by John P. Dailey

The National Intelligence Council is the central staff for the Director of National Intelligence under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It not only coordinates the information flows from the 16 separate operational agencies but also is charged specifically to "reach out to nongovernmental experts in academia and the private sector to broaden the Intelligence Community's perspective." As the government's think tank center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking, NIC's stated goal "is to provide policymakers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information--regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to US policy."

The Chairman of NIC and the rest of the staff are selected by the Director of National Intelligence and are not subject to confirmation by the Senate. The DNI, Adm Dennis Blair, was appointed by President Obama, confirmed by the Senate and now reports directly to the President including a briefing every morning. Adm Blair selected a former State Department diplomat, Chas Freeman, to become Chairman of NIC, setting off a classic "tempest in a teapot" Washington style. Senators and Congressmen, journalists and other former diplomats, and many other public interest groups all very vocally expressed opinions about Freeman's fitness for the job. Adm Blair, called to testify before a Senate Committee, was severely criticized for the appointment but presented a strong defense of Amb Freeman's qualifications and unique skills. Several hours later, Mr. Freeman announced he was withdrawing from the post and blamed his critics for "selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record...and an utter disregard for the truth."

What is this all about and does it matter for the future? Chas Freeman, fluent in several Chinese dialects, served as President Nixon's interpreter with Mao Zedong in 1972 and stayed on in various roles in Beijing, rising to Deputy Chief of Mission in the US Embassy there. Two years ago Freeman spoke about the need for better intelligence analysis. "To deal effectively with China, Americans need to understand it in terms of its own complexities and authentic aspirations. This is unlikely to be achieved by officers engaged in writing narrowly focused reports mandated by Congress.Predictions about China based on a priori reasoning, ideologically induced delusions, hearsay, conjecture, or mirror-imaging have been frequent and numerous. They have racked up a remarkable record of unreliability."

Sounds like a refreshing approach for a new Chairman of NIC and probably why his critics claimed he was too "pro China."

However, the heart of the attacks on Freeman related to his views on Israel. After serving as US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, he became outspoken after leaving government service about the lack of balance in US policy regarding Israel and its relations with its Arab neighbors. Like Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their provocative book THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND US FOREIGN POLICY, Mr. Freeman has been toughly attacked for questioning America's link-step with Israeli policies. In his withdrawal statement he clearly directed blame: "the tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency."

Discussions regarding possible shifts on American-Israeli relations often very quickly dissolve into personal attacks on both sides. Charges of "anti-Semitism" or "pawn of powerful Jewish lobby" replace the debates about realism vs. idealism or stability vs. human rights that characterize policy discussions about other countries or parts of the world. It is a major example of the concept of "motivated constituencies," that is the powerful impact in open democracies of smaller groups of like minded people with strongly held views. These single-interest groups utilize modern technology to press their views and demands, often creating outsized attention among the "chattering classes" or insider political circles. Such motivated constituencies can create rapid public momentum for their ideas that generates pressure for political leadership to react immediately.

The strong debates about the Chas Freeman appointment as NIC Chairman have brought out a couple important fault lines in this new political environment. The changing nature of governments in the next few months across the Middle East from Israel itself to Palestinian Hamas vs. Fatah to Iran and Syria is creating great anxiety in many American policymakers and opinion molders. Likewise, the unfolding nature of the new US Obama administration has created multiple expectations and concerns among many foreign governments and observers. Understanding how policy will be made is currently as absorbing as the immediate short-term position changes.

James Fallows, respected China-based writer for "The Atlantic," writes about Chas Freeman as uniquely equipped for NIC Chairman given its special role in the Intelligence Community: "While he would have no line-operational responsibilities or powers, he would be able to raise provocative questions, to ask 'What if everybody's wrong?' to force attention to doubts, possibilities, and alternatives that normally get sanded out of the deliberative process through the magic known as 'groupthink'! "

Sounds like a refreshing approach for a new Chairman of NIC and probably why his critics claimed he was too "pro China."

John P. Dailey, Esq., a graduate of Northwestern University's prestigious law school and former chief of staff to an Illinois governor, is very active in the Chicago Global Affairs Council.  As a world traveler and consultant to universities in Russia, John is a fine student of American foreign policy.