Charlie J. Brown at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of foreign policy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop culture") made a reasonable defense of the administration's ambassadorial appointments thus far.
Money quote(s):
"(S)ome of those appointed by the Obama Administration are foreign policy experts who have a long history of working on the countries and/or issues in question."
&
"The foreign service does an outstanding (and largely unheralded) job of representing U.S. interests overseas. Its members deserve not merely our respect but our admiration. That’s why the list of Obama ambassadorial picks includes a number of distinguished members of the foreign service.
The reality here is that AFSA, which represents the interests of the foreign service, is worried that the foreign service is not getting its traditional share of the pie. They said the same things eight years ago when Bush came to office and sixteen years ago when Clinton got elected. It’s a time-honored Washington ritual."
Showing posts with label Undiplomatic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Undiplomatic. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
re: "DeMint: Wafer Thin"
Charles J. Brown at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of foreign policy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop culture") doesn't like Senator DeMint's views on immigration.
Money quote(s):
"He’s the principal sponsor of the effort to get English declared the official language of the United States. He wants a fence on the border. He opposes effort — including those of former President Bush — to grant amnesty to some of those currently in the country illegally. He even favors requiring some visa applicants to know English."
Check. Check. Check.
Aaaaaaaaaand check.
Who do we see to get this guy to run for president?
Money quote(s):
"He’s the principal sponsor of the effort to get English declared the official language of the United States. He wants a fence on the border. He opposes effort — including those of former President Bush — to grant amnesty to some of those currently in the country illegally. He even favors requiring some visa applicants to know English."
Check. Check. Check.
Aaaaaaaaaand check.
Who do we see to get this guy to run for president?
Friday, May 15, 2009
re: "Mr. Jones: Point, Counterpoint"
Charlie at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of foreign policy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop culture") explains how the professionals do it.
Money quote(s):
"Late hours do not translate into chaos. The idea that his staff is sloppy or lazy or unprofessional is nonsense — they all are, without exception, experienced foreign policy professionals who have dedicated their lives to making the United States a better place. You may disagree with their vision, but do not question their professionalism (and for the record, I would make the exact same point about Bush’s White House staff)."
"(O)nly in Washington could someone putting in a twelve-hour day be considered a slacker. The White House is a hothouse culture that tends to reinforce certain behaviors that are not always useful. To put it another way, what is a strength — the ability to work long hours and produce results — can become a liability if it’s overused. Our bodies simply cannot sustain themselves on caffeine and adrenaline. Sooner or later performance will erode; the key is to keep enough in reserve so that, like a marathoner, you have the ability to give your best when it’s absolutely necessary."
&
"(T)here are times for hard work and long hours (and pizza), and there are times when it makes sense to keep a more regular schedule so that you’re rested when the crisis comes."
This is the individual equivalent of staying on "red alert" all the time. You simply cannot sustain a constantly heightened alert all the time, day after day, year after year. Something gives, and sometimes catastrophically.
The professionals know that when you're on a 24-hour alert, you set up shifts so that people aren't trying to work 24 hour days.
Money quote(s):
"Late hours do not translate into chaos. The idea that his staff is sloppy or lazy or unprofessional is nonsense — they all are, without exception, experienced foreign policy professionals who have dedicated their lives to making the United States a better place. You may disagree with their vision, but do not question their professionalism (and for the record, I would make the exact same point about Bush’s White House staff)."
"(O)nly in Washington could someone putting in a twelve-hour day be considered a slacker. The White House is a hothouse culture that tends to reinforce certain behaviors that are not always useful. To put it another way, what is a strength — the ability to work long hours and produce results — can become a liability if it’s overused. Our bodies simply cannot sustain themselves on caffeine and adrenaline. Sooner or later performance will erode; the key is to keep enough in reserve so that, like a marathoner, you have the ability to give your best when it’s absolutely necessary."
&
"(T)here are times for hard work and long hours (and pizza), and there are times when it makes sense to keep a more regular schedule so that you’re rested when the crisis comes."
