re: "Southerners Not Happy to Have Lost Civil War"

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") gets this just about exactly right.

Money quote(s):

"This isn’t actually all that complicated: A significant number of Southerners continue to feel a deep attachment to the region and its culture. This is especially true of those who have generations-long attachments to the South. It’s hardly shocking, then, that they would fail to celebrate their ancestor’s loss in a bitter war.

And Jamelle’s right: Almost none of those ambivalent about the Southern defeat have any fondness for slavery, much less a desire to re-institute it. Additionally, these people are some of the most patriotic Americans, seeing zero contradiction between loving America and her flag and also celebrating an insurrection against it several generations ago.

Then again, for today’s Southerners, the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.

Don’t misunderstand: There’s simply no debate that slavery was sine qua non for the South’s secession and the onset of war. All of the political debates and pronouncements surrounding the Election of 1860 and the run-up to secession make that crystal clear. Other justifications were calculated myth created by a Lost Cause movement shortly after the war.

But the political cause of a war seldom has much to do with why individual people fight. Only a tiny fraction of the soldiers of the Confederacy owned or had any prospect of owning slaves. Mostly, they fought because there was a war on and they chose their homeland over a mythical nation-state that wouldn’t come to exist in its modern sense for another several decades.

So, it’s quite easy for Southerners to distinguish between the Civil War and slavery. In their minds, their ancestors weren’t fighting to preserve a wicked institution but rather for some combination of independence, “state’s rights,” and clan loyalty."

re: "DHS's Communications Chief: "I Swear To F--king God I Am Going To F--king Decapitate" ICE Press Shop Staff"

DMartyr at The Jawa Report points out a clear failure to communicate.

Money quote(s):

"Apparently, communication is his f--king expertise.

DHS's Napolitano must be so proud."

DMN - Clayton McCleskey: This Memorial Day, remember the diplomats, too

Both Dead Men Walking and Life After Jerusalem excerpted this in its entirety. I will do no less.

_____

The Dallas Morning News

Clayton McCleskey: This Memorial Day, remember the diplomats, too

Published May 27, 2011 10:14 AM

WASHINGTON — They are the proud, the few and the unarmed. They dodge bullets in the mountains of Afghanistan and brave the deserts of Iraq. They serve as America’s face to the world, from violence-ridden Mexico to the financial hubs of Asia to the capitals of Europe. They promote American business and protect American citizens abroad. They are the men and women of the U.S. Foreign Service.

On Memorial Day, we rightly pause to remember those who serve our nation in military uniform. But we should also recognize the more than 12,000 members of the American diplomatic corps who serve in Washington and in 271 missions across the globe.

“They are the ones out there on the front lines trying to advocate and explain [American] policies, regardless of which administration they are serving,” said Karen Hughes, former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy under President George W. Bush.

She praised the Foreign Service as “a very dedicated group of public servants” who “work and make sacrifices around the world in some very difficult assignments.”

You may think of diplomats as tuxedo-wearing statesmen sipping cocktails at summits in Switzerland, but American diplomats are deployed in places like war-torn Africa and Afghanistan, where they often face the same dangers as members of the military. One diplomat I spoke to said he has been shot at five times in the line of duty.

Yet, even as America’s engagement with the world is growing more crucial, budget hawks are circling over the State Department. Speaking to the National Conference of Editorial Writers this month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned, “There’s a huge gap between perception and reality … and people think that we can balance our budget on the back of our foreign operations.”

The continuing resolution passed to fund the government cut $8 billion for the State Department and USAID — while increasing the Defense Department’s budget by $5 billion. The demands on the State Department are growing, but the budget isn’t. “It is so out of whack with what we have to be doing,” Clinton lamented.

Part of the problem is that many Americans misunderstand diplomats’ role. Diplomacy isn’t about throwing money at the world. Yes, foreign aid — which accounts for only about 1 percent of the total federal budget — is a useful diplomatic tool. But too often diplomacy is dismissed as wasteful global charity or useless hemmin’ and hawin’ at the United Nations. Whether working to secure access to natural resources (like oil), leading reconstruction in Afghanistan or screening hundreds of thousands of visa applicants, diplomats are producing concrete results. They are the facilitators of globalization.

In an interconnected world, diplomacy is becoming ever more relevant to the daily lives of Americans, especially when it comes to the economy. Diplomats pave the way for American businesses to make profits at home by expanding overseas.

“If companies want to grow, if we want to grow our GDP, if we want to be competitive on a global basis in the 21st century, people really have to step up to export and export more, because that’s where the growth opportunities are,” said Lorraine Hariton, U.S. Special Representative for Commercial and Business Affairs.

Texas definitely enjoys the dividends of diplomacy. According to the latest figures from the International Trade Administration and Bureau of the Census, in 2009 the Dallas-Fort Worth area exported $19.9 billion worth of merchandise. And because of the Open Skies agreements liberalizing international air travel,Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport will see “billions of dollars in new business,” Clinton said this month.

Members of the Foreign Service play a crucial role in making that kind of lucrative international agreement possible, part of a government-wide campaign to help American businesses increase exports.

“We need to set up partnerships and relationships all around the world so we can understand the market needs in Kenya as well as the market needs in Fort Worth,” Hariton said. Indeed, to maintain America’s global competitiveness and to capitalize on the opportunities globalization creates, we need a well-funded diplomatic corps.

“Diplomacy used to be thought of as the quiet, behind-the-scenes, government-to-government communications,” Hughes told me.

It’s now so much more than that. “In order for America to enact the kinds of policies we want to enact around the world,” Hughes explained, “we have got to build a public case for those policies, for our values and for our interests.”

Our diplomats are out in the trenches doing just that, often at great personal danger — remember the Iranian hostage crisis? Foreign Service officers have also been the targets of drug violence, insurgent attacks and kidnappings. Yet they man their posts, safeguarding American interests and protecting U.S. citizens overseas.

This weekend, as we salute our military, we also owe a tribute to America’s diplomats, many of whom are in conflict zones riding in the same Humvees as the troops. The only difference is that they can’t shoot back.*


Clayton M. McCleskey is a contributing writer for The Dallas Morning News based in Washington. His email address is letters@claytonmccleskey.com.*

re: "Obama vs. Pentagon on Libya"

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") comments on civilian-military relations.

