Rice lobby gaining traction

Reuter's has this morning offered an impressive hagiography of UN Ambassador Susan Rice in the context of the still unofficial campaign to have her step into Hillary's shoes as the next Secretary of State.

That's a position, referred to as "foreign minister" in most countries, that presents the second most visible face of a nation to the rest of the world, next to the head of state.

That's why a certain amount of scheming inevitably goes into the selection of a foreign minister, or secretary of state. It is no accident that Israel chooses to send the raving lunatic Lieberman into the world on it's behalf. He makes Netanyahu look calm and reasonable by contrast.

And that's why Canada employs the oafish dolt John Baird in the same office. It is utterly impossible not to underestimate the man, which immediately gives the Canadians an advantage when engaged in any kind of bilateral negotiations. The other side immediately concludes that this will be a cake-walk, and only later realizes that the rest of the delegation are serious people with above average IQs.

There has been a preference in America for female secretaries of state in recent years, and it's not because the job title is "secretary". It's because  of that same disarming effect that Baird has on his opponents. The hapless Milosevic could never take Albright seriously for the simple reason that she was a woman, and look where he ended up.

Susan Rice could very well be a highly effective Secretary of State, and the Reuter's article gives a good overview of the reasons why. It also debunks the "Benghazi affair" as the fabricated wedge issue that it is. They do not, however, broach the real reason why Susan Rice will never be America's face to the world.

She's black.

There are too many bitter old white guys in Washington chafing at the reality of a black President. Susan Rice has zero chance of getting past the Senate confirmation hearings.

Why Susan Rice will never be Secretary of State

There are all manner of rumors afloat that Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice will step into Hillary's job next year.

It ain't gonna happen. Why?

There's a huge residual racist rump in the American populace that has a great deal of difficulty with the concept of a black man leading the most powerful nation on earth. They'd shit themselves at the thought of the most powerful woman in the world being black too.

While I'm not saying that most middle-aged white dudes are racist, I will venture that most racists are middle aged white dudes. And while they couldn't quite muster the critical mass to put their man in the White House yesterday, they do control a rather robust institution in Washington; the Senate.

Susan Rice is a long-time Madeleine Albright protege and as such has taken on a couple of her characteristics, namely she knows everything and she is always right. That in itself puts a lot of people off, especially white male people who have to work with her.

Her stellar career has hit its most perilous speed-bump yet in the past month or so, as she has become the fall-gal for the Ambassador Stevens debacle.

The same corner of the media that has worked tirelessly to make that tragedy some sort of a cover-up will work just as tirelessly to make it synonymous with Susan Rice.

She has zero chance of passing the Senate confirmation hearings.

Tsunami of fake outrage greets veto of Syria resolution at UN

It wasn't just John Baird who blew a gasket.

Hillary herself weighed in with "to block this resolution is to bear responsibility for the horrors on the ground."

US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice claimed she was actually disgusted.

France's ambassador to the UN vowed that history would judge Russia and China harshly.

And Syrian National Council chief Burhan Ghalioun claimed that the veto gave President Assad a "license to kill."

The US/NATO bloc has two problems here.

Firstly, while they can bemoan the veto all they want, they are a long way from wanting to do anything at this particular time. Syria is only important insofar as it is a front in the war on Iran. Had this resolution passed the pressure to act would have increased exponentially.

We have no appetite to act because unlike Libya, there are good reasons to believe that Syria is capable of defending herself. Syrian military technology is certainly no match for the latest US stuff, but it is several generations ahead of anything Libya had. We can't bomb Syria for nine months with impunity.

Secondly, after seeing what a fiasco post-Gadaffi Libya has become, it behooves the war cheer-leaders to have a good look at the Syrian National Council.

Burhan Ghalioun is a French academic who pals around with Bernard-Henri Levi, the architect of the Libyan intervention. The SNC claims to be all about establishing a true representative democracy in Syria. It also proposes to "normalize" relations with Israel, sever ties with Iran, and cut  off all support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

And here's the rub; no Arab country can have both a democracy and normalized relations with Israel at the same time. Not unless there is an Israeli Spring that sweeps away the settlements, the occupation, and the Likud government and everything to the right of them.

And the chances of that happening are zero.

So you have this pie-in-the-sky outfit that promises Syria democracy if only the US/NATO bloc would intervene and expedite a regime change, but they make promises that are simply unattainable. The only possible result would be another Libya - anarchy for the next generation or two, or until another strongman emerges.

So while the outrage was universal in the Western capitals, behind closed doors all those Defense Ministers and Foreign Secretaries were breathing big sighs of relief.