Tulsi Gabbard - a good choice for Director of National Intelligence? My take

Tulsi Gabbard - a good choice for Director of National Intelligence

by Donald H. Marks, physician-scientist  and third generation veteran.

Tulsi Gabbard, a former U.S. Congresswoman and presidential candidate, has occasionally been criticized by certain commentators and partisan analysts who have questioned her positions on foreign policy and her past interactions with controversial figures or governments. Most recently, she has been nominated as Director of National Intelligence by incoming President Trump.  Labeling her a "security risk," by some, however, is IMO seems to be more unnecessary partisan hyperbole. The term security risk is vague and depends on the specific context and evidence presented. This appears to me both inappropriate and wrong. 

Criticisms and Concerns

1. Foreign Policy Views: Gabbard has been outspoken against U.S. military interventions, which some critics interpreted as being sympathetic to adversarial nations like Russia or Syria. Her meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2017, for example, drew significant criticism from those who view Assad as a war criminal. Perhaps this was a similar crowd to those who labeled former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger as a war criminal.  See my notes on that issue in the references below.

 Gabbard has taking great pains on a number of occasions to explain the rationale behind this meeting and her explanations seem reasonable to me. Similar for Kissinger.

2. Russian Propagandist

Allegations: During the 2020 Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton implied (without naming her directly) that Gabbard was a potential "favorite" of Russian propaganda efforts. Gabbard strongly denied these accusations, calling them baseless, and I, too, view Clinton's allegations as no more than political smears in the context of a contentious election that Clinton lost.

3. Support from Fringe Groups: 

Gabbard has garnered support from some non-mainstream and far-right groups, which has raised questions about her appeal to these factions. However, she has not explicitly aligned herself with such ideologies, and unsolicited support definitely does not equate to endorsement by her.

4. Defensive Against Criticism: Some interpret her vigorous responses to criticism as overly confrontational, fueling perceptions of controversy. To me. it's really just the same criticism that could be made against Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and many others..

Counterarguments

1. Patriotism and Service: Gabbard is a U.S. military veteran who served in the Army National Guard, including deployments to Iraq. Her supporters argue that her service demonstrates her commitment to the country, and I, as a 3rd generation veteran, see no reason to disagree.

2. Non-Interventionism: 

Many view her foreign policy positions as principled rather than risky, advocating for diplomacy over war. She definitely is not a neocon. I am always reminded of the admonition by President Eisenhower to beware of the military industrial complex, and to resist the desire to intervene in other countries business

3. Lack of Evidence: To date, there has been no concrete evidence linking Gabbard to any security threats or espionage activities.

4. Political Bias:

It would seem that many criticisms stem from political differences rather than genuine security concerns. Critics should carefully choose what hill they want to battle from.

Conclusions

As far as I am aware, there is no publicly available evidence suggesting Tulsi Gabbard is an actual "security risk" to the U.S. The debate over her stances seems to be more rooted in political and ideological disagreements rather than in substantive security concerns. 

Many view Gabbard’s foreign policy positions as principled rather than risky, advocating for diplomacy over war. In that sense alone, she is not a Neocon, which is a plus in my book.  See my notes on Neocons, Neolibs 

The label of "security risk" is vague and often subjective, and can reflect political strategies on both sides, rather than factual assessments, as it does in this case. I suspect that Gabbard will pass the FBI and other background checks, and that she will be a fine Director of National Intelligence and I wish her well.

References

Is criticism of Henry Kissinger (Super K) just another form of historical revisionism? DH Marks

Elitists, Neocons, Globalists. Oh my!   What are they, who are they, and why should I care? DH Marks

Tulsi Gabbard’s Nomination Is a National-Security Risk. Opinion by Tom Nichol. The Atlantic 2024