Queen’s Gambit Accepted

Editor’s note: Recently, we received a communication from someone who, from time-to-time, has tried to give us insight into some of the inner workings at the State Department since Dr. Rice became Secretary of State. Often, we have been reluctant to post items that we receive anonymously without some kind of confirmation. Unfortunately, this type of high-level “water cooler” chatter is nearly impossible to confirm, or deny. However, based on this individual’s (or group’s?) accuracy in the past, we’ll pass it along for your consideration. It has been edited for length and our explanatory observations added. Where appropriate, links to some of the items mentioned have been added.

“The Chess Club” at the State Department are mostly east coast, Ivy League liberals who fancy themselves to be the “intellectuals” that ought to be in charge of American foreign policy.

With a sense of superiority and entitlement, their seniority, after years in the civil service, has elevated them to positions of authority in the diplomatic bureaucracy — positions that allow them to influence, ignore, and in some cases actively thwart administration policies with which they disagree - especially when the administration happens to be Republican. Recently, they’ve begun calling Secretary Rice’s Middle East policy “Queen’s Gambit Accepted.” (In a betrayal of their ideological biases, some have modified this to the “Princess’ Gambit” considering it diminutive and derogatory.) (Editor’s note: Or could it be a reference to another nickname, “the Warrior Princess.”)

When Dr. Rice made the move to Foggy Bottom it was with the goal of making US diplomacy “more responsive” to the administration’s foreign policy. This was an anathema to many career diplomats who think that “diplomacy should be left to the professionals.” An example of this condescending attitude is reflected in the tone of the October 24, 2005, meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations. (audio, transcript) Also interesting, is the reference to a female president. Unfortunately, David Rothkopf is probably referring to Hillary since he was an Undersecretary of Commerce in the Clinton Administration. Maybe he was (is?) trying score an appointment in a future Hillary administration. However, many Clinton administration “holdovers” consider this unlikely because Hillary is, reportedly, livid about criticisms he made about her husband’s foreign policy in his 2005 book, Running the World, which outlines the history of the National Security Council. (Editor’s note: The book is also available in paperback. No reason to support a Democrat anymore than you have too!)

“The NSC is a semi-defined group-the president, vice president, secretaries of defense and state, national security adviser and staff, and other officials as needed-with the open-ended mission of helping the president decide and coordinate military and foreign policy….Rothkopf prefers a centrist, internationalist security policy, with experienced hands restraining ideologues; he therefore gives high marks to the NSC under Nixon, Carter and Bush 41, while castigating the Reagan and Bush 43 administrations.” Excerpt of review by Publisher’s Weekly (Editor: High marks for Carter’s foreign policy? Is that a joke?)

Since Secretary Rice’s arrival at State, personnel changes have emphasized quality. The career technocrats that she’s promoted from within have to have an exceptional record of achievement, and although there hasn’t been any ideological “litmus test,” they cannot have any of the passive-aggressive qualities that have been employed in the past to impede the administration’s foreign policy. An example of this policy is William Joseph Burns, the current US Ambassador to Moscow who was appointed shortly after Dr. Rice became Secretary of State. As she took control of the State Department bureaucracy, the press erroneously reported a decline in conservative Republican influence based on the normal bureaucratic “turf wars” that are part of every administration. (Washington Post) When a powerful figure, like Dr. Rice, who has unparalleled access to the President, is sent to take charge of one of the major bureaucracies of the federal government with the authority to take on expanded roles around the globe, these “turf wars” are inevitable, and not necessarily ideological. In a brilliant move, Secretary Rice handpicked Karen Hughes and Dina Powell to join her staff at State - two more powerful women in the administration that also have impressive access to the President. This was a move that was not lost on Vice-President Cheney. (WaPo - MSNBC) Naturally, all the other federal entities, and especially the Defense Department, are going to see this concentration of access to the President as a threat to their “turf” and influence. Their ultimate fear is that this will have a corresponding negative impact on their budget.

An essential part of every gambit, is the “sacrifice.” (Editor: See our background information on “Queen’s Gambit Accepted” below.) By having the courage to envision a peaceful Middle East and a democratic Islamic world, Dr. Rice is “sacrificing” political expediency and whatever popular short-term strategies that may come along in the future. She will be the victim of endless political attacks carping about the prolonged, costly commitments of time, money, lives, etc. required to successfully bring her vision for the future to fruition. Fortunately, Dr. Rice has enough faith in the American people to believe that they will be able to look beyond the global mass media disinformation campaign that will be unleashed on the American electorate by our enemies, homegrown pessimists, propagandists, and political adversaries who will not hesitate to use every setback, every delay, every life lost, and every dollar spent as the basis for another attack or New York Times op-ed.