Money quote(s):

"The administration has a set of foreign policy goals that can be achieved by military force but domestic considerations are limiting the type and amount of force it is willing to commit. The military leaders understand that intuitively and are insisting on either lowering the goals to those achievable by military force or eliminating the caveats in order that they might achieve the goals." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA)

This is yet another aspect of expectation management.

re: "Military-Academic Conflict"

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") discusses the contradictions in military higher education.

Money quote(s):

"Thomas Ricks has had a series of blog posts over the academic quality and integrity of the Air War College and its parent Air University in Montgomery, Alabama. It was sparked by a book chapter written by disgruntled retired AU professor named Daniel Hughes, which prompted Ricks to argue for closing the college."

See my earlier post on this topic.

"The war colleges simply have to be hybrid institutions, blending the best cutting edge scholarship with practical training. Each of the services now sends a large number of promising mid-career officers to civilian universities and Washington think tanks (including my own) to broaden their horizons. And that’s great! But the vast number of young colonels and captains need to learn to be strategic thinkers in today’s environment. That means being around really smart scholars who’ve had the luxury of thinking really hard about Iraq, Afghanistan, counterinsurgency, military interventions, and a host of related issues. There just aren’t many institutions in the country with more than one or two of these people on staff.

Now, here’s where my own bias comes in: Anders’ arguments for having most of the faculty at the war colleges consist of active duty officers are well taken. While almost by definition they’re less accomplished scholars than some of their civilian peers–it’s not their chosen career after all–it’s perfectly reasonable to have senior officers training the next generation at these institutions.

But, as Anders notes, Congress stepped in two decades ago and mandated that a certain percentage of the faculty at the various professional military education (PME) schools and the service academies (West Point, Annapolis, and Air Force) be civilian academics. The rationale was obvious: leaven the faculty with professional scholars to move the education-training balance further in the direction of the former while at the same time broadening the perspectives to which students are exposed."

Read the whole thing.

re: "Obama’s Next War"

Frank Gaffney at Big Peace outlines the prospects for peace (and for war).

Money quote(s):

"(A)n extraordinary intelligence-special forces team liquidated Osama bin Laden and drones have dispatched a number of other “high value targets” in what the President calls our “war on al Qaeda.” These are morale-boosting tactical achievements, but in the great scheme of things are more like whack-a-mole than strategic victories. Much more important is the fact that Mr. Obama is in the process of losing the two wars he inherited, and making a hash-up of the one he initiated in Libya."

Nonconcur in part. Taking UBL off the board was a strategic victory just as shooting down Adm. Yamamoto was

That being said, there's a vacuum, apparently, where the grand strategy ought to be.

"Mr. Obama’s earlier insistence on withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq and his abiding determination to pull out virtually all others by year’s end has, as a practical matter, made it impossible for the government in Baghdad to ask us to stay on. Even if the Iranian puppet, Muqtada al-Sadr, were not threatening if Americans are invited to stay to relaunch his Madi army’s sectarian warfare and bring down the coalition government (in which his party is a prominent part), the Iraqis can hardly be more in favor of maintaining an American presence than we are.

The predictable result in Iraq next year (if not before) will be a vacuum of power that Iran will surely fill. State Department and other Americans left behind, in the hope that the immense investment we have made in lives and treasure in Iraq’s democratic and pro-Western future will not be squandered, stand to become endangered species. The ironic symbol of our defeat may be the takeover in due course of the immense new U.S. embassy in Baghdad by Iranians – this time by invited diplomats, not the hostage-taking “students” of 1979."

Why is Mookie still breathing? Surely this is an oversight on someone's part.

I worry about my colleagues starting assignments in Iraq these days; I don't want to find myself glued to a television screen someday in the not-to-distant future, hoping (and dreading) to see someone I know running for the last helicopter out or being paraded around as A-Jad's latest hostage. He's done it before, after all.

" In his speech last week to what he calls “the Muslim world,” the President made it U.S. policy to support whoever manages to get elected in the various nations of North Africa and the Middle East currently undergoing political upheavals. As a practical matter, that will mean legitimating, working with and underwriting the Muslim Brotherhood, since they are far and away the most organized, disciplined and ruthless of the contenders for power in country after country. History tells us that such people – from Hitler in Weimar Germany to Hamas in the Gaza Strip – win even “free and fair” elections, which then amount to one-man, one-vote, one-time. (For more on the deadly nature and agenda of the MB or Ikhwan, see last week’s column in this space.)

President Obama’s openness (to put it mildly) to bringing the Brotherhood to power was manifested not only by his pledge to forgive $1 billion in Egyptian debt and to provide it another billion in additional foreign aid. Just as he did in his last much-ballyhooed “outreach” to Muslims in Cairo two years ago, Team Obama had one of the top Muslim Brothers – Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Ikhwan’s largest front group in this country, the Islamic Society of North America – prominently seated in the audience at the State Department."

I've mentioned ISNA's Muslim Brotherhood pedigree before.

During the course of a diplomatic career, it's not that unusual to find yourself, our your side, treating with very unpleasant and sometimes quite evil folk, as you're about your country's business of state and in the pursuit of peace. That sort of thing goes with the territory, I'm afraid. Examples including treating with Yasser Arafat even though we knew he was personally responsible for the murder of (at least) one of our ambassador. (For a transcription of the document itself, see here.)

It's still troubling and bothersome. I suppose I ought to be really worried when this sort of thing doesn't bother me.

Memorial Day weekend

CAA is not "celebrating" Memorial Day weekend. He will be observing it.

Not that the grill won't get a workout, yunnerstan, nor some frosty beverages be well quaffed.

Flags will be displayed, naturally, and waves and smiles will be exchanged with the thousands of motorcycle-riding patriots who're, even now, converging on our nation's capital: my hometown.