This is the individual equivalent of staying on "red alert" all the time. You simply cannot sustain a constantly heightened alert all the time, day after day, year after year. Something gives, and sometimes catastrophically.
The professionals know that when you're on a 24-hour alert, you set up shifts so that people aren't trying to work 24 hour days.
Monday, May 4, 2009
re: "Chrysler in Bankruptcy: The Forgotten Villain"
Charlie at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of diplomacy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop-culture") assigns blame in an interesting direction.
Money quote(s):
"(T)here’s another villain here, one whose role has received little or no attention in the mainstream media: Daimler Benz, the parent company of Mercedes, which bought Chrysler for $36 billion back in 1998."
&
"If you own a Mercedes, trade it in. If you’re buying a new car, strike them off your list. Make them suffer. Remind them that there is a price for such arrogance. Winnow their American market until they start paying the cost of helping to destroy a major American employer."
Money quote(s):
"(T)here’s another villain here, one whose role has received little or no attention in the mainstream media: Daimler Benz, the parent company of Mercedes, which bought Chrysler for $36 billion back in 1998."
&
"If you own a Mercedes, trade it in. If you’re buying a new car, strike them off your list. Make them suffer. Remind them that there is a price for such arrogance. Winnow their American market until they start paying the cost of helping to destroy a major American employer."
Sunday, April 5, 2009
re: "Obama's Foreign Policy: Nothing Personal"
Charlie at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of diplomacy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop-culture") pegs our new chief diplomat as a realist.
Money quote(s):
"The object is to defeat al Qaeda, not get bin Laden. Similarly, the Administration has made it clear (albeit informally) that it no longer will refer to the conflict with al Qaeda as the “Global War on Terror.”
So what do these stories and statements have in common? For Obama, foreign policy is not a frat party. Brown is not his “staunch friend.” Medvedev is neither a “soul” mate or “troublesome and unhelpful.” ; and Osama bin Laden is not an “evil-doer.”
Unlike his predecessor, who personalized everything, Obama is keeping his distance, regardless of whether he is dealing with a friend, competitor, or enemy. He is pursing a businesslike approach to foreign policy, focusing on country-to-country relations, not private relationships.
That is pretty much a textbook example of realism. He views relationships as a function of American interests, and acts accordingly. The downside of this approach is that some issues, such as human rights, are less likely to impress the President as priorities simple because it’s the right thing to do. He still may (or may not) champion human rights, but he’ll do so because it is in America’s best interest."
Money quote(s):
"The object is to defeat al Qaeda, not get bin Laden. Similarly, the Administration has made it clear (albeit informally) that it no longer will refer to the conflict with al Qaeda as the “Global War on Terror.”
So what do these stories and statements have in common? For Obama, foreign policy is not a frat party. Brown is not his “staunch friend.” Medvedev is neither a “soul” mate or “troublesome and unhelpful.” ; and Osama bin Laden is not an “evil-doer.”
Unlike his predecessor, who personalized everything, Obama is keeping his distance, regardless of whether he is dealing with a friend, competitor, or enemy. He is pursing a businesslike approach to foreign policy, focusing on country-to-country relations, not private relationships.
That is pretty much a textbook example of realism. He views relationships as a function of American interests, and acts accordingly. The downside of this approach is that some issues, such as human rights, are less likely to impress the President as priorities simple because it’s the right thing to do. He still may (or may not) champion human rights, but he’ll do so because it is in America’s best interest."
Friday, March 20, 2009
re: "The Bottleneck at State"
Charlie at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of diplomacy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop-culture") is keeping track of new appointments at State Dept.
Money quote(s):
"Inside the State Department, you can’t know who does what without a scorecard. Every position/bureau has a one- to three-letter abbreviation — even the Secretary, whose office is called “S” inside the building."
"(T)he other two Undersecretary Positions — Political Affairs and Management — they are both filled by career foreign service officers who were originally appointed by the Bush Administration. That’s normal — career FSOs serve specific terms (two, sometimes three years), even in senior positions (though they still serve at the pleasure of the President and still must be confirmed by the Senate)."
