What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
A Just Settlement
for the Middle East
Our new CounterPunch newsletter,
just out, offers Michael Neumann's plan for a just settlement
in the Middle East. Manuel
Garcia concludes his widely applauded primer on the laws of physics
and the myths of conspiracists by explainging the not-so-mysterious
collapse of WTC 7. But
remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the
print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a
subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you
won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation towards the
cost of this online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now
I've watched the U.S. Senate exercise
its constitutional duty to consider and vote on presidential
nominees for major offices for more than 30 years, up close and
personal. Over that time, I've come to the conclusion that the
last thing a modern senator should do at any confirmation hearing
is to ask the nominee questions. It's not that inquiry is a poor
way to understand issues or nominees; it's that today's senators
don't know how to ask questions--not even in those rare cases
when they decide to do so.
Modern senators think they
can adequately prepare for a hearing by instructing staffers
to write a memo and some questions. The senators then read the
memo at the hearing for the first time, and use the ten minutes
they are given to ask as many staff written questions as they
can cram in, or even just the ones they like. It makes for a
hearing that is not just uninformative, but boring as well.
When I worked for Senator Jacob
K. Javits (RNY), who sat on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, he had two rules about preparing for hearings. One
was unspoken: it was that he would work harder than any person
on his staff. He would not just read but devour the long and
boring memos we wrote, plus back up reading, plus materials we
didn't send him but that he found on his own, plus picking the
brains of others on his staff--or of outside experts. The second
rule was quite explicit: We should never let him ask a question
we hadn't already told him the answer to, and we damn well better
have it right.
Javits was a bear to work for,
but he was a lot worse for witnesses, especially nominees, appearing
at the Senate Foreign relations Committee.
Sadly, Senator Javits is dead
now; even more sadly, there is no one like him in today's Senate;
no sitting senator can hold a candle to the intellectual workload
he imposed on himself, or to the seriousness with which he took
the job of U.S. Senator.
To see how far we have fallen,
watch the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on C-SPAN on
Dec. 5 as the Committee considers Gates's nomination as secretary
of defense. Neither Javits nor his legacy will be present.
Are we doomed to a Grade B
political Kabuki dance between nominee Gates and the various
senators from both parties who will be more interested in scoring
political points, providing non-substantive drama in the form
of hotly posed--but thoroughly scripted--questions? (Click
here for Part 1 of this series, showing how this rite works.)
Or will there be some other form of non-inquiry?
In case some senators are interested
in finding out what makes him tick and in understanding where
he might take the Pentagon and the war in Iraq--if anywhere--here
are some ideas about what to ask about and, more importantly,
how to ask.
The latter is the simple part,
senators: don't plan to ask anything. Instead, prepare for a
discussion, a back and forth between you and the witness, where
you listen to what he says and respond with your own view and--much
more importantly--your own information, such as, "Well Mr.
Gates, that couldn't be right because ." In short, plan
to have an exchange--but not necessarily a friendly one - where
the nominee does as much talking as you, and it is clear to him
that you are his equal (at a minimum) on the subject matter you
have chosen to address. If he senses you are on a fishing expedition
hoping to get lucky and catch a big answer, he will know he can
give you bilge water and you'll fecklessly move on. (So, by the
way, will many of the press and C-SPAN viewers.)
If he gets the message that
you know at least as much as he does, he may do the unthinkable
and cough up information before you embarrass him by doing it
yourself. Then, you can get to the important part: what is he
going to do about the problem you just made him acknowledge.
Here's the hard part: you will
have to do a lot of work to get ready. It will not consist of
discussing the elections implications of the hearing with your
political advisers the morning of the hearing, and you may have
to reschedule that dinner with a heavy contributor the night
before. You will need to select a subject matter you want to
probe and then get into the weeds of the issue, Javits-like.
Call your staff defense expert into your office to explain the
thinking in the memo he or she gave you, which you read and re-read,
marked up, and critiqued, and--of course--make the staffer answer
all the clever questions recommended for you to ask. If the staffer
flubs it, tell him or her to find someone who can, and do it
now (Javits would). Then, ask for key materials to read (GAO,
CRS, and CBO reports, key articles, and anything Gates has said
about the issue), and actually read them. Any but a useless staffer
will have all those materials - already marked up to make your
reading more efficient.
Nothing will make you appear
more knowledgeable than actually knowing what you are talking
about. The contrast with others sitting up there on the dais
facing the witness will be startling.
As to subject matter, beware
any focus on how to "fix" the war. Gates is not going
to talk to that with any substance. His handlers have drilled
that into him; you'll get nowhere. There is, however, much more
on the nation's defense agenda and about which you have every
right to ask. Moreover, you should expect real answers from the
man who is seeking your vote for the opportunity to fix the massive
problems that await him in the Pentagon, none of them spelled
I-r-a-q. Two of the most horrifying are the following:
The Defense Department is one
of the worst managed agencies of the federal government, if not
the worst.
The Pentagon can't account
for what happens to the half-trillion dollars Congress appropriates
to it each year.
If Gates has some promising
insights about what he will do to address these problems, he
does indeed deserve to be secretary of defense.
Winslow T. Wheeler is the Director of the Straus Military
Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information and author
of The
Wastrels of Defense. Over 31 years, he worked for US Senators
from both political parties and the Government Accountability
Office on national security issues. He can be contacted at: winslowwheeler@comcast.net.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