An in my quieter, more private moments, I'll think of friends, colleagues, and forebears whose service to our country cost them their lives.

re: "State Looks to Hire "Foreign Service Consular Adjudicators" "

No Double Standards at Muttering Behind the Hardline ("Aut insanit homo, aut versus facit") notes a recent development.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he Foreign Service is reaching out to the public, running an advertisement soliciting applications for 20 "Consular Adjudicator" positions for individuals with Mandarin Chinese of Portuguese?"

This doesn't mean that newly-hired FSO Generalists who know/learn Chinese and Portugese (to start) won't spend a year (or more) of their early careers conducting visa interviews and implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) abroad.

This just means that the Department (generally) and the Bureau of Consular Affairs (specifically) recognizes that the number of newly-hired FSO Generalists who will be available to perform those functions (in Chinese and Portugese) is simply insufficient for the demand in these areas.

It wasn't that long ago (and the concept was resurrected recently) that there were Consular Associate positions where qualified family members worked alongside vice consuls performing nearly identical functions.

"This measure will have definite implications for consular management and for congressional perception of the consular role."

It may help consular managers to think of these Consular Adjudicators in a way similar to how the military (especially Army Aviation) handles the relationship between warrant officers and commissioned officers. Warrants are specialists in a particular technical field or function and commissioned officers are expected to move beyond that into command and leadership of larger organizations.

Part of squaring this particular circle with Congress will be treating these specialists with the respect due them.

_____

NDS is dealing with some tough personal issues lately. Be sure to show him some love and respect.

re: "TAX DAY"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") is exceedingly vexed about a Constitutional issue.

Money quote(s):

"I need to think on this. The Constitution is clear. This is an act of defiance by the President. He is defying them to impeach him.

Perhaps the Congress can order the arrest of any official who pays salaries to the Czars?

Control of the purse is the fundamental curb on monarchy, and is the oldest of the rights of Englishmen. We all need to think on this. Constitutional Crises are to be avoided but sometimes there is no choice."

re: "The Daily Caller - The Libyan intervention is not wholly legal"

David Kopel at The Daily Caller is troubled by the legalities.

Money quote(s):

"Is President Obama’s war against the Libyan government legal? It is arguably compliant with modern international law, because it has been authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Nothing in international law, however, can change the United States Constitution’s procedures for when the United States can go to war — which require the consent of Congress."

Nothing in the U.N. Charter about it superseding the Constitution. I read it (the Charter) decades ago, and if it had said something like that I feel certain it surely would have stuck in my memory.

"(T)he Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power “To declare War.” Some persons claim that the president’s commander-in-chief power includes unilateral authority to make war on his own initiative. The founders believed otherwise."

There is indeed a fuzzy bit of Constitutionality about the president's role as commander-in-chief and Congress' responsibility for declaring war. This is one of those areas that gets hashed out over time and there's often some back and forth over this stuff. That being said, it shouldn't be considered beneath the dignity of the commander-in-chief to comply with either the Constitution or at least the War Powers Act. Or so one might have thought.

"America’s first war in Libya — two centuries ago — complied with the Constitution. The Barbary pirates, who were supported by the government of Tripoli, seized American ships in the Mediterranean because the Americans would not pay protection money. While President Thomas Jefferson dispatched the American Navy to guard the ships, he asked Congress for permission to take further action. As his message to Congress acknowledged, authorization for offensive war is an “important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively.”

Congress passed two separate authorizations for military force in 1801 and 1802."

Has anyone checked to see if one of those has, perhaps, gone unexpired all these two centuries now and might still be in force?

"Placing U.S. forces under a NATO command changes nothing. Even if the NATO Treaty could somehow authorize war, that treaty only requires nations to fight in response to an attack against the territory of a NATO member."

Considering that the commander of NATO is a U.S. Navy admiral (and a good guy, by all reports), this would be a rather thin fiction at best.

re: "Libya: the decline of NATO"

Neo-Neocon ("slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon") asks simple questions.

Money quote(s):

"Libya was an ill-thought-out venture from the start. To enter a war knowing hardly anything about the forces you are supporting seems, to put it bluntly, mad. And yet that appears to be what NATO has done."

The whole mess in Libya, from a Western standpoint, seems to utterly validate the old admonition:

"Don't just do something, stand there!"

re: "North Korean Embassy Running An Illegal Casino On The Side"

Niccolo Machiavelli at Big Peace shows us how other countries pay for their embassy operations.

Money quote(s):

"Who says the North Koreans don’t understand capitalism?"

Clearly they get capitalism.

(It's those pesky human rights that have them absolutely stumped.)

"The casino and the Embassy proper are separated by a fence, and only guests with bookings can enter. The casino has four roulette tables on the second floor, five poker and blackjack tables and around 30 slot machines, while the third floor is reserved for VIP guests.

Russia banned casinos in major cities in July 2009, sending casino operators underground and prompting them to rent buildings belonging to foreign governments in a bid to take advantage of their extraterritorial status.

Citing experts, Izvestia said there is no way North Korean diplomats were unaware that their building was being used as a casino, and it is likely that it connived as a means to earn foreign currency for the regime.”"

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

re: "Cometh the Hour, Punteth the Man"

Mark Steyn at The Corner ("a web-leading source of real-time conservative opinion") critiques a speech by the president.

Money quote(s):

"America is not Greece. There is no Germany to bail us out. Only we can do it."

re: "Burning Food"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") examines an absurdity of our time.

Money quote(s):

" “We have to move away from the thinking that producing an energy
crop doesn’t compete with food. It almost inevitably does.” "

"It is important to understand that this is true. Famine threatens the Arab world as food prices rise. The Chinese are now wealthy enough to outbid most of the world for wheat, which is literally the staff of life for much of the Near East; and the Chinese people are getting used to having a variety of foods. You will note there are no riots in China. The Party system is pretty effective there, and the fires of freedom burn strongest among persecuted minorities who are pretty well doomed. I don't claim to be an expert on the Chinese Party System of government, but it appears to have become quite effective, even in this era of near-universal communications. Arthur Koestler told us that a sufficient condition for the end of totalitarian government was the free exchange of ideas, and he may well have been right: there are few totalitarian systems now. That does not mean the end of tyranny; it does mean the end of systems that insist you believe in what they want you to believe.