&
"The Administration needs to get its act together to resolve this, either by finding appropriate political appointees or naming talented FSOs to fill the slots."
Money quote(s):
"Inside the State Department, you can’t know who does what without a scorecard. Every position/bureau has a one- to three-letter abbreviation — even the Secretary, whose office is called “S” inside the building."
"(T)he other two Undersecretary Positions — Political Affairs and Management — they are both filled by career foreign service officers who were originally appointed by the Bush Administration. That’s normal — career FSOs serve specific terms (two, sometimes three years), even in senior positions (though they still serve at the pleasure of the President and still must be confirmed by the Senate)."
&
"The Administration needs to get its act together to resolve this, either by finding appropriate political appointees or naming talented FSOs to fill the slots."
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
re: "News Report: Freeman Pulling Out (UPDATED)"
Charlie at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of diplomacy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop-culture") had more detailed news of this.
Money quote(s):
"Chas Freeman has asked that his name be withdrawn from consideration for the position of Chair of the National Intelligence Council."
&
"I have a hunch there’s more to this story than pressure from the Israel lobby. Chances are that there were financial issues that in normal circumstances would not have been a problem, but given the heightened attention as a result of the campaign against him, might have had an impact."
Money quote(s):
"Chas Freeman has asked that his name be withdrawn from consideration for the position of Chair of the National Intelligence Council."
&
"I have a hunch there’s more to this story than pressure from the Israel lobby. Chances are that there were financial issues that in normal circumstances would not have been a problem, but given the heightened attention as a result of the campaign against him, might have had an impact."
Sunday, March 15, 2009
re: "Chas Freeman and John Bolton"
Charles at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of diplomacy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop-culture") contrasts the nominations of two former ambassadors.
Money quote(s):
"(T)here has been quite a storm brewing over President Obama’s appointment of Charles W. “Chas” Freeman, Jr. to head the National Intelligence Council, which is responsible for producing the often important but sometimes off-the-mark National Intelligence Estimates."
"Freeman has come under fire for his often critical views on Israel, his sympathetic attitude towards the Saudis, and his opinion that the Chinese should have cracked down earlier on the Tiananmen protests. Freeman is a hyper-realist, believing that the use and conservation of hard power should trump any and all other considerations. He clearly is an unconventional thinker, and his views have often placed himself outside the mainstream of conventional foreign policy views.
Freeman brings to mind another famous free-thinker on foreign policy, John Bolton. "
"Although both believe in American power, Bolton sees it as something to project while Freeman regards it as something that should be conserved. Bolton views certain American allies, particularly Israel, as so indispensible that they should be forgiven for any and all transgressions, while Freeman, as the current controversy demonstrates, believes that Israel has made significant mistakes and should be held to account. Interestingly, the two switch sides when it comes to China, with Bolton far more critical of the current regime and Freeman more likely to tolerate its excesses."
&
"I think there are serious and important differences between the Bolton nomination and the Freeman appointment, enough so that I have less of a quarrel with those who support Freeman than I do with those who oppose him. But I think it is at best inconsistent and at worst intellectually disingenuous to suggest that Freeman’s past statements are irrelevant if you also were one of those who argued that Bolton’s past statements were damning."
Money quote(s):
"(T)here has been quite a storm brewing over President Obama’s appointment of Charles W. “Chas” Freeman, Jr. to head the National Intelligence Council, which is responsible for producing the often important but sometimes off-the-mark National Intelligence Estimates."
"Freeman has come under fire for his often critical views on Israel, his sympathetic attitude towards the Saudis, and his opinion that the Chinese should have cracked down earlier on the Tiananmen protests. Freeman is a hyper-realist, believing that the use and conservation of hard power should trump any and all other considerations. He clearly is an unconventional thinker, and his views have often placed himself outside the mainstream of conventional foreign policy views.
