On Dumb Blondes and Dumbed Down Diplomacy: The Implications for U.S. National Security
Remember Bush-43's press secretary Dana Perino being flummoxed over a question referencing the Cuban Missile Crisis? “The Cuban Missile Crisis. It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I'm pretty sure.” She had no clue. She took major flak for lacking even basic knowledge of some of the biggest events of recent history. And here she was the point person to explain the U.S. president's policies.
Not to be outdone, the incumbent State Department spokeswoman, Heather Nauert, said this about the Allied invasion of France in 1944: “Tomorrow is the anniversary of the D-Day invasion. We obviously have a very long history with the government of Germany, and we have a strong relationship with the government.” Set aside your thoughts about her command of the English language and let it sink in: here's our government's lead voice on America's foreign policy and she was clearly stumped about what D-Day was all about.
What is it about Republican presidents and dumb blonde spokeswomen? (My apologies to smart blonde spokeswomen for any perceived insult.) Certainly, the GOP has no monopoly in this area. Obama's State Department spokeswomen, Jen Psaki and Marie Harf, were derided by career folks as "Lucy & Ethel" for their gaffe-bursts and clumsy command of issues. But the party of Palin, "legitimate rape," "climate change is a hoax" and "alternative facts" takes pride in its anti-intellectualism and promotes the worst and the dumbest to high office (don't get me started on Kellyanne).
Well, no surprise that President Trump has announced he will name Nauert to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The Fox News denizen's only "diplomatic" experience has been her stumbling State Department spokesperson tenure. But relevant experience plays little role in this administration of dunces. Trump recruits from Fox News, that modern day Lebensborn program which incubates bottle blondes for a career in faux-news followed by positions in high policy in government.
Traditionally, the position of U.S. ambassador to the U.N. was one of high prestige requiring the talents of our best policy minds. Adlai Stevenson. Arthur Goldberg. George W. Ball. Vernon Walters. Andrew Young. Daniel Moynihan, Richard Holbrooke. I've worked on U.N. diplomacy. It's complicated, multilateral and important to U.S. long-term interests. The U.S. ambassador position has bounced from cabinet-level to non-cabinet status over the decades, with Democrats generally favoring the former and Republicans the latter. Personally, I side with the GOPers on this one. Having the job as a cabinet position may have made sense in the heady days of Cold War brinkmanship. Today, it simply makes better organizational sense to keep it subordinate to the secretary of state and national security advisor.
Naming a propaganda flak with virtually zero relevant experience to the job announces to the world that which has been obvious over the past two years: the U.S. president has nothing but contempt for diplomacy and the United Nations. Sending someone who guessed that D-Day was a high point in U.S.-German relations underscores this fact.
If she has any sense at all, Heather Nauert will rely heavily upon the career U.S. diplomats who will be working under her. Why?
Vladimir Putin has been hassling the Ukrainians again as part of his scheme to one day reincorporate that country into the Russian empire. He recently seized Ukrainian vessels and has blocked access in and out of the Sea of Azov. Kiev has called for a meeting of the U.N. Security Council to address the crisis. There is talk among NATO allies for the need to ramp up sanctions on Moscow.
North Korea is expanding a nuclear missile base in contravention to the "pledge" Donald Trump imagined he got from Kim Jong-un not to. The Korean peninsula is a seven-decade tinderbox. Our role in the Korean War was under the auspices of the U.N. Should another crisis erupt, the Security Council again will be the key venue for addressing it.
These are complex issues needing serious minds to resolve. And they aren't the only ones by any means. Now, if you have as your top U.N. diplomat an individual who doesn't know the difference between D-Day and Happy Hour, who cuts a better physical than intellectual figure and who lacks any profound grounding in history and statecraft, anticipate the worst when the world blows up.