Even in the 1980's there were few true Communists in the USSR, even though everyone had to pretend to believe in it. It was the official doctrine, and Suslov, "the last Communist", had been able to use the official doctrine to bring about regime change. The USSR could not withstand the pressures put on the system, and the free exchange of ideas within the system undermined the basis of legitimacy of the regime. There is no such pretense of the truth of Communism in China.

The question in North Africa and the Middle East is just what is the basis of legitimacy for government? It is different in different places.

But the threat of famine menaces them all. Some are rich enough to outbid China for food. Some will be able to substitute corn -- maize, mealies, polenta -- provided that is available; but the more corn we turn into alcohol to burn as fuel the higher its price will go. I do not see that this is well understood by the policy wonks in Washington." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Let me say what Dr. Pournelle leaves unsaid.

As Americans subsidize the use of ethanol, this artificially raises the price of corn, which is used to make ethanol. As the price of corn rises, more of our agricultural capacity is used, or diverted, to grow corn and so less of our agriculturally productive land is used to produce other foodstuffs.

As the burning of food causes food prices to rise internationally (as they're already doing), China has enough of our monetary green stuff to continue to buy whatever they need on the world market. This is going to price corn and other grains out of the reach of poorer countries leading, in the medium term, to food riots, improverishment, revolutions, famine, and death.

re: "Congressman: Classify Mexican Drug Cartels As Terrorist Groups"

Niccolo Machiavelli at Big Peace reports on a serious suggestion.

Money quote(s):

"(T)his designation would allow the United States to limit cartels’ financial, property and travel interests, and to impose harsher punishment on anyone who provides material support to cartels."

This is not a step to be taken lightly. But it sharply highlights the limitations of our more conventional, "soft power" mechanisms, which don't seem to have improved matters much. Lots of consequences for diplomacy, for business, for travelers, for border states.

"Rep. McCaul, a former federal prosecutor, introduced the legislation on the eve of his hearing examining the United States’ role in the Mexico’s fight against the cartels.

Since 2006 the cartels have killed nearly 35,000 people in Mexico. Over the past year they have killed three individuals (including two U.S. citizens) connected to the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez, a gubernatorial candidate in the state of Tamaulipas, 12 sitting mayors and one U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agent.

According to a press release issued by McCaul’s office, Mexican drug cartels “operate in the same manner as al Qaeda, the Taliban or Hezbollah, each sharing a desire and using similar tactics to gain political and economic influence. They actively affect political, judicial and law enforcement in Mexico. They employ the same tactics as other organizations designated as FTOs – kidnappings, political assassinations, attacks on civilian and military targets, taking over cities and even putting up checkpoints in order to control territory and institutions. Torture, beheadings, dismemberment and mutilation are common tactics that they use to intimidate civilians and government officials."

When all else fails, apply the "if it quacks like a duck" test.

re: "The Muslim Brotherhood in America (Part IV) - Crossing the Bridge: The Implications of the Holy Land Foundation Trial (Part 1)"

John Guandolo at Big Peace explains some things which should be common knowledge.

Money quote(s):

"On a seemingly normal day on the outskirts of Annapolis, Maryland, a singular event led to the revelation of a deep-rooted enemy with a massive infrastructure inside the United States well on its way to achieving its goal of overthrowing the United States Constitution."

Sounds kinda melodramatic, don't it?

"Traveling on 50 West is a Baltimore County (MD) Marine Police unit carrying two officers. They are slowly overtaking a silver Infiniti sport utility vehicle when they notice the passenger is fully covered in what they believe is traditional Islamic garb. Her attire is not what gets their attention though – she is filming the support structures of the Bridge with a video camera. As they come alongside the vehicle she pulls the camera down, and resumes the filming when the police have passed. The officers catch that move. They notify the Maryland Transportation Authority (MTA) who has jurisdiction of the bridge. The officers conduct a vehicle stop at just about the time the MTA unit arrives on scene."

The view from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, on a clear day, is rather nice; but the bridge's support structures aren't all that telegenic even on such a day.

"The way this was handled was a fair reaction from law enforcement officers when we understand the driver of the vehicle was identified as Ismail Elbarasse – a Hamas operative (and, therefore, a Muslim Brother), wanted on a Material Witness warrant in a Hamas case out of Chicago. As more officers and the FBI are notified, the cops on scene realize there is something big going on. Why is a Hamas guy filming the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge? Investigators will later suggest that because of Al Qaeda’s reduced ability to operate in the U.S. after 9/11, it was using other groups, like Hamas, to conduct pre-operational surveillance of its targets. What is most historically earth-shattering is what follows the car stop.

The FBI executes a search warrant of Elbarasse’s home and vehicle in Annandale, Virginia. In the basement of the residence is a sub-basement. In the sub-basement, the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood are discovered. Historical documents, financial documents, strategic documents, organizational documents, and all kinds of other items are found among this incredible discovery.

Many of these documents will be entered into evidence at the largest successfully prosecuted terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history – US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (or “HLF” for short). These documents were stipulated to by the defense counsel, meaning there is no legal basis to contest their validity as being what they purport to be." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Mr. Guandolo then summarizes ten key facts established by these documents, facts you might not know, or perhaps disbelieve.

"1. Holy Land Foundation was the largest Islamic non-profit in the United States and it was a Hamas entity.

2. The leaders of HLF were senior Hamas leaders.

3. Hamas was created out of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood.

4. There is a significant Muslim Brotherhood Movement in the United States which began in the 1950’s.

5. The first national Islamic organization, the Muslim Students Association, was created by the Muslim Brotherhood.

6. The MB seeks to subordinate existing U.S. law to Shariah (Islamic Law) and re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate).

7. The most prominent Islamic organizations in North America are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement to include, but not limited to: Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), Muslim Students Association (MSA), International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) which was demonstrated to be a Hamas entity in the United States.

8. ISNA and NAIT are Hamas support entities.

9. ICNA is partnered with the Muslim American Society (MAS), and their training program to Muslims across North America includes the call to “wage war” against all systems of government not under Islamic rule, and calls Muslims to “hate and despise” all un-Islamic governments, among other things.