Freeman brings to mind another famous free-thinker on foreign policy, John Bolton. "
"Although both believe in American power, Bolton sees it as something to project while Freeman regards it as something that should be conserved. Bolton views certain American allies, particularly Israel, as so indispensible that they should be forgiven for any and all transgressions, while Freeman, as the current controversy demonstrates, believes that Israel has made significant mistakes and should be held to account. Interestingly, the two switch sides when it comes to China, with Bolton far more critical of the current regime and Freeman more likely to tolerate its excesses."
&
"I think there are serious and important differences between the Bolton nomination and the Freeman appointment, enough so that I have less of a quarrel with those who support Freeman than I do with those who oppose him. But I think it is at best inconsistent and at worst intellectually disingenuous to suggest that Freeman’s past statements are irrelevant if you also were one of those who argued that Bolton’s past statements were damning."
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
re: "The Other Don't Ask Don't Tell"
Charlie at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of diplomacy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop-culture") addresses the issue of same-sex partners in the Foreign Service.
Money quote(s):
"(F)oreign service officers who were member of Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, who were fighting to get recognition for same sex spouses.
Although benefits were a big part of what they were fighting for, an equally important issue was how their spouses were treated overseas. The reality is that unlike a number of European countries, American gay and lesbian spouses do not enjoy the same status overseas as their heterosexual colleagues. That means, among other things, that they do not have the rights, privileges, and protection that other spouses do."
"(W)hen I was in the Clinton Administration, gay spouses did not have even the most basic rights and privileges. To its credit, the Bush Administration changed some of the rules — permitting partners/spouses to attend security and other introductory seminars — but not much more."
"It’s not as discriminatory as what happens in the military: gays and lesbians no longer are drummed out of the foreign service as a result of their sexual orientation. But they are asked to pretend that they are not second-class citizens."
"(S)ome folks at State may nervous about “granting” full rights and privileges to same sex spouses because they’re afraid of how some countries — particularly the Vatican, most African states, and Muslim-majority states — may react. You could call it the Anglican church precedent: rock the boat and you create problems. That’s a fallacy, of course — it hasn’t been the case for other countries that have given same-sex spouses full rights and benefits — and it’s allowing diplomacy to mask discrimination."
I used to see this as a reasonable enough objection to recognizing same-sex partners in the diplomatic context; that it would alienate some of our host countries. But I've come to realize that there are so many things about our culture and lifestyle that such countries will find objectionable that it essentially constitutes a form of Dhimmitude, of civilizational surrender, to let that be a factor.
"I’ll never forget a meeting I had during my time at State when a foreign service officer told how diplomatic security gave him a choice: forget about a foreign service career or out himself to his parents, who did not know he was gay. Another was actually outed to his parents by diplomatic security."
From a counterintelligence standpoint, the issue above isn't that an FSO is gay (at least not any more), but rather that what he or she was concealing from their parents made them vulnerable to blackmail or extortion by hostile intelligence services.
You always have to remember the four motivations for treason: Money, Ideology, Compromise, Ego.
_____
Note: This is not to suggest that gays or lesbians are more or less likely to commit treason. Among Americans, money tended to be the most common motive during the Cold War, although some Cold War traitors were homosexuals. (Don't believe me? Do your own homework.)
Money quote(s):
"(F)oreign service officers who were member of Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, who were fighting to get recognition for same sex spouses.
Although benefits were a big part of what they were fighting for, an equally important issue was how their spouses were treated overseas. The reality is that unlike a number of European countries, American gay and lesbian spouses do not enjoy the same status overseas as their heterosexual colleagues. That means, among other things, that they do not have the rights, privileges, and protection that other spouses do."
"(W)hen I was in the Clinton Administration, gay spouses did not have even the most basic rights and privileges. To its credit, the Bush Administration changed some of the rules — permitting partners/spouses to attend security and other introductory seminars — but not much more."
"It’s not as discriminatory as what happens in the military: gays and lesbians no longer are drummed out of the foreign service as a result of their sexual orientation. But they are asked to pretend that they are not second-class citizens."
"(S)ome folks at State may nervous about “granting” full rights and privileges to same sex spouses because they’re afraid of how some countries — particularly the Vatican, most African states, and Muslim-majority states — may react. You could call it the Anglican church precedent: rock the boat and you create problems. That’s a fallacy, of course — it hasn’t been the case for other countries that have given same-sex spouses full rights and benefits — and it’s allowing diplomacy to mask discrimination."
I used to see this as a reasonable enough objection to recognizing same-sex partners in the diplomatic context; that it would alienate some of our host countries. But I've come to realize that there are so many things about our culture and lifestyle that such countries will find objectionable that it essentially constitutes a form of Dhimmitude, of civilizational surrender, to let that be a factor.
"I’ll never forget a meeting I had during my time at State when a foreign service officer told how diplomatic security gave him a choice: forget about a foreign service career or out himself to his parents, who did not know he was gay. Another was actually outed to his parents by diplomatic security."
From a counterintelligence standpoint, the issue above isn't that an FSO is gay (at least not any more), but rather that what he or she was concealing from their parents made them vulnerable to blackmail or extortion by hostile intelligence services.
You always have to remember the four motivations for treason: Money, Ideology, Compromise, Ego.
_____
Note: This is not to suggest that gays or lesbians are more or less likely to commit treason. Among Americans, money tended to be the most common motive during the Cold War, although some Cold War traitors were homosexuals. (Don't believe me? Do your own homework.)
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
re: "A Servant to My President?A Servant to My President?"
Charlie at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of diplomacy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop-culture") is rightfully annoyed with sycophancy.
Money quote(s):
"As regular readers of this blog know, I don’t just drink the Obama Kool-Ad, I revel in it. I bathe in it. I even do synchronized swimming moves.
But this (h/t Ta-Nehisi) — this thing, this tone-deaf, sanctimonius — nay vomitous — celebrity-soaked piece of propaganda. . ."
"(W)here do these beautiful, slim, and impossibly rich people get off telling us that we need to do more? I agree with President’s noble call to put aside childish things, but if there is a class of Americans who most need to do that it’s the Hollywood elite."
This reminds me that while Washington is "Hollywood for ugly people," oftentimes "Hollywood is Washington for stupid people."
"No matter how much I support Barack Obama, my belief in this country and its capacity to do good is not based on my joy that he is now President."
&
"Last I checked, there’s a reason that we call those we elect public servants. They are in service to us, not the other way around.
Yes, we need to grow up, be responsible, and follow the leadership of our smart and talented President. But I’m guessing that he’d be the first person to tell you that none of us should be a servant to him."
Money quote(s):
"As regular readers of this blog know, I don’t just drink the Obama Kool-Ad, I revel in it. I bathe in it. I even do synchronized swimming moves.
But this (h/t Ta-Nehisi) — this thing, this tone-deaf, sanctimonius — nay vomitous — celebrity-soaked piece of propaganda. . ."
"(W)here do these beautiful, slim, and impossibly rich people get off telling us that we need to do more? I agree with President’s noble call to put aside childish things, but if there is a class of Americans who most need to do that it’s the Hollywood elite."
This reminds me that while Washington is "Hollywood for ugly people," oftentimes "Hollywood is Washington for stupid people."
"No matter how much I support Barack Obama, my belief in this country and its capacity to do good is not based on my joy that he is now President."
&
"Last I checked, there’s a reason that we call those we elect public servants. They are in service to us, not the other way around.
Yes, we need to grow up, be responsible, and follow the leadership of our smart and talented President. But I’m guessing that he’d be the first person to tell you that none of us should be a servant to him."
Sunday, January 18, 2009
re: "The Panic over Political Appointments"
Charlie at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of diplomacy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop-culture") puts the political appointments process into perspective.