The most recent chapter of Secretary Rice’s “Queen’s Gambit Accepted” strategy for the Middle East is the proposed ceasefire in southern Lebanon. If it is successful, the new Lebanese government will be legitimized and strengthened. While the Lebanese government is not perfect, it is a vast improvement over a Syrian-occupied Lebanon. Additionally, Dr. Rice may be able to finesse a reopening of the stalled “Roadmap for Peace” talks. These successes would be positive developments for further progress in Iraq and in dealing with Iran. (Editor’s Note: We first received this prior to the ceasefire being negotiated and Dr. Rice’s Washington Post column, “A Path to a Lasting Peace.”)

By trying to accomplish what has been impossible for several millennia in the Middle East, namely a lasting peace by nurturing the democracies in the region; Secretary Rice has plotted a very perilous course - perilous to our national security because we will confronting violent fanatics for years to come and politically perilous because failure, or even just the lack of quick success resulting in a loss of political will to continue the struggle, could sweep away the foundations for future change that she has been instrumental in constructing domestically and overseas. However, in the age of nuclear proliferation among terrorist states and faced with an increasingly radicalized Islamic world; the “high road” of a “new Middle East” as proposed by Secretary Rice is less risky than inaction, or worse, appeasement, either of which would be interpreted as weakness and invite future attacks by our enemies who will soon have the technological prowess to strike the US from across the oceans that have protected us in the past. The only real long term solution is Dr. Rice’s transformational diplomacy to achieve a “new” Middle East in the model of the transformation of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany into their modern-day industrial democracies.

Editor: Intrigued by these terms (that sound like something from a paperback spy novel) we were curious as to its deeper meaning, but after a few telephone calls, we realized that our collective knowledge of chess was rather limited. What the heck is a “Queen’s Gambit” anyway? It surprised us to find out that there are many books and DVD’s on the subject. There is even a William Tevis novel by that name about a teenage female chess prodigy from a humble background that rises to international prominence. (Notice any parallels to Secretary Rice?) We find it hard to imagine a “thriller” about chess, but it seems to be a real “page turner” even for non-chess players judging by its reviews.

“Compelling. . . . A magnificent obsession.” — Los Angeles Times
“More exciting than any thriller I’ve seen lately; more than that, beautifully written. ” –Martin Cruz Smith, author of Gorky Park
“It’s advisable to tape your fingers before opening The Queen’s Gambit. Otherwise, the suspense may bring on nail-chewing right to the elbow.” — Houston Chronicle
“Beth Harmon is an unforgettable creation–and The Queen’s Gambit is Walter Tevis’s most consummate and heartbreaking work.” –Jonathan Lethem
“There’s more excitement in Beth than in the collected works of Robert Ludlum.” — Forth Worth Star-Telegram

Could the reference the “chess players” at State are making be to the novel? On the chess board, the “Queen’s Gambit” is a strategy of opening moves that most serious chess players consider “daring and exciting.” Did we miss something by not joining the chess club in high school? According to the back cover of Easy Guide to the Queen’s Gambit Accepted:

“The Queen’s Gambit Accepted is one of Black’s most trustworthy and yet dynamic ways of facing the Queen’s Pawn Opening. Black immediately accepts the invitation to open the position, leading to positions rich in positional and tactical complexity.”

Are there some racial overtones here? If there are, they seem to positive ones. It makes one wonder, but enough chess and analysis of the slang used by closet leftist apparatchniks at State. The term, regardless of its origin, refers to Condi’s Middle East policy and how they are part of her overall strategy of transformational diplomacy, as she first enunciated it in her remarks at Georgetown School of Foreign Service. Many of these same apparatchniks fear for their jobs - interpreting Dr. Rice’s call for “transformation” as a State Department purge that will have them facing early retirement. After all, “if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

“..transforming the State Department is the work of a generation. But it is urgent work that cannot be deferred.”

None of this changes our activities very much, but it does demonstrate how difficult a task Secretary Rice has in front of her. In 2008, there will be no one else better qualified to continue leading the war effort. It is a conclusion that soon will become apparent to Republicans, and even Dr. Rice.

This entry was posted on Friday, September 1st, 2006 at 6:20 pm and is filed under Condoleezza Rice. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.