10. “Islamic Societies” and “Islamic Centers” across North America are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, meaning along with the mosques, non-profit organizations, lobbying groups, for-profit businesses, and the covert organizations controlled by the MB, the Muslim Brotherhood has thousands of entities in the U.S. at all levels of society working daily to bring Islamic law and Islamic rule to the United States." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Now, you may choose to disbelieve, but remember the provenance of this information. In my academic research (and that paper garnered an "A," by the way*). I've had occasion to read some of the documents which were entered into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial. They're acessable on the internet without a great deal of searching.

"What is most disturbing from this factual information is that federal agencies charged with the security of the United States, as well as state and local law enforcement organizations, have primarily worked with ISNA, CAIR, MSA, MAS or other hostile organization over the years – and continue to do so today. This creates a significant legal and practical danger to American citizens when the very agencies sworn to “protect and defend” are taking their advice from an enemy – the Muslim Brotherhood / Hamas / Al Qaeda – who has made their violent objectives crystal clear to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear."

This is one of the reasons I find it hard to take a lot of our "homeland security" efforts very seriously.

Be sure to read the final paragraph.

_____
* In the course of some of my academic work, I made it a point of putting the academic integrity of my instructors to the test, by submitting well written, assiduously documented, and painstakingly reasoned research papers leading to quite politically incorrect conclusions.

To their credit, not a single professor ever downchecked me on the basis of their personal leanings. I was very impressed.

re: "Why the Libyan War is important to us - and to our children"

Fabius Maximus ("A discussion of geopolitics – broadly defined as economics, government, sociology and the military arts – from an American’s perspective.") puts our intervention in Libya and the War Powers Act into mutual perspective.

Money quote(s):

"Summary: The Libyan War will have long-term consequences, no matter who eventually rules Libya. It’s another precedent. Another step away from the Second Republic (1788-) towards a new political regime. One with a far stronger Executive than the Founders wanted. One as strong as they feared."

This is not an uncommon viewpoint on the right side of the political spectrum.

"The Libyan War does not meet the requirements for Presidential authorization of military action. The relevant clauses are both brief and clear."

"US Code Title 50, Chapter 33: The War Powers Resolution, § 1541. Purpose and policy Section C: Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
1. a declaration of war,
2. specific statutory authorization, or
3. a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

No president, since the War Powers Act was first passed, has conceded that it actually binds them, but all have been punctilious about not violating it and complying with it, even if only as a courtesy.

"A cure will come only when we as a people decide to return to a Constitutional form of government. That would mean no public support for these discretionary wars, and the senior military leadership coming to a different understanding of how to balance their duties to obey the Commander-in-Chief and defend the Constitution.

The latter is an important and seldom mentioned point. I fear we’re slowly moving to a time where the two duties of our most senior officers will conflict, radically and unmistakably. Perhaps not in our time, but likely in our children’s time"

Accepting congressional resolutions authorizing the use of force, as was done for Afghanistan and Iraq, as constituting declarations of war is reasonable enough; it's not like the Constitution established any sort of format for this kind of document. It's up to Congress to make that sort of rule for itself, or not. It's once you start subcontracting that element of sovereignty outwith the federal system, to UN or NATO or other organs, that Constitutionalists get.... twitchy.

"The primary precedent expanding Presidential war powers; “The Korean War: On What Legal Basis Did Truman Act?“, Louis Fisher (Congressional Research Service), American Journal of International Law, January 1995 – American history might have taken a different course if our senior generals had gently requested that Truman first get Presidential approval. If they had only taken their oath more seriously."

_____

Hat tip to Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations").

re: "My Plan on How to Fight the Next Middle East War"

Frank J. Fleming at PajamasMedia ("exclusive news and opinion 24/7 with correspondents in over forty countries") is thinking about Grand Strategy.

Money quote(s):

"War is hell … if you’re in the war. For everyone else, it’s the whining that gets to us. The constant calls of “quagmire” and how everyone is dying for nothing and that we’re only making things worse and how we’re wasting money (yeah, the left used to pretend to care about that) really wear on us. I don’t know how our troops are doing with all the deployments, but all the civilians seem worn out from only hearing about war. We’re all war weary — despite most of us not being directly affected by any of the combat. Maybe our troops can handle getting shot at and going on multiple deployments just fine, but we can’t deal with the civilians complaining about it all the time."

Remember this?

"Obviously avoiding wars in the Middle East is not a realistic option, and I’m sure we’ll get involved in plenty more in the future. So how can we do that and avoid the constant whining of dumb hippies and having all those useless countries in Europe call us warmongers? Well, think back to the Iraq War and when people really started to viciously complain about it. We had broad support going in, and people were still pretty up on it during the initial bombing campaign and even once we got to the point of pulling down the Saddam statue. People truly started getting angry, and the “Bush=Hitler” signs came out in full force, when we stayed and tried to help.

Bombing a country is nothing, but hanging around the country afterward, helping it rebuild and establish a system of government where the citizens don’t get bossed around by a homicidal dictator, gets us into trouble. And it is pretty difficult for the troops; it requires them to stand out there exposed among the populace instead of just running around in tanks and exploding stuff. Plus it takes a long time, during which there will be constant whining about it, especially if there are Republicans in office to blame. The left basically collaborated with the insurgents in Iraq, saying, “Hey, if you kill more troops, then we will scream even louder about how awful this war is and hopefully get Bush out of office. So help us out here!”"

You have to love Frank J. He has a plain-spoken way of saying what he thinks and making it accessible.

"So I ask: Why should we even stay and help a country after we’ve bombed it?

Think about it. When President Bush gave that famous speech on the aircraft carrier in front of the “Mission Accomplished” banner, we could have just left the war then and said we won, and who could have argued with us? If you can go to a country, blow stuff up, and leave unscathed, that sounds like success. If someone came and burned your house and walked away, you wouldn’t say you won because the guy left. So why shouldn’t we in a future conflict in a Middle Eastern country just blow up stuff, declare victory, and leave?"

