re: "Cover Your Eyes - Congressman Rohrabacher Wants Iraq to Repay US for Our Nutsy and Klutzy Iraq Invasion & Reconstruction!"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") totally flogs this unto death.

Also:

"Mr. Rohrabacher had previously announced that he plans to hold a hearing to investigate the April 8th massacre of Iranian civilians at Camp Ashraf in Eastern Iraq and "what role the U.S. State Department may have played in a cover up of the crime." "


_____

(Voluntary Disclaimer: Rep. Rohrabacher took most of a business day out of his doubtless busy schedule to take part in welcoming my reserve battalion home from Iraq back in 2004. Even though we were (several) hours late in arriving from our demobilization site, he stuck around long enough to give a (short) welcoming speech to us before our commanders released us to our families.)

_____

Afterthought: There's actually a reasonably established precedent for this sort of thing. It's called "reparations." The losