In defense of colleagues

The brouhaha about this lengthy New York Times Magazine piece on presidential aide Ben Rhodes, in which one of his minions treats journalist Laura Rozen as a reliable mouthpiece for the Administration, is sort of personal for me. I was the executive director of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), much of whose report Ben wrote. Laura worked for me briefly at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), when I was principally concerned with the Balkans (not the Middle East). So a few words about these two colleagues are in order.

Ben is a terrific draftsman largely responsible for the sharp analytical portion of the ISG report, which told Americans in no uncertain terms the truth: things were not going well in Iraq, which is what the 40 or so experts I had organized into four working groups had concluded. The policy recommendations were much more muddled and unsuccessful, at least in the immediate aftermath. But I have little reason to believe Ben either conceived or even drafted many of those portions of the report, which were the result of compromises among the disparate members of the group, including two future secretaries of defense (Gates and Panetta).

Throughout its deliberations, Ben’s great virtue was the one he has exercised so successfully with President Obama: he reflected honestly and even brutally the preferences of his principal, then Lee Hamilton. There is no principal/agent ambiguity with Ben. He understands his master and delivers unerringly, with clear explanations. From my point of view, this was a great virtue. I am not surprised that President Obama treasures it.

I remember taking Ben to lunch, along with another colleague at USIP, just before he left for Chicago to work for the recently elected black Senator who seemed to have little to no chance of winning the Democratic nomination, never mind the presidency. Hamilton had recommended him to Obama as a speech writer. Ben was looking forward to the adventure, no matter how short it might turn out to be. I remember admiring the risk taker. Basically I still do.

Laura’s time with me at USIP is less memorable because we were working on more mundane matters outside the public limelight. She had been a really good journalist in the Balkans and had a lot to contribute to our peacebuilding efforts. She was a fox, not a hedgehog: she knew many things, not one great thing. She found people and channels in which to get things done that I would never have managed to discover. She had lots of contacts and always reflected accurately their perspectives. I’d have thought that a great virtue in a journalist, not the vice David Samuels makes it out to be in the New York Times article.

Samuels’ main gripe seems to be with the Iran nuclear deal, whose basic concept he is anxious to note predates the election of relatively reformist President Rouhani. In Samuels’ version of the story, the White House sold the deal to a bunch of dumb young tweeting cyberscribblers who lacked the sophistication to see through Ben Rhodes’ spin. This narrative is even more disdainful of contemporary journalism that what Samuels alleges about the Administration.

It is also ridiculous: a lot of serious experts have had a good, hard look at the agreement and come away thinking it made the best of a bad, and worsening, situation. I count myself, as I have a bachelor’s and master’s in physical chemistry and seven years abroad working on nuclear nonproliferation issues as a science counselor in American embassies (not to mention a doctorate in history of science also working in part on radiation issues). Many finer experts have come to the same conclusion. I hasten to add that no one at the White House or State Department has ever contacted me about the agreement with Iran, which I suppose reflects how little influence they think I might have.

Laura was one of the journalists who followed the nuclear deal in depth and with care. I don’t know anyone who got more of the inside story, which is difficult when negotiations are ongoing. What better target if you are trying to besmirch the thing than throwing mud at someone who really helped the American public to understand what was going on? I gather from her subsequent remarks that Samuels never gave Laura a fair opportunity to reply to his allegations. That is notably bad journalism.