Why John Kerry Needs to Be the Next Secretary of State
In the sturm und drang over the virtual-nomination of Susan Rice to be the next Secretary of State, three things are clear:
Republican senators loathe her and the enthusiasm for her on the Democratic side is decidedly muted.
Republican and Democratic senators do not disguise their preference that their Senate colleague John Kerry succeed Hillary Clinton at Foggy Bottom.
Should Pres. Obama succeed in getting Susan Rice through the confirmation process, she will carry with her such ill will among Republicans that the administration would likely face a predisposition in the Senate to stymie initiatives ranging from foreign aid to State Department management operations to new foreign policy directions.
That Ms. Rice is being pilloried by Republicans over the minutiae of talking points is disgraceful and dishonest, a thinly veiled post-election ploy to weaken the president. The American political tradition of allowing a president to install his cabinet secretaries of choice is being violated. Of course, the president hasn't yet put forth anyone's name for the job. But the White House clearly is testing the waters by leaking Ms. Rice's name for the nomination, while also leaking John Kerry's name for the SECDEF position.
But John Kerry is the right person for the SECSTATE job, not Susan Rice, and here's why. Kerry forgets more about foreign affairs while shaving than most of the rest of us learn in a year. His 27 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has steeped him in United States foreign policy, while also equipping him with a mental rolodex of global makers and shakers matched only by Henry Kissinger's. But equally as important is the respect and friendships he enjoys in Congress, connections that get results when the White House is trying to get Congressional approval for policies and budgets. Susan Rice lacks such invaluable inroads. She doesn't hold a candle to Kerry's depth and breadth of national security experience and she also lacks the temperament for the job of top diplomat. I've never heard of John Kerry flipping the bird at a fellow USG official, or brusquely dismissing an ally's initiative with "this is bullshit," both of which Susan Rice is guilty, and more.
In 2009, when Hamid Karzai went into a snit over elections, Obama dispatched Kerry to mollify the Afghanistan president and get him to change course. One cannot envision Susan Rice doing this, or doing it, but failing. After all, this is the official who publicly denounced Russian and Chinese positions over Syria as "disgusting" and "shameful." Maybe they were, but this is not the language expected of a senior diplomat whose job is to gain future cooperation from those governments.
There is also concern over Ms. Rice's proclivity for interventionism. Haunted by the Clinton administration's decision not to send U.S. forces to Rwanda to try to halt genocide, Ms. Rice unsuccessfully advocated U.S. intervention in Darfur. She was also a leading advocate of intervention in Libya. If there's one thing Americans have come to realize since the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, American military power has its limits and morass comes much too easily. Sen. Kerry, by contrast, has a well earned reputation for level-headed thinking and judiciousness in assessing U.S. power.
Finally, concerns are being raised by the hefty financial positions Ms. Rice and her husband hold in TransCanada and other energy corporations with an interest in the proposed Keystone oil pipeline, the approval or denial of which lies within the State Department's jurisdiction.
To be sure, John Kerry has his own limitations. He's never managed a large organization and his 2004 campaign machine was marked by disorganization. He also subsequently regretted choosing the deceitful John Edwards as his running mate.
My favoring Sen. Kerry to be Secretary of State is based on my past professional dealings with him. I supported the senator's visits numerous times while serving in embassies in Southeast Asia, including hosting him as Charge d'Affaires. I consistently found him, informed, serious, curious, tactful and results-oriented. I also worked constructively with Sen. McCain, whom I also hosted. The two Vietnam veterans are friends. I observed how they worked closely in a bipartisan manner to normalize relations with Vietnam, which included deftly isolating fringe elements in our country who exercised undue negative influence over the issue. Based on these personal observations, I would foresee much greater prospects for success for an Obama foreign policy with John Kerry at the State Department helm than with Susan Rice. Should the political heat not abate, Ms. Rice would be wise to publicly step aside, thereby giving her boss an easy out of his lockhorns with Senate Republicans.