Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has won another little personal vendetta and the nation is the worse off for it.
President Bush decided to make a recess appointment of Middle East expert Daniel Pipes to the board of directors of the Peace Institute, a small government think-tank of about 70 researchers. That means Pipes does not have to face Senate confirmation but must leave at the end of the Senate's term next year. In other words, the nation gets his services for about 15 months instead of a normal four-year director's term.
Kennedy has led opposition to Pipes on the grounds that his record did not "reflect a commitment to bridging differences and preventing conflict," a comment of the purest balderdash. Other liberals have called Pipes a bigot, which is a simple lie.
To bridge differences and prevent conflict, to say nothing of prompting and evaluating research on conflict resolution, it helps to know what the differences are, between whom, and where and how conflict may arise. In his scholarly work, at the think-tank in Philadelphia he leads and in his articles (which this newspaper has been proud to publish, including today), Pipes has called attention to the threat of militant Islam, the dangers of which he was among the first in public life to see.
Islam is a vast tapestry of many threads, and is now a battleground between militants who claim its backing for terror and oppression and the majority who find no support in the faith for such crimes. It is vital for civilization that the majority prevail.
Pipes' warnings do not make him anti-Islamic at all. We suspect Kennedy has not himself read much if any of what Pipes has actually written. If he had, the senator would not have been so foolish.
Pipes not fit
Boston Herald
Friday, August 29, 2003; Pg. 26
Letters to the Editor
Your editorial criticizes my opposition to the Bush administration's appointment of Dr. Daniel Pipes to the U.S. Institute of Peace ("Kennedy vendetta's price," Aug. 27). But a review of his record clearly shows that he's the wrong person for the job.
The Institute of Peace was founded in order to find ways to bridge differences between nations, cultures and religions to prevent armed conflicts. Its mission is more important today than ever, and we should appoint to it only the best that America has to offer.
Pipes is a serious scholar, and I would support him for another post. However, as recently as last year he disparaged peaceful efforts by governments to end brutal conflicts. Regarding the Middle East conflict, he wrote, "The idea that a 'peace process' can take the place of the dirty work of war is a conceit." The view that armed conflict is inevitable may be debated in academic circles, but it has no place at the Institute of Peace.
Pipes also has made various offensive remarks over the years, and has called for racial and religious profiling in law enforcement. He believes that mosques should be targets of police surveillance. These controversial stands make him unsuited for a position that's about bringing people together.
Your editorial wrongly suggests that I blocked Dr. Pipes' nomination. I'm willing to put his nomination to a vote in the Senate if the White House and the Republican leadership so decide. But surely, we can find someone better to serve at our Institute of Peace.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy
The writer is the senior senator from Massachusetts.
