This isn’t a good time for an exodus of weapons experts

Given the current circumstances, this probably isn’t a good time for career weapons experts to get pushed out of the State Department and replaced with Bush’s political appointees. And yet, that’s exactly what’s happening.

State Department officials appointed by President Bush have sidelined key career weapons experts and replaced them with less experienced political operatives who share the White House and Pentagon’s distrust of international negotiations and treaties.

The reorganization of the department’s arms control and international security bureaus was intended to help it better deal with 21st-century threats. Instead, it’s thrown the agency into turmoil and produced an exodus of experts with decades of experience in nuclear arms, chemical weapons and related matters, according to 11 current and former officials and documents obtained by Knight Ridder.

The reorganization was conducted largely in secret by a panel of four political appointees. A career expert was allowed to join the group only after most decisions had been made. Its work was overseen by Frederick Fleitz, a CIA officer who was detailed to the State Department as senior adviser to former Undersecretary of State John Bolton, a critic of arms agreements and international organizations.

The Knight Ridder article paints quite an unpleasant picture. In October, a dozen State Department employees delivered a rare written dissent to the reorganization plan, which has caused several top officials to leave government service. The same employees approached the Justice Department about stopping the plan, but they were unsuccessful.

In December, a group of employees told Undersecretary of State for Management, “The process has been gravely flawed from the outset, and smacks plainly of a political vendetta against career Foreign Service and Civil Service (personnel) by political appointees.”

Of course, the timing couldn’t be much worse.

Among those who have left as part of the “reorganization” is the State Department’s top authority on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, “the cornerstone of the international regime to curb the spread of nuclear arms.”

Jonathan Granoff, the director of the Global Security Institute, an arms control advocacy group, said the loss of State Department arms-control expertise was especially worrisome because the only mechanism for verifying U.S. and Russian nuclear arms cuts – the 1991 START I treaty – is due to expire in less than three years.

That also will eliminate the most effective way of verifying that the former rivals are abiding by their Non-Proliferation Treaty commitments to eliminate their nuclear arsenals eventually, he said. “Rather than nurture our experts, the administration seems to have brought in neophytes without a passion for progress in this field and, worse, undermined the international institutions that are most effective in stopping proliferation,” he said.

And who is replacing the experts? Well, Thomas Lehrman, a political appointee who heads the new office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism, listed loyalty to Bush and Rice’s priorities as one of his qualifications.

Who feels safer?

according to 11 current and former officials and documents obtained by Knight Ridder

Is it just me, or is Knight Ridder doing the lion share of investigative reporting and publishing? Apparently, that organization isn’t as cowed as the once great NY Times seems to be. Keep up the excellent work Knight Ridder!

  • Nuclear non-proliferation is just a theory. CB, please make sure you always include the word “theory” following nuclear non-proliferation when you write that phrase.

  • Depend on who is difining “not a good time.” For those of us in the real world this is a bad time. But for Repubican hack this is great. Get the obstructionists out and replace them with easily malleable and inexperienced and unqualifed people like to look for the evidence to support the official party line.

  • This is certainly open to cynical interpretation. It certainly makes it easier for the Bush administration’s arguments for military action against Iran, which really ought to be peaking in September and October. They can fabricate evidence, risk international ostracism again, and browbeat the Democrats into accepting it right before the election. Dems look unpatriotic and weak on national defense, and the Republicans retain control of the House and Senate. Too bad Iran is helping Bush make this easy.

    And then of course, it makes it that much easier to justify multibillion dollar nuclear weapon systems like bunker busters and missle shields because soon dozens of unstable countries will have nuclear weaponry. And with the Bush’s belligerent stance and unwillingness to negotiate, we can expect Russia to reassume the role of arch-nemesis to the U.S., thus justifying bloated military contracts for decades to come.

  • With each passing day another piece of evidence appears that clearly shows that George Bush and his cronies are a major threat to the security of this country. The next administration will have a field day cleaning house, and I can hardly wait.

  • Aw, sheez…John Bolton, Fred Fleitz, and Tom Lehrman. The Larry, Curly, and Moe of weapons expertise. All we need now is for someone to play the role of Shemp….

  • The Italian economist and political philosopher Vilfredo Pareto is famous for this theory of “the circulation of elites”. He thought governmental activity went through a series of phases. First, the new government tried to address societal problems. Second, when they realized they couldn’t, they drove the technical experts out and began lying about solving problems. Third, when lies no longer worked, they drove out the last of experts and turned to force.

    The buildup of experts outside the government led to pressures which, along with the lying and the bullying, sooner or later, led to a violent change of government. Pareto recommended a less violent process of “circulating the elites (technicians), something like our election process … an established cointinuing bureaucracy with periodical changes of elected/appointed top officials.

    Bush seems to prefer the older way: push everywhere, until those out of power, lied to and bullied, push back violently. Maybe he’ll “succeed”. If so, I want to be there when they string Bush up at the gas station.

  • It will be miracle if we (United States of America) survive the full eight years of the Bush Presidency.

    I worry sometimes that Bush will cancel the ’08 elections for ‘national security’. And sometimes I wonder if I’ll be hiding in the woods with a club and a canteen instead of voting.

  • I worry sometimes that Bush will cancel the ’08 elections for ‘national security’. Comment by bcinaz

    ShrubCo’s eavesdropping not only allows them to potentially thwart a connection, it allows them to determine which connections they might accidently let slip through thus facilitating a critical communication.

    With so much smoke masquerading as “National Security” and so much for ShrubCo/RepubCo to lose if elections go badly for them, it’s quite possible the next attack will be at a time most likely to generate maximum confusion and clinging to the status quo no matter how insane and F’d Up that status quo might be.

    Has anything…Absolutely anything…been as useful to the Shrubista’s as 9/11? It opened the door. They walked through to a land where the word NO had been banished. They despise hearing it lately and they want to walk through that door again. They feel the need….to walk through that door again. They will if they can.

  • Great, meaty post, CB. I never knew this and this is one of the reasons why I so love the Left Blogosphere. I surfed on in after seeing the link here on Dr. Laniac’s newsletter (as I also was). This may wind up in my Assclowns of the Week this w/e.

    If you haven’t already seen it, Dr. Laniac wrote a long and well-written postscript to your post about this alarming exodus.

    One criticism, tho: Please refer to the President in quotation marks,as the validy of his presidency is still a theory.

  • Comments are closed.