One of the conservative's long-standing crusades has been the abolishment of the Department of Education.
Conservative think tanks such as the Cato Institute have long held that education is not a vital function of the federal government. They rely on the fact that education is not mentioned in the Constitution. They argue the Founders "wanted most aspects of life managed by those who were closest to them, either by state or local government or by families, businesses, and other elements of civil society."
It seems that neo-conservatives, the brain trust that brought us the invasion and occupation in Iraq feel the same about the State Department as many conservatives feel about the Department of Education. While I doubt they would goes as far as to take up a campaign to abolish the State Department, it is clear that in their myopic worldview diplomacy is at best the unwanted, but necessary stepchild to the Defense Department.
Many neo-cons have begun to question the competence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It has been reported that a number of conservatives, including former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle , along with current and former members of the Pentagon and the Vice President's office, have been urging the president to transfer Rice out of the State Department. They cite Rice's lack of understanding of the Middle East, has having misled the president on Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
"The president has yet to understand that people make policy and not the other way around," a senior national security policy analyst said. "Unlike (former Secretary of State Colin) Powell, Condi is loyal to the president. She is just incompetent on most foreign policy issues."
Rice, who gladly carried the neo-con water in making the case against Iraq as National Security Advisor, has obviously lost some of her glitter now that she has moved to the diplomatic side.
The New York Times, in September 2002, reported that Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes, It was Rice who went on television stating that the tubes, "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." And who could forget Rice's "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" declaration?
At the time of Rice's inflammatory soliloquies I don't recall there being a cavalcade of neo-cons questioning her competence. But three years and one quagmire later--things have changed.
According to Gingrich, Rice's inexperience and lack of resolve were demonstrated in the aftermath of the North Korean recent launch of a series of missiles, suggesting that Rice' lack of a firm U.S. response was a key factor.
"North Korea firing missiles," Gingrich said. "You say there will be consequences. There are none. We are in the early stages of World War III. Our bureaucracies are not responding fast enough. We don't have the right attitude."
If Gingrich's hyperbole is correct and we are on the verge of World War III, I am not sure that we could lay the blame at Rice's feet anymore than we can solely blame British Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax for the Munich Pact in 1938. What is clear is the neo-cons disdain for diplomacy--at least in the manner in which it is now presented.
Since George Washington, American diplomacy occurred prior to war. The neo-cons in their shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitude seem to want an inverse relationship. They have little use for a State Department that might actually curtail the need for a preemptive strike. Lest we forget, many of those who question Rice were not exactly enthralled with her predecessor at the State Department, Colin Powell.
Diplomacy tends to be less effective under the cloud of go-it-alone saber rattling, which has been the Bush Administration's mantra since 9/11. I have not been exactly a fan of Rice at State or at NSA. At this point, she will be remembered more for being the first African American female to head the State Department than for her diplomatic achievements.
If in fact Rice were incompetent that would well qualify her in administration that has does its best to make ineffectual a public policy.