President Obama continues to draw our attention to the service of former Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice. She is being removed from that post and elevated to the position of National Security Advisor. We can’t help but wonder if Obama is aiming to establish that security, in spite of what happened in Benghazi, is one of Rice’s major qualifications, and that those who criticized Ambassador Rice were simply wrong.
The full and complete title for the position Rice is moving into is Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. She becomes a senior official in the President’s Executive Office at the retirement of Tom Donilon sometime this year. As a “Chief Advisor” she will be officed in the White House, specificallyin the West Wing, becoming Head of Staff of the National Security Council, which does research and prepares intelligence for the President and for appropriate agencies.
The National Security Council was formed in 1947 during the administration of President Harry Truman, following World War II, and prior to the Korean War. The council as it stands today is regularly attended by the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Defense. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to the Council, and the Director of National Intelligence is the intelligence advisor.
Many will recall that during his initial run for the presidency, Barack Obama stressed the need for diplomacy and communication with the nations of the world. Some may have given Obama, with some insight into Islamic religions in his background, their vote for the presidency based solely or primarily on that issue. It is perplexing then, that when, after years of resistance by the G. W. Bush administration, Iranian President and intellectual Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was finally permitted to address the United Nations on critical and substantive issues, the United States delegation under the direct supervision of then Ambassador Rice walked out, ignoring the speech of that world leader. Bush would have told us that such leaders should be ignored so as to prevent them from achieving unwarranted notoriety. Bush preferred to sing and dance with like-minded world leaders. Yet Obama, a seeker of wisdom and truth, allowed Ambassador Rice to snub Ahmadinejad.
Here is an excerpt from that speech, in which media and U.S. government alike assumed he would rant, and rain insults upon his stated enemy, Israel:
Despite all efforts made by righteous people and justice seekers, and the sufferings and pains endured by masses of people in the quest to achieve happiness and victory, the history of mankind, except in rare cases, is marked with unfulfilled dreams and failures.
Imagine for a moment: Had there been no egoism, distrust, malicious behaviors, and dictatorships with no one violating the rights of others; had humanitarian values been viewed as the criterion for social dignity in place of affluence and consumerism; had humanity not experienced the dark age of medieval periods, and centers of power not hindered the flourishing of knowledge and constructive thoughts…Had the first and second World Wars in Europe, the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Africa, Latin America, and in the Balkans not happened, and if instead of the occupation of Palestine and imposition of a fake government, displacement and genocide of millions of people around the globe, the truth behind these wars had been revealed based on justice; had Saddam Hussein not invaded Iran, and had the big powers supported the rights of Iranian people instead of siding with Saddam, If the tragic incident of September 11,  and the military actions against Afghanistan and Iraq that left millions killed and homeless had not happened, and if, instead of killing and throwing the culprit into the sea without trial or without informing the world and people of America, an independent fact-finding team had been formed to make the general public aware of the truth behind the incident, and prepare for bringing to justice the perpetrators; had extremism or terrorism not been used to secure political goals; had the arms been turned into pens, and military expenditures been used to promote well-being and amity among nations; had the drum of ethnic, religious or racial conflicts not been beaten, and if differences had not been used for the purpose of advancing political agendas; had the right to criticize the hegemonic policies and actions of the world Zionism been recognized to allow the world media to freely report and shed light on the realities, instead of taking deceitful gestures of backing freedom bent on offending the sanctities and most sacred beliefs of human beings and divine messengers, who as the purest and most compassionate human beings are the gift of the Almighty to humanity; had the Security Council not been under the domination of a limited number of governments, thus disabling the United Nations to carry out its responsibilities on a just and equitable basis; if the international economic institutions had not been under pressure and were allowed to perform their duties and functions by using their expertise based on fairness and justice; had the world capitalists not weakened or victimized the economies of nations in order to make up for their own mistakes; if integrity and honesty had prevailed on the international relations, and all nations and governments were treated equally and justly in the global efforts to build and expand happiness for the entire mankind; and if tens of other unfavorable situations had not occurred in human life, imagine how beautiful and pleasant our lives and how lovely the history of mankind would have been.
My point is simply that in spite of continuing threats against Israel, and in spite of his drive to achieve nuclear equality with the west, Ahmadinejad is a capable speaker, and an articulate philosopher; a man with something important to say. Yet, under Rice, the proud American delegation chose not to hear, rather, perhaps, to drink coffee.
I never criticized our government for any suggested failings in the prevention of the attack at Benghazi, or for any failures of communicating information following that attack to the American people, or to Congress. But many who are in better position than I to know found fault with Rice. Now, with war in Syria, with doubts as to the correct definition of the word “rebels” as it pertains to that war, with forces in America striving to provide weapons to anyone who stands against an unjust government for any reason, even if they are caught up in secular animosities, with new unrest in Turkey, with ongoing criticism of drone usage, and with a new generation of anti-American feeling resulting from that drone usage, and in view of many other matters, why does the president present his personal cohorts with gifts of power and prestige?
Obama has changed. He is not the hardworking and wise leader he was a short time ago. He is still caught up political ambition, with no end in sight.
Ms. Rice is wished the best of luck. In her new position as was the case in her ambassadorship she will hold the future of the world, and of the United States, in their hands.
Susan Rice may be a fine person, but the role of National Security Advisor should be given not to one “well qualified,” but rather, to the one “most qualified.”