Pompeo’s Instincts for Ripping up Diplomacy
There might be audible sighs of relief that, in comparison to other nominees, Mike Pompeo spoke clearly, expressed respect for civil servants, and asked senators to let him seek advice from State Department experts before answering the tougher questions. The real question remaining is which Mike Pompeo would show up if he were empowered to become our top diplomat: the one who has gone back-and-forth over supporting honest implementation of the Iran Deal, or the one who has emphasized lawfulness in interrogation in one moment but then defends torture in the next?
Brushing aside his contemporaneous assertion that a mere 2,000 air sorties could take out the Iranian nuclear threat effectively, Pompeo attempted to strike the pose of a peace-building statesman. He attempted to assure American citizens, for instance, that when he previously called for Iran regime change, he meant only the peaceful kind. He also bemoaned that every single bombastic quote from his past simply lacked a full reasonable context; however, the timing of his dovish statements (only when he is in a job interview) versus his hawkish statements (when he actually has achieved his sought-after job) point to likely spin-doctoring rather than audience misunderstanding.
Though unconvincing, Pompeo’s performance at least was competent. The “oh gosh” tempered consternation at the hint that he is hawkish played well to cameras. What this performance ultimately demonstrates is how the bar for cabinet nominees has been so lowered by the current cabinet — but that is no reason to lower the standards for our country’s top diplomatic position.
As a former U.S. Foreign Service Officer who has served in crisis management roles, I have been on the line waking up senior officials with bad news about the moves of America’s adversaries. My former colleagues deserve a level headed executive on the other end of those calls. Furthermore, diplomats want to be free to do their jobs, a desire intensified under the micromanaging former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. But to those quickly embracing Pompeo for his managerial skills without taking stock of his substantive confusion about his own policy views: be cautious. You are not only giving advice on this nomination, but also giving your consent to the actions you reasonably can predict will follow such a terrible appointment. After all, it’s not good enough to be a better manager than former Secretary Tillerson; the secretary must also have positive diplomatic goals for the United States to achieve across the world, and this is a requirement Pompeo does not meet.
We need only look to the concerns of Republican senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for an explanation of why we should reject Pompeo’s nomination. Regarding the Iran Deal, which Pompeo opposes, Senator Jeff Flake said that although he also had initially opposed the Iran Deal, he does not favor withdrawing from it. The United States, the senator said, “ought to think long and hard” about releasing Iran from its nuclear obligations after Iran has already benefited from the return of its frozen assets in the United States. After all, expert nuclear inspectors at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have already concluded that Iran is in compliance with the deal, a fact that even Pompeo acknowledged in his confirmation hearing; nonetheless; Pompeo wants to foolishly proceed with sanctioning Iran and denying certification of the truth of Iran’s compliance. Furthermore, at the same time that the administration is de-certifying Iranian compliance with its nuclear deal, it is seeking direct talks with North Korea’s leader about nuclear weapons. This undeniably harms American credibility: If the United States cannot uphold its agreements, then there exists little to no motivation for Pyongyang to take seriously any talks or negotiations involving the United States over its nuclear program.
With respect to our own constitution, Pompeo frequently expresses fidelity to the rules that govern intelligence work by, for example, endorsing restrictions against torture. Yet, his actions tell a different story: He appointed as his deputy someone who is under suspicion for ordering torture and destroying evidence of it later on. Pompeo has also expressed disappointment that countries that previously worked with the United States on CIA black sites in the past would not likely do so again. Furthermore, after supporting restrictions against torture during his televised hearings, Pompeo then came out as willing to allow the return of enhanced interrogation techniques in the future in his written replies to the committee.
When compared to Tillerson, who kept more than 60 positions unfilled at the State Department, some have expressed relief that Pompeo would surely do a better job of filling those jobs. What this criticism fails to take into account, however, is the utility of having real professionals fill those jobs on an interim basis rather than having the types of people Pompeo chooses fill such jobs.
Pompeo is not one of the “adults in the room,” but instead a more tactful — as opposed to National Security Advisor John Bolton, which is not hard — cheerleader of President Trump’s anti-diplomatic instincts. Nevertheless, when something happens in the world that requires our attention, my concern is that Mike Pompeo’s instincts for ripping up careful diplomatic achievements would make him an inept and unqualified architect of our foreign policies.
Vic Marsh (@vicmarsh) is a former career U.S. diplomat and Security Fellow with Truman National Security Project. Views expressed are his own.