This is what's called a punitive expedition or war. Because its purpose is to punish. And that's it.

____

Hat tip to Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.").

re: "Islam, Is It like the others?"

DiploMad at The DiploMad 2.0 ("Wracked with angst over the fate of our beloved Republic, now in the hands of Morons who (mis)govern it, the DiploMad has returned to do battle on the world wide web, swearing death to political correctness, and pulling no punches.") takes us around the bases on the subject of Islam (for those who haven't been paying attention since 2001) (or 1998) (or 1993).

Money quote(s):

"We, however, must ask, is our commitment to freedom, to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights a suicide pact? What do we do when faced with powerful organizations here at home that don't believe in freedom? Organizations motivated by hatred precisely for those freedoms and the practice of tolerance? Organizations that openly seek to use our freedoms to destroy them?

During the Cold War we faced such a foe, Soviet Communism. We adopted common sense measures at home to limit the ability of Communists to undermine our nation. Communists, for example, could not hold certain sensitive jobs; they were denied security clearances; the CPUSA was treated as the agent of a hostile foreign power and was subject to penetration and surveillance by the FBI. Foreign Communists were ineligible for visas to the US or for citizenship. Did we infringe on the freedom of Communists? Yes, no doubt. Given, however, what we all should now know about the extent of Soviet espionage against the USA, and the role that the CPUSA played in efforts to undermine America, those measures seem eminently reasonable. We have had similar restrictions on Fascists, Nazis, and KKK members. All infringements, all justifiable."

This is one of those historically proven facts, well known in literate circles, that tends to cause cognitive dissonance among those indoctrinated to see no enemies on the Left, to believe Sen. McCarthy was a wrong-headed monster, to believe Alger Hiss (and the Rosenbergs) were innocent.

All of which was proven, again and again, to be counterfactual; i.e., lies and untruths.

Google "venona papers" or "mitrokhin archive" if these assertions trouble you.

"Those of us who have served in Muslim states know that when we go to those countries we must respect their culture -- OK, fine. But it turns out that when they come to our country, we also have to respect their culture -- or at least the Disney version they peddle. As I have said on many occasions, try to build a church or a synagogue in Saudi Arabia, not possible; try to prevent Muslims from building a mosque in your home town, not possible. We all, especially those of us in government, have to recite the mantra of "Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace.""

A long time ago, before becoming a diplomat, I had a very interesting interview with an officer and a gentleman whose task that day was to evaluate me for "a position of trust and responsibility with the U.S. Government." Actually, it wasn't anything to do with my security clearance (for those of you who recognize the phrasing) but everything to do with whether I was fit or suitable to lie, cheat, and steal for my country.

(As some of our special operators will tell you, "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'.)

To shorten an overlong story, I was able to convince the gentleman that, despite my Eagle Scout background, I was willing to do what was necessary on behalf of my country, to do very un-nice things to un-nice people.

Fast forwarding, I recently found myself getting into a semi-public debate about whether American diplomats should tell lies. One party (who was not a diplomat) assumed I was accusing a fellow diplomat, who was our mutual acquaintance, of being a liar. Au contraire.

The mutual acquaintance, a senior FSO for whom I have boundless admiration, is someone in whose word I would place great confidence. On the other hand, I also understand the truth in the saying "A diplomat is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country."

Pres. Bush (#43) understood (even if he never articulated it particularly well), that getting into an existential struggle with a world civilization a la Huntington, wasn't a particularly good idea.

It's still not a very good idea, but it may be one which we are unable to finally avoid.

So I'm not all that troubled by having to say the mantra. (I'm more troubled by people who know me thinking I'm stupid enough to believe it.)

"We are at war with a totalitarianism as much as we were with Communism and Fascism. It's going to be a long, long war, one in which we have to inflict repeated defeats on the Islamists"

"The Soviet Empire in practice was a social, economic and human disaster by just about any measure you care to use. Islam, likewise, as it is practiced in the modern world has produced some of the most retrograde, repressive, and violent regimes and organizations in existence. Nearly all Muslims might not be terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims. And they draw their inspiration from somewhere." (Bold type added for emphasis, primarily because this can't be said too often. - CAA)

&

"Bottom line: Do we have the right and obligation to defend ourselves against a brutal and totalitarian ideology, or do we have to put up with it because it has the label "religion?""

re: "Must Read"

Emperor Misha at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler ("HQ of the Rottweiler Empire. An Affiliate of the VRWC.") offers a creed for warriors.

Money quote(s):

"Undying loyalty to our friends, eternal and uncompromising ruthlessness to our enemies.

We cannot conquer hatred or envy, but we can control it through fear. Let them hate us, if they must, because they do not need to as it is their choice, as long as they fear us. When forced into defense, attack. Let all and sundry know that to oppose us is to die, that we shall never forgive nor forget, and that all we ask in return for the gift of us not destroying them is for them to leave us alone.

Never give in, never yield, and always remember that it is better to die after a day of fighting for liberty than it is to live a hundred years licking the boots of your conquerors.

We all suffer one death. May G-d and our own actions grant that it be a good one."

re: "Ending America: The Slaughter of Free Speech, Congress to "explore the need to limit some forms of freedom of speech" "

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs ("Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction.") takes her (and your) freedom of speech seriously.

Money quote(s):

"The very idea that our legislators would restrict free speech and impose the sharia (blasphemy laws) as a response to inhuman barbarity is an act of sedition and treason. When did we ever shred America's golden, historic principles in submission to bloody savage totalitarianism? If America really understood what was happening here and was not psy-oped by an enemedia, they would take to the streets with pitchforks and torches."

Whoa. She had me at pitchforks and torches.

(Everyone always forgets the hayrakes.)

"The idea that this will threaten American troops is just another terror tactic. This is based on the assumption that they are fighting us because we are doing things they don't like. Actually they are fighting us because of imperatives within the Islamic faith. They will never like us unless we convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. If we stop doing things they dislike, where will we draw the line? How far will Sharia advance in the U.S., with Americans afraid to stop its advance for fear of offending Muslims and stirring them up to violence? This is incompatible with American freedom. We have to draw the line."

