Let me introduce you to Evelyn Farkas.  In September 2015, Dr. Farkas resigned as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia after five years in the Obama administration.  Previously she served as executive director of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction and staff member to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Politico.com reported Dr. Farkas’ departure was in part due to divisions within the Defense Department over the U.S. response to Russian incursions into Ukraine.  The reporter covering this story provided the following synopsis of the two perspectives.

On one side are those who are open to providing lethal aid to Ukraine, including Obama’s own secretary of Defense, Ash Carter. On the other side are doves including Obama himself, who want to support Ukraine with non-lethal equipment but who fear that arming Ukraine against Russia might prompt an escalation that could bring the long-simmering crisis to a boil.

So far, the president has constrained the U.S. response, opting to provide vehicles, counter-mortar radars, body armor and other such equipment — but not the anti-tank missiles or other weapons Ukraine really wants.

Until today, I had no idea who Dr. Farkas was until she appeared on Morning Joe.  It became clear which side she was on as she suggested the United States could be doing more to counter Russian and Chinese attempts to take control of disputed territory.  To make her point, she referenced President Theodore Roosevelt’s famous quote, saying (and I’m not making this up), “Speak strongly and carry a big stick!”  For the record, no one corrected her although I assume someone at the table knew TR had actually said , “Speak SOFTLY and carry a big stick!”

Perhaps this was just a simple misstatement as I assume she too knows the correct citation.  But what if it was a Freudian slip?  Why is this important?  Because when you follow TR verbatim, you get a nuclear agreement with Iran and Syria to dispose of it’s chemical weapons without firing a shot.  But if you approach foreign relations and national security from a perspective in which bluster and overwhelming military power go hand in hand, you get the Iraq war.

I do not want to minimize Dr. Farkas’ service.  The Politico.com article included the following praise from one of her colleagues.

She has advised three secretaries of defense on Russia policy, providing steady counsel on how the U.S. should respond to Russia’s aggressive actions and has been deeply involved in securing $244 million in support for Ukraine.

I chose this example because it forced me to rethink a false assumption.  When Dr. Farkas was introduced on Morning Joe, they gave her former title but did not tell us in which administration she served.  From her comments, I assumed she was a George W. Bush appointee.  I Googled her name to confirm that assumption.  I now know a one’s approach to national security does not necessarily correlate with political affiliation.  I now understand there are both hawks and doves advising President Obama.  And that is a good thing.  But it also reminds us when a president is faced with two opposing views, he or she really is the “decider.”  If everyone in the situation room holds the same perspective, there is no decision other than how quickly to say “yes.”

MSNBC did us a service by introducing us to Dr. Farkas.  Perhaps we would be further served if the cable networks gave us an opportunity to get to know those who will be advising the next commander-in-chief.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP