re: "12 Things for 2012"

OSB at The OpSec Blog ("Security and privacy information and advice at home and abroad.") shared 12 thoughts about living abroad in the Foreign Service.

Read them all.

My favorite?

Number 5, of course:

"5. No matter how hard you think you are working, your Marine Security Guard detachment is working much harder. Give them the respect and kindness they deserve. Address them as “sir” or “ma’am” (until you learn their names, of course), invite them to your happy hours (even if it’s just for snacks), and go out of your way to ensure that they are invited to your social functions."

Actually, don't call them "sir" or "ma'am" (which is something of an exception to my rule-of-thumb* in this matter); as enlisted and non-commissioned officers (which most MSGs will be), they are not addressed as "sir" or "ma'am."

Commissioned (and warrant) officers are addressed as "sir" and "ma'am." Very few (if any) overseas missions will have MSG detachments whose members are either commissioned or warrant officers. MSG detachment commanders will often be USMC gunnery sergeants and other detachment members will be varying grades of sergeants and corporals.

Don't know what that means? Well, then that's a great "area-for-improvement" to improve upon.

My advice, for those who haven't learned USMC rank insignia: if they're on guard or standing watch in your embassy or consulate, and you don't know their names or ranks, see if they have any chevrons (or "stripes") on their shirt sleeves. And just call them "Sergeant."

If they are sergeants, in any of the several pay grades that encompasses, then they won't take offense that a civilian wasn't able to guess their precise rank; and if they're one of the enlisted or non-com ranks below sergeant, they probably won't be offended by an unintentional promotion.

12/31


* CAA's rule-of-thumb about terms of address comes from the perspective of customer service (and Southern gentility and manners). Treat everyone respectfully, addressing gentlemen as "sir" and ladies as "ma'am." And referring to them each, in the third person, as "gentlemen" and "ladies."

The exception (there's always an exception) to that are those folks who rate a more specific term of address. Such as ambassadors, many government officials, the clergy, certain academics, and members of the military and naval services.

Entire books have been written on how such persons should be addressed. As commissioned officers of the U.S. Foreign Service, people will be looking to you for leadership and guidance in such, and other, matters of protocol and etiquette. A good start is learning, at least in a general way, the various rank structures and insignia of our own armed forces and how to correctly refer to and address such fine people.

re: "Libya: Did Citizen Evacuations Stand in the Way of Better Policy?"

Peter Spiro at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") is, as always, asking some of the right questions.

(Even if he is a lawyer.)

Money quote(s):

"It now seems to be the conventional wisdom (hard to shake once in place) that the U.S. has been slow off the mark on Libya. That may have consequences for U.S. standing in the region."

Conventional wisdom isn't always wrong. It just seems like it most of the time.

Still, perception influences reality, even if it does not (as some believe) equate to reality.

"The Administration got a defense out (on background) that it held off on more decisive action — such as imposing the sanctions that were finally put in place last night — pending the evacuation from Libya of U.S. citizens, U.S. diplomats in particular. As always, safety of U.S. citizens is said to be the highest priority in such unstable situations. Apparently, the U.S. embassy compound in Tripoli is poorly secured, with no Marine guards in place to defend."

No marines in Tripoli? Sounds like the inspiration for a Country & Western song, perhaps using the "Do They Know It's Christmas" tune from 1985.

But I digress.

"That’s a tough place to be. Obviously you don’t want to end up in a hostage situation (the politics of that would be horrific for Obama in addition to all the other reasons — the Carter comparison perfected). But does it have to be the case that U.S. policy itself is held hostage?

Perhaps the lesson here is to have contingency plans in place to pull U.S. officials out of such situations quickly (as of today, think Sanaa, Libreville, Yaounde, among others). That would have the downside of leaving other U.S. citizens without exit assistance, at least not in place. But many of them are taken care of by their corporate employers. Many others will be dual nationals, and only nominally American, and should be able to fend for themselves as well as locals."

There are contingency plans for lots of things. The Marine Corps has something of a sideline in NEOs (non-combatant evacuation operations), but some of the sketchier places tend to rather out-of-the-way and would need some assistance to get out and that assistance would take time getting there.

Recall that during the Rwandan genocide, our embassy folks had to convoy out of the country on their own, something that good RSOs and consular chiefs keep in the back of their minds as one of the nightmare scenarios to prepare against.

The argument about dual nationals has come up before, and The Onion recently did a piece lampooning the American practise of having to evacuate visitors to places nobody in their right mind should want to visit. I don't have an answer to either question, but it's nice to see people asking in public fora what consular officers sometimes ask each other quietly, where the public can't hear us.

(Don't get me wrong, we'll do everything we can to help, but think of us as firemen who can't help but wonder to one another just why you were playing with matches.)

re: "Time to Open an Embassy in Tehran"

Rusty at The Jawa Report ("Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil - Thomas Mann") explains why we should re-open an embassy in Tehran.

Money quote(s):

"That the Iranians are claiming that Obama's willingness to talk to them shows they've won is no surprise -- they're going to claim that, no matter what."

"There is a very good reason why we not only should be talking to the Iranians, but also normalizing diplomatic relations: because US embassies are good for two things, attracting large number of stone throwers/flag burners; and serving as the central nexus of US efforts to gather intel."

"I'll concede that opening diplomatic relations with these two countries would be a win in the bad guys column, but sometimes you need to concede a small victory to your enemies in order to win the larger war.

I'll even concede that most State Department employees are a bunch of pansies. The values they've institutionalized, regrettably, are largely those of left wing academics and Wilsonian dreamers."

&

"I used to spend quite a bit of time in the Moscow embassy. In the on-site quarters of one of the Marine guards. Trust me, you don't want to mess with one of these guys.

Think about it, and next time someone shouts that we need to be bombing Iran and not talking to them, fine. But where should we bomb? That is the kind of question an "Assistant Attache for Cultural Affairs" is responsible for knowing the answer to."