It helps if one takes into account what ones enemies claim they are doing, and why. Attributing some other set of motives (poverty, anti-colonialism, environmentalism) based upon ivory tower precepts generated in Western think tanks betrays some serious mirror-imaging cognitive bias.

"Limiting free speech won't stop the jihadis from killing people. It will have just the opposite effect, but serve as reinforcement of their murderous actions. More people will die. Many more." (Bold type in original. - CAA)

re: "The Strange Case Of Pastor Terry Jones: A Sunday Screed"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road rejects the "Religion of Peace" construct. Emphatically.

Money quote(s):

"Were we ever to rid ourselves of the notion that Islam is "a religion of peace," we'd fall upon the Middle East, North Africa, Sudan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Muslim enclaves in Europe, and every other Islamic hellhole in a body. We'd purge that noxious creed from the world out of righteous wrath and humanitarian concern for all decent persons who want only to live in peace. Anyone who would dare to suggest that we'd be wrong to do so would earn our undying contempt."

I've got to say, as un-fond as I am of, the counterfactual ROP mantra, it's always seemed to me that Prof. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory was as much a warning as a paradigm. And that Pres. Bush (43) was correct in not making the GWOT into an intercivilizational war.

"There is absolutely no possibility of "reforming" Islam. Islam is founded on violence. It's made all its gains in the world through violence and intimidation."

And behavior which is rewarded will be repeated. Got that part.

re: "Where the push for ground troops may come from ... "

CDR Salamander at Cdr Salamander ("Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.") correctly opposes mission creep in Libya.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hat if, as things are trending, the rebel forces simply cannot dislodge Kadafi and his sons from power? With no one left to save and unlikely to destroy Bengazi in order to save it - a lot of nations are left having attacked a nation with nothing to show for it to the world or their citizens.

Somewhere between a full collapse of the rebellion and a last stand - someone will point out what has been invested at this point and the danger of a Qadaffi family's survival and the shaming of all the coalition nations. All that good advice about, "If you are set on regicide, you must succeed." and "If you set out to take Vienna; take Vienna." will come to the front along with a healthy bit of, "You won't get a second chance."

Everyone will look to the USA. I think SECDEF Gates is not bluffing - and I don't think the CINC will put troops ashore.

The rest of the Coalition therefor will not do it - because they cannot do it militarily without the USA - and politically with their population."

It's always nice to have Big Sam to rely, and blame, upon.

"(W)e are in this - I support 100% all efforts to win this ... to a point. We do not need another occupation by USA forces of a Muslim nation.If the rebellion continues to collapse, the push will come for ground troops ... and will pass. Uncle Sam will shrug - and I will support the President 100% saying "No."

I will fault him for getting involved in this folly to begin with - but will support his and SECDEF Gates's wise decision to let this opportunity for imperial humanitarianism pass.
Will it be a complete POL/MIL mess with second and third order effects that will be exceptionally distasteful? Yes. That is why you don't do things like this."

Once you go "kinetic," there no taking it back. If Qhadafy survives in power, even in a rump state, he will exact revenge. It's how he rolls.

re: "UN's Compound In Mazar-i-Sharif Was Not Well Protected "

TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("Giving my fellow Americans the view from my cubicle") gives a professional evaluation of the site security at the scene of this massacre.

Money quote(s)

"(T)he UN Mission relied on the presence of local police and their own (third country national) armed guards to deter mobs. They evidently did not put up the kinds of physical barriers - high perimeter walls and gates, entry control facilities, protected guard booths and police fighting position, etc., - that would have delayed and channeled the mob, and made it more feasible for the armed presence to prevent anyone from entering.

Without that element of physical delay, guards and police can't be fully effective."

"Inside the UN compound, the headquarters building likewise lacked physical security relevant to a mob attack."

"While most people will assume that any wall, door, or window that was built to resist bomb blast will also resist small arms fire and forced entry, that is not at all the case. In order to protect people against a prolonged mob attack that uses small arms and improvised hand tools ("hammers or whatever they could find") you need products that were specifically designed for that purpose, like the ones that U.S. embassies use.

FYI, for a detailed description of how those embassy products are tested, and I do mean detailed, see this article in an old issue of a construction trade journal."

&

"(T)he international community might want to take a lesson from our Fortress Embassies"

This last might be more difficult than you'd think, since it would require a mental shift from the "we're the UN, everyone loves us" to "some of our ungrateful public may try to kill us" mindset.

Also, there's a reason for all those security features we saddle ourselves with, they're really not there just to employ hardware manufacturers in favored congressional districts.

re: "A little bit about the Foreign Service, Vietnam, et cetera. "

The Warpiper ("Tooting My Own Horn") has an excellent description of what it's like to be a first-tour consular officer.

Money quote(s):

"(O)ne of the realities of the Foreign Service that maybe a prospective FSO will find useful. Foreign Service work is busy. Everybody likes to claim that their particular occupation is either challenging, frenetic, or both. However, I can say that I am much busier on any given day in my current occupation than I EVER was as a street copper. The precinct where I spent a large chunk of my time over my 17 year career at the PD was no sleeper, either. Police work is 98% boredom and 2% sheer terror. Foreign Service work is constantly in motion. I have not yet found the time in my schedule to be bored.

That being said, if you are considering trying your hand at a career in the FS, let me give a little advice based on my thus far limited experience. This is a very rewarding career and you will accomplish much. You will be stretched to your limits in terms of the responsibilities you will be handed. I have yet to meet a FSO without enough to do. You will feel, at times, that there isn't enough time in the day to properly address all your duties, and you will be correct in that feeling."

Just so.

re: "Saturday"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") explains something about the correlation of forces in Libya.

Money quote(s):

“We used to understand that mob cannot stand up to regulars. Militia barely can and usually cannot. The wording of the Second Amendment is not accidental.”

re: "Sunday Reflection: From 'just-in-time' to 'just-in-case?' "

Glenn Harlan Reynolds of Instapundit ("the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty") gives us a new management principle in a Washington Examiner article.

re: "Culturally Sensitive Female Soldiers"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") provides his own unique perspective on cultural sensitivity.

