A Comment On Condi

Marcus Mabry is a terrific journalist and his article ("Think Again: Condoleezza Rice," May/June 2007) has made me want to read his highly commended book. Mabry presents the facts in a fair and nuanced way, but there are just a couple of points I take issue with. For example, Mabry first seeks to qualify the idea that "Condi" is a Bush loyalist. The twist in his argument is that she has appeared to be loyal to all her bosses (of diverging opinions), and her views have appeared to change over time. That hardly seems remarkable in a town where the president sets the agenda and others are supposed to follow. There is plenty of precedent for policy about-faces throughout history: Consider the conscience-driven evolution of Anthony Lake from Henry Kissinger aide to his roles advising Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama, or the pragmatic Dick Cheney of the first Bush administration to what we’ve got today. What’s the point exactly? That Rice is ambitious? How do you get to be secretary of state without being ambitious, especially as a black woman in America? There is no evidence that Condoleezza Rice — love her or hate her — has ever been anything but loyal to George W. Bush or that her loyalty shows any signs of deteriorating after all these years.

Mabry is also ambivalent about Rice’s "realist" credentials. He suggests that her realist training conflicted with her "devout Christianity." But there have been plenty of devoutly Christian realists. In fact, Rice has been one of the more realist voices of the administration. It is perfectly possible for a realist to assess the Middle East, see threats everywhere, and determine that it is in U.S. interests to quash them through intervention. Her failing, and the administration’s, was neither realism nor idealism; it was that most of the ideologues driving policy were also hopelessly romantic about the nature of American power and influence in the region.

I suspect time will show Rice’s greatest weakness to be her choice of the wrong boss this time around, and her failure to recognize it or to effectively challenge those around her whose views were unrealistic and whose plans were inadequate. This has made her an accomplice to a catastrophe and is likely to ultimately overshadow the considerable good she has done, especially as secretary of state. Nonetheless, like Mabry, I suspect she will be around for a while. I don’t see her as an ideologue, a realist, or an idealist. Rather, I see her as someone who has dedicated her life to serving the country as best she can. That is something that will almost certainly lead some people to "think again" about her in a positive way once she leaves this disastrous administration.

-David Rothkopf
Visiting Scholar
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Washington, D.C.