Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek becomes National Security Advisor

[Strategos' Risk]

An old news article discussing the possibility. (http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/n_8621/)

Does anyone know this guy? I've read his articles in Newsweek. He's somewhat pro-Bush's foreign policy, but he isn't a neocon.

What if he had replaced Condi as National Security Advisor after she became Secretary of State? What would having an India-born, Muslim national security advsior be like?

[csa945]

Does anyone know this guy?

I am familiar with some of his writings. I have his book, The Future of Freedom, but my poli sci prof convinced me to read The Pentagon's New Map instead.

TFOF essentially states that liberty and democracy do not necessarily go hand-in-hand and that the latter can even work to the detriment of the former -- ala Hitler, Chavez, etc. (I brought this up in an off-topic discussion petitioning the US to close bases in non-democratic countries, but it appeared to be largely overlooked).

As for what he would do as NSA director since earlier this year . . . well, that's pretty hard to say. Is there anything of significance -- at least anything of which we know of significance that has happened in the world of national security since then? I'd say we'd have to wait a couple of years at the very least to even be able to guess at what he'd do differently from the NSA director of OTL. Something we could predict would be the reactions of the politicians. He would be more along the lines of Chertoff than Bolton -- not much controversy, and therefore not that many headlines and a quick confirmation vote. It would probably give even more support to the amendment to the constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to run, because Zakaria, like Kissinger and Albright before him, would clearly be qualified.

In any case, however, Zakaria's a really smart guy, so I'm sure he would do the job well.

[Wendell]

I am familiar with some of his writings. I have his book, The Future of Freedom, but my poli sci prof convinced me to read The Pentagon's New Map instead.

TFOF essentially states that liberty and democracy do not necessarily go hand-in-hand and that the latter can even work to the detriment of the former -- ala Hitler, Chavez, etc. (I brought this up in an off-topic discussion petitioning the US to close bases in non-democratic countries, but it appeared to be largely overlooked).

As for what he would do as NSA director since earlier this year . . . well, that's pretty hard to say. Is there anything of significance -- at least anything of which we know of significance that has happened in the world of national security since then? I'd say we'd have to wait a couple of years at the very least to even be able to guess at what he'd do differently from the NSA director of OTL. Something we could predict would be the reactions of the politicians. He would be more along the lines of Chertoff than Bolton -- not much controversy, and therefore not that many headlines and a quick confirmation vote. It would probably give even more support to the amendment to the constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to run, because Zakaria, like Kissinger and Albright before him, would clearly be qualified.

In any case, however, Zakaria's a really smart guy, so I'm sure he would do the job well.
I think that Zakaria in such a capacity could give this White House more credibility in the Muslim world. But I doubt that there would be a greater push to allow immigrants to seek the Presidency.

[Strategos' Risk]

Well, it's quite a new one: an Indian Muslim at a high post.

I only wonder if him leaving Newsweek will butterfly the Koran scandal out of existence.

[Wendell]

Well, it's quite a new one: an Indian Muslim at a high post.

I only wonder if him leaving Newsweek will butterfly the Koran scandal out of existence.
Probably not.

[csa945]

I think that Zakaria in such a capacity could give this White House more credibility in the Muslim world.

I've been thinking about this some over the last days. I would propose it might just cause Zakaria to lose credibility in the Muslim world, considered therein as a "traitor" to Islam.

[Strategos' Risk]

What if he became the national security advisor instead of Scott McCllelan? Would we still be experiencing the current CIA agent wife scandal at the present?

[Strategos' Risk]

Okay, I guess in retrospect it's kind of unlikely that anyone here could guess at how that would work.

How would Zakaria's presence in a high diplomatic presence affect U.S. relations with India? More cordiality? I'm not sure with China. I'll have to wait 'til next week for what he says about the recent visit.

[Wendell]

What if he became the national security advisor instead of Scott McCllelan? Would we still be experiencing the current CIA agent wife scandal at the present?
McClellan was not National Security Advisor...

[Archangel Michael]

What if he became the national security advisor instead of Scott McCllelan? Would we still be experiencing the current CIA agent wife scandal at the present?

Not only is Scott McCllelan not the National Security Advisor (Stephen Hadley is the current one), Plamegat has noting to do with the National Security Agency.

Anyway, I think there would need to a change with the current political thinking to allow a Muslim as the National Security Advisor.

[Wendell]

Not only is Scott McCllelan not the National Security Advisor (Stephen Hadley is the current one), Plamegat has noting to do with the National Security Agency.

Anyway, I think there would need to a change with the current political thinking to allow a Muslim as the National Security Advisor.
Are you saying that the current White House is hostile to Islam?:confused:

[Heart of Darkness]

I think almost 100% of Americans who are familiar with Zakaria are friendly / accepting of him, since his reasoning is so so...reasonable...as it were. It'd be a tough conformation, but I'd like to head off the ASB NAZIS and say it wouldn't be entirely impossible without a significant POD before hand. I don't he'd change much in the foreseeable future, but I think his presence..and his presumed competent performance..would secure a death knell to any potential conflict of civilixations in the future between Islam and the west. (It's not for certain. Westerns tend to forget easily anything noble non-westerners tend to do, but it Americans post 1960s seem to have longer memories than their fathers and grandfathers when it comes to ethinic complexity, so....)

