The Next US Secretary of State?

On November 8th (8/11/16) Donald Trump was elected as the next President of the United States. Before he takes up office on January 20th 2017 (20/1/17) he has the task of assembling his political cabinet.

In what believe it or not is a sign of support I'm trying to avoid giving a running commentary of this process.

However the person who becomes the new Secretary of State responsible for foreign affairs is someone I will inevitably come into a lot of conduct with. Particularly in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated groups. Therefore I think it would be a missed opportunity if I didn't share my opinions.

Whether they realise it or not if people voted for Trump in opposition to the Islamist terrorism they were voting against the Neo-Conservative foreign policy of people like John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani. Therefore I think we can immediately rule them out as candidates.

Two other candidates who've been mentioned are Mitt Romney and David Petraeus.

In endorsing Donald Trump I said that normally I would say that a career in business counts as a disadvantage when it comes to politics and diplomacy. In fact I said exactly that in endorsing Barack Obama over Mitt Romney back in the 2012 election.

Although he only has domestic rather than international  political experience I would have found it very easy to support Mitt Romney in 2008 against Barack Obama or this year against Hillary Clinton. The only reason that I backed Obama over Romney in 2012 was that I was hoping that in his second term Obama would learn from the mistakes of his first term leaving him best placed to correct them.

With Obama using his second term to double down on the mistakes of his first term I think I may have got that decision wrong. Being very sensible, moderate and level-headed Mitt Romney may well have made a better President between 2012 and now. My only real concern about him is that he might actually be too sensible and too nice for the rough world of international diplomacy.

Conversely the fact that Trump has a sightly questionable business record of breaking deals and ripping off contractors actually works to his advantage when it comes to politics and diplomacy.

With Romney being something of the anti-Trump the difference in their attitude and style could actually lead to a constructive working relationship as they come at problems from different perspectives. However for that to work the two men need to decide if they can work constructively with each other. Sort of agreeing to disagree.

David Petraeus is of course a former 4-star Army General who was the head of the US Central Command and Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. At that level military command has very little to do with war fighting and everything to do with politics and diplomacy.

One Petraeus' key achievements was the "Awakening" program in Iraq which saw the Sunni-tribes side with the Iraqi government over the Sunni Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). That experience is something that should stand him in good stead in international diplomacy.

Petraeus was also the head of the CIA between 2011 and 2012. That role is effectively one of a referee between one group of accomplished liars - politicians - and another group of extremely accomplished liars - spies. That is also extremely good training to be America's number one diplomat.

My only concern is that in March 2015 Petraeus was convicted - by way of a guilty plea - of mishandling secret government documents.

Having declared Hillary Clinton unfit to be President because of her mishandling of secret government documents while Secretary of State it is difficult for me to then recommend that someone who has committed a similar offence becomes Secretary of State.

I think the important thing to remember though is that it wasn't really her mis-handling of secret documents that makes Hillary Clinton a threat to national security.

It is the fact that Hillary Clinton wilfully provided not only secret information but also weapons and diplomatic cover to groups like Al Qaeda and ISIL that makes her a threat to national security. However to investigate her on those grounds would itself be a threat to national security. For reasons you probably need national security clearance to even discuss.

The fact that Hillary Clinton had stored 10 Top Secret emails on her private server contrary to the 1917 Espionage Act provided a neat way to discuss the threat she posed to national security without having to discuss all the other ways she threatened national security.

By contrast Petraeus gave his private diaries containing classified information to a woman who'd been given security clearance to act as his biographer. Those diaries never entered the public domain nor were ever at risk of entering the public domain. In fact the whole thing struck me as a political move to oust Petraeus from the CIA over disagreements on issues such as ISIL. I suspect that if Petraeus hadn't plead guilty it may well have fallen apart in Court.

Crucially Hillary Clinton stands accused of a Felony under the Espionage Act which would automatically rule her out of receiving security clearance.

Petraeus was convicted of a much less serious Misdemeanour which doesn't automatically rule him out from receiving security clearance.

17:30 on 30/11/16 (UK date).