Money quote(s):
"I’m sympathetic with those of my colleagues who feel like they’re not being heard or “rewarded.” I was on one of the foreign policy teams and I haven’t heard anything back either."
(Fingers crossed for you, Charlie! - CAA)
"It’s not even the middle of January. No transition in history has started appointing positions below Undersecretary in January. And unlike past transitions, this one has focused not just on personnel, but also on fixing what everyone regards as a broken system. Since those recommendations just went to Secretary-Designate Clinton in the past week or two, it’s awfully hard for people to get appointments for positions that may be eliminated in a reorganization."
"(W)hile the process has not been transparent, that’s typical, not unusual — both the Clinton and the Bush process were just as opaque. There are good reasons for that: you don’t want people to know who the other candidates for a given job are, and you want to make sure that the process is designed in a way to limit favortism (sic), not reward it.
To be clear, I would love it if my friends and contacts on the transition teams were to tell me I was a lock for a job. But then they not only would be disingenuous, they also would exceed their authority."
"(T)here are more than 300 jobs on the Plum Book list Zengerle cites (11 pages, roughly 50-60 jobs listed per page). Some are designated for “career incumbents” (meaning foreign service officers) and others, such as most of the ambassadorships, will go to senior FSOs even though they technically are political appointees. But even if you take out those, there are at least 350 to 400 jobs there. And that doesn’t even include the jobs in NSC, Defense and DHS, not to mention the fact that Obama has pledged that Ambassadorships will go to talented experts rather than wealthy donors — and not all of those are going to be career FSOs."
&
"(O)ne rumor going around the building is that the various undersecretaries will have more resources and responsibilities, which probably means more staff positions. In fact, if you listen to the foreign service gossip, those positions are being created in order to find more jobs for those aspiring to a political appointment."
Money quote(s):
"I’m sympathetic with those of my colleagues who feel like they’re not being heard or “rewarded.” I was on one of the foreign policy teams and I haven’t heard anything back either."
(Fingers crossed for you, Charlie! - CAA)
"It’s not even the middle of January. No transition in history has started appointing positions below Undersecretary in January. And unlike past transitions, this one has focused not just on personnel, but also on fixing what everyone regards as a broken system. Since those recommendations just went to Secretary-Designate Clinton in the past week or two, it’s awfully hard for people to get appointments for positions that may be eliminated in a reorganization."
"(W)hile the process has not been transparent, that’s typical, not unusual — both the Clinton and the Bush process were just as opaque. There are good reasons for that: you don’t want people to know who the other candidates for a given job are, and you want to make sure that the process is designed in a way to limit favortism (sic), not reward it.
To be clear, I would love it if my friends and contacts on the transition teams were to tell me I was a lock for a job. But then they not only would be disingenuous, they also would exceed their authority."
"(T)here are more than 300 jobs on the Plum Book list Zengerle cites (11 pages, roughly 50-60 jobs listed per page). Some are designated for “career incumbents” (meaning foreign service officers) and others, such as most of the ambassadorships, will go to senior FSOs even though they technically are political appointees. But even if you take out those, there are at least 350 to 400 jobs there. And that doesn’t even include the jobs in NSC, Defense and DHS, not to mention the fact that Obama has pledged that Ambassadorships will go to talented experts rather than wealthy donors — and not all of those are going to be career FSOs."
&
"(O)ne rumor going around the building is that the various undersecretaries will have more resources and responsibilities, which probably means more staff positions. In fact, if you listen to the foreign service gossip, those positions are being created in order to find more jobs for those aspiring to a political appointment."
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
re: "Thought for the Day"
The other day, Charlie at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of diplomacy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop-culture") had a thought worth sharing:
"It’s important that we not forget, in the middle of an economic crisis and the inauguration of a new President, that we’re still fighting two wars."
"It’s important that we not forget, in the middle of an economic crisis and the inauguration of a new President, that we’re still fighting two wars."
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
re: "Bolton Ruins My Morning"
Midwest McGarry (not Charlie) at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of diplomacy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop-culture") had his morning ruined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