Either way, its hard for those who think in terms of Islamofacism being a civil war in the muslim world as much as anything else not to support and be proud of such a reasonable and eminent muslim as Zakaria.

[Grimm Reaper]

I have read some of his work and find him to be intelligent, informed, and not only respectable but personable(based on his appearances on various news and opinion shows). He would probably be an exceedingly good national security advisor. My only question is how we get it to happen before 1900.:p

[Ian the Admin]

I am familiar with some of his writings. I have his book, The Future of Freedom, but my poli sci prof convinced me to read The Pentagon's New Map instead.

The Future of Freedom is a much better book. The author of "The Pentagon's New Map" is an utter fool - he's like a dot-com "guru"/snake oil salesman (complete with all the ridiculous businessspeak lingo) who decided his calling was evangelizing about the future of the military rather than evangelizing about selling pet food on the internet.

I posted a comment slamming him on his blog a while ago - I think late last year - when he was claiming that victory was obviously just around the corner in Iraq, democracy was obviously really taking hold there, the Sunnis were being brought into the political process, etc.

Zakaria, at least, wrote a book mostly covering the ideas of people much smarter than he is. Therefore, it's a book full of interesting ideas. Even though Zakaria himself is hardly a great thinker and jumps the shark fairly early in the book. The book was written not too long before the Iraq war. Zakaria spends chapters about how simple "give them democracy" ideas are silly, when what really benefits people is freedom and it's a difficult and long-term process to instill liberal ideas of freedom and tolerance into a society. Then after this long explanation of how the Middle East is a really complicated place and so forth he says out of nowhere hey, it's a good thing to invade Iraq, five years of "nation building", tops, and things will be great. This after the Bush administration had promised over and over that they'd be in and out, no "nation building" at all.

[Wendell]

When was there a promise of no nation-building AFTER Iraq was invaded:confused:

[nnone]

F. Zakaria is too liberal to serve in the Bush Administration. In fact after some of the things he has written in Newsweek he I cannot imagine him as part of any Republican Administration. I can see him serving in a Democratic Administration. I see him as a Strobe Talbott like figure.

However if he did serve in the Bush administration he would be in Colin Powell’s Position w/o the Powell’s clout. He would find it very frustrating. Like C. Rice, he doesn’t want to be the poster child and make public service announcements for the being a model minority (in his case Muslim).

Unlike Rice, he has turned very nasty at people who have publicly referred to his background as an Indian Muslim accusing them of Racism. Sadly his reaction (and his predicament) reminds me of the Jewish Soviet/Eastern Bloc officials who held high offices under Stalin and Khrushchev. Being identified as Jews who had beaten the odds and rose high did not win them any friends in the Communists world, where there was politically incorrect, but widespread distrust of Jews. While, being a powerful Jew who served Stalin did not win friends among Western or Zionists Jews.

[Strategos' Risk]

But isn't he a Reaganite?

[nnone]

So was David Gergen, another smart process oriented person, who served under Clinton. Parties and people change over the years. Fareed is a process-oriented realist, and a fairly liberal one at that (although these labels really doesn’t do him full justice). Conservatives dislike both of them, more so Gergen.

Unless you think Chuck Hagel or somebody similar is going to win the Republican primary and then the Presidency, Zakaria has little chance of scoring high office, under a Republican administration. However for a variety of reasons, including his ethnicity and his stint at Newsweek the most liberal of the US newsweeklies, he would be very attractive for a Democratic administration running a ‘realistic’ foreign policy.

[nnone]

However to get back to your original POD:

Assuming he had power commensurate with his new office. He would downplay his ethnicity just like Kissinger, Albright, and Rice has done. I have not read any of his recent Newsweek articles however I believe it is fair to say that he would probably be against military action in Iran and would want to reorient Bush’s foreign policy from the Middle East and the associated war on terror to an ‘engagement’ with Asian and Pacific concerns. He would urge Bush to admit he made ‘mistakes’ in pursuit of a ‘just goal’ in order to help mend fences with his critics both Foreign and Domestic.

[Strategos' Risk]

I'd he be a big advocate for closer relations with India.

I kind of wonder about India. There's not much controversy within the U.S. itself (except from liberals calling it double standards regarding nuclear weapons) about supporting India. But maybe Zakaria would call for more.

[Wendell]

I'd he be a big advocate for closer relations with India.

I kind of wonder about India. There's not much controversy within the U.S. itself (except from liberals calling it double standards regarding nuclear weapons) about supporting India. But maybe Zakaria would call for more.
Supporting India would be a jab at China...Liberals would also not like increasing U.S. backing for India due to the growing economic ties between the two countries.