Money quote(s):

"We’re now talking about women in combat, and if we’re sending women overseas in that role we should only be emphasizing how superior they are to all around them and how they can easily kill anyone. They can’t be getting orders like, “So take down all the hostiles… unless one of them asks you to make him a sammich, because they expect women to do that in their culture.” Some cultures have idiotic beliefs, and we have to be a little less sensitive and more willing to call them out on that. When we go into a country, we should make a nice list of what about their culture is idiotic and what we won’t respect, just so everyone is clear.

Plus, why is it on our female soldiers to be sensitive? The one with the assault rifle — now that’s who people need to worry about being sensitive to." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA)

re: "Our barbarian allies kill UN workers in Kabul"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") says no to submission.

Money quote(s):

"There are those who believe that their religion supersedes all earthly existence. They are willing to kill you if you simply disagree with them, and they claim the right to be free from offense by everyone else on the planet. They are not a simple minority hiding on the fringes of Muslim society. They are running the mosques, they are indoctrinating their flock, they are inculcating hatred, racism, xenophobia and they are directly inciting murderous violence.

Their demand is simple.......Submit. We can either do so, or we need to resist. I reject the right of anyone to claim they can choose to limit my freedoms based on their personal religious beliefs."

re: "The Greatest U.S. Army Jokes Ever"

Andrew Exum at Abu Muqawama exhibits some rather dark humor with his list.

re: "U.S.-Pakistan Relations in Decline"

Daniel Pipes at DanielPipes.Org ("a fast way to comment on many topics") makes some foreign policy suggestions.

Money quote(s):

"(H)ere is a realistic policy recommendation that serves American interests:

Give up on the pretence that the two governments are allies and treat Pakistan – with its many madrassahs, its Islamist military leadership, and rogue intelligence service – as a danger zone. Adopt a policy of containment vis-à-vis the Islamism coming out of it, rewarding cooperation and punishing hostile acts. This approach permits Washington flexibly to collaborate or confront as circumstances warrant and needs change."

The most obvious and immediate drawback for this approach is that Pakistan comprises the main supply routes (MSR) for our military forces in Afghanistan.

This is not so say we can't or shouldn't do this, but that there are consequences to doing so and preparation would be essential for managing them.

re: "Disadvantages of an Elite Education"

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") contributes some thoughts to a discussion on elitist institutions.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hile the Ivies and their elite cousins confer many advantages on their graduates, they also wall them off from normal people and create an entitled, out-of-touch elite. As a product of decidedly non-elite institutions working to put my daughters on an elite path, much of it rings true."

"The closest thing in my personal experience to the “you are special” indoctrination is the year and a half I spent at West Point. While admission was largely meritocratic and more economically diverse that our brethren at the Ivies, the notion that we were an elite vanguard was inculcated in us from the earliest days. (Rather odd in hindsight, since they also spend the first year doing their best to make cadets feel inadequate.) Not only were we a cut above our civilian college brethren but the Army and the country were depending on us to guard its virtue. While academy graduates were a small part of the officer corps, we would be like a drop of ink in a barrel of water, changing the character of the whole Army.

Even though I nearly drowned in that environment and wound up finishing at a podunk regional school for financial reasons, it took me a couple of years to fully shake off the notion that, simply having been selected to go to West Point, that I was special. So, I can certainly see how someone who spends years in that sort of environment–and years in select schools competing to get there–would have an enormous sense of entitlement."

Sadly, in my many years in and around State Dept., I've seen many examples of the entitlement syndrome. Back before I joined the Foreign Service, I was even known to theorize that the "A" in "A-100" (the traditional but unofficial* designation of the Foreign Service Officer Orientation course, which as an actual course number completely different from that) stood for "arrogance." As in it was the capability being taught in that course.

That's not actually the case, but we do get quite a few "special snowflakes" joining the service and they can have some adjusting to do as they proceed abroad to some very non-elite assignments as junior officers.

Selection into the Foreign Service is almost completely meritocratic. Plenty of us come from non-elite backgrounds. And the only reason I say "almost" is because of the Qualifications Evaluation Panel phase which is now part of the FSO accession/selection process. It was implemented some years after I was hired and I find it just a little bit opaque, something of a "black box" in the process.

Personally, I've had the privilege of being part of several "elite" groups in my professional life over the years, culminating most recently in my career as an FSO and in some of my assignments therein.

(Oh, and attending an "elite" educational institution was not one of them until fairly late in life)

What those experiences taught me was that, as smart as I think I am or believe myself to be, there are folks even smarter than that and it's never a good idea to think you're either the smartest guy in the room or that you already know everything there is to know about something or that you can't learn something from people who might not be as smart as you are.

"(W)ell-connected graduates of elite schools often get on the fast track right from the outset. There are people working at the White House, Congressional staff, and the Joint Chiefs with less subject matter expertise and real world experience than I had fifteen years ago. There’s simply a huge degree of path determinacy at work."

In D.C., in certain "social circles," one encounters the youngest versions of these folks, the "Hill rats." As in "Capitol Hill." More than one FSO has come away from encounters with these, and some of their more senior brethren, convinced that many bear a serious chip on their shoulders about the Foreign Service, a grudge dating back to when they were unable to either pass the FS examinations or otherwise make it through the selection and appointment process. None of us could prove it, but the impression has come across to many different FSOs around the world at various times.

(I should mention, just to be clear, that I've also had tremendously positive professional encounterss with various Hill and Executive Branch staffers. They tended to be the ones experienced enough to know what the Foreign Service does and what FSOs can do for them assisting the completion of their own responsibilities.)

"Moreover, the degree is always a trump card. I’m well past the point where anyone cares where my undergraduate degree is from. Unless I’m applying for an academic job, it’s at the bottom of my resume. But people who went to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Berkeley, and the like are still getting credit for it decades later."

He concludes:

"It’s very easy for those in the professional class to live in a bubble of their own creation and, especially, to put one around our kids. And, frankly, the incentives to do so are powerful. There has to be a balance between making providing opportunities for your kids and walling them off from reality."