On March 29, Jackson Diehl, the Washington Post’s deputy editorial page editor, published a column labeling Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “among the worst secretaries of state ever” based on his response to the coronavirus pandemic.
I’m no Trump flunky nor afraid to criticize his administration. I signed the original “Never Trump” letter and continue to stand by it, but try not to succumb to “Trump derangement syndrome.” Most often, I disagree with the president, although, when I agree with him, I am frustrated that Trump’s antics undercut policy adaption and implementation. I have also criticized Pompeo’s State Department at times, especially with regard to its promotion of the Taliban deal and strategic incoherence with regard to the fight against Islamist radicalism, especially on Libya, Turkey, and Somalia.
But, simply put, Pompeo has shown himself against the backdrop of the Wuhan coronavirus crisis to be among the best secretaries of state in recent history.
Consider Diehl’s complaints.
He accuses Pompeo of failing by disrupting a G-7 statement by insisting it refer to the “Wuhan virus” as part of his “crusade against China,” continuing “maximum pressure” on Iran, and threatening to withhold aid from Afghanistan.
Pompeo recognizes, however, more than any recent secretary of state, that the United States is in a global ideological battle against states that want to change the post-World War II liberal order fundamentally. Previous administrations were willing to ignore the battle of ideas by refusing to engage in bullhorn diplomacy and to counter disinformation as it happened. They have sought the high road, even when it is the road to effete ineffectiveness. State Department Twitter feeds, translations, and public pronouncements during both the Bush and Obama administrations were largely unproductive, as were many overseas radio and television broadcasts.
When the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman spins wild conspiracies from his podium in Beijing, it is crucial to respond quickly and effectively. Pompeo did that and put the focus back on the Chinese government’s obfuscation and denial that allowed a local outbreak to go global. That Beijing appears now to have dialed back its accusations somewhat suggests Pompeo’s strategy has resonance.
As for the G-7 statement? It would be about as effective as “double-secret probation” and in the long-term far less important than pushing back on China. And those Chinese donations of equipment? Cheap propaganda, all the more so since it appears much of the Chinese equipment was defective.
As for the “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran, not only is there a humanitarian channel open for Iran to import medicine, but Iranian leader Ali Khamenei also personally controls billions of dollars in wealth, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps spends well in excess of a billion dollars in pursuit of its campaigns to destabilize Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq, as well as in its campaign to prop up Syrian President Bashar Assad. Wouldn’t it be better if the international community told Iran’s leaders they needed to prioritize their spending to the benefit of their own people rather than the murder of others? To lift sanctions on Iran now is to allow every dictatorship to hold a gun to the heads of its citizenry and demand cash not to shoot. Nor should the State Department make the coronavirus its sole focus. Being a superpower means pursuing different objectives simultaneously.
Indeed, it is to Pompeo’s credit that he kept his eye on the ball. In many previous administrations, officials chased headlines and sought to dominate the press coverage. During this unprecedented crisis, Pompeo managed his department without trying to move in on Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin or others’ domains; that is not a characteristic for criticism but rather a sign that seasoned leadership trumps political wrangling.
As for Afghanistan, I have been consistently critical of the Trump administration’s policy. But, even if I disagree with how U.S. policy has evolved and believe that the current Afghan political impasse is largely due to missteps by Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. aid is never an entitlement, something both friends and foes should recognize.
Finally, Diehl’s criticism that Pompeo failed to change Saudi minds about their oil price war with Russia after one phone call? Saudi Arabia has agency. Its leaders make their own decisions and, for better or for worse, always have. For example, during the 1970s oil embargo or the pointlessly stupid murder of former Saudi intelligence officer and Muslim Brotherhood activist-turned-Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. To suggest Saudi Arabia answers to every American diktat internalizes unconsciously the worst of Middle Eastern conspiracy theories.
I do not always agree with Pompeo and write in the spirit of honest criticism when I do not, but to suggest he is among the worst secretaries of state is bizarre and unfair. At a time of unprecedented challenge by China, Iran, Russia, and other authoritarian states, Pompeo’s response has been remarkable. He has changed the conversation and put the focus where it matters: At a time of grave crisis, it is more important than ever to stand up to Chinese challenges to liberalism and to those in Iran conducting terrorism as state policy. The Washington Post may, of course, condemn Pompeo as being the anti-Frank Kellogg or anti-John Kerry, but historians will likely look on his tenure with far more generosity and appreciation and, indeed, label him as one of America’s top secretaries of state.
Michael Rubin (@Mrubin1971) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Pentagon official.
