actor:
Political scientists sometimes do think alike. I’ve argued repeatedly that the way to understand Richard Clarke’s position vis-à-vis the Bush administration has been that of a pure bureaucratic actor:
Richard Clarke is the perfect bureaucrat. I mean that in the best and worst senses of the word. In the best sense, it’s clear that Clarke was adept at maximizing the available resources and authority required to do his job, given the organizational rivalries and cultures that made such a pursuit difficult. In the worst sense, Clarke was a monomaniacal martinet whose focus on his bailiwick to the exclusion of everything else is phenomenal…. The result is that what’s in Against all Enemies is certainly the truth, but as I said before, I doubt it’s the whole truth.
Robert Maranto, who teaches political science and public administration at Villanova University, makes some similar observations in today’s Wall Street Journal:
Good bureaucrats–not an oxymoron–spend all their days thinking about the highly specialized mission of their agencies, whether protecting the homeland or protecting the snail darter. Bureaucrats want all resources going to their work, with only crumbs left for the rest of us. Good politicians, on the other hand, must ration their time and money to many competing interests. They can never give their hearts to just one thing…. As the NSC staffer in charge of monitoring al Qaeda, Mr. Clarke spent 12 hours a day trying to get inside Osama bin Laden’s head–an assignment sure to warp anyone. Indeed, Mr. Clarke advocated pre-emptive attacks on Afghanistan in the 1990s, years before reasonable people (much less the U.N.) came on board. In contrast, Ms. Rice, in visibly angry testimony before the 9/11 commission last week, insisted that she and President Bush had to manage competing threats. Just as Mr. Clarke named al Qaeda the top foreign threat, NSC Korea experts thought that North Korea, which murdered two million people and threatened to spread nuclear weapons, deserved the title of global enemy No. 1. Still others saw China, with a billion people, hundreds of nukes, and threats to incinerate Los Angeles, as America’s biggest nightmare.
Then there’s this point:
While Mr. Clarke now recalls having good relations with President Clinton’s political appointees, the Washington Post reports that Clintonites “despised” him because, as then-NSC staffer James M. Lindsay recalls, they “thought he was exaggerating the threat” and “always wanted to do more” than higher-ups approved.
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds has more on some revisionist elements of Clarke’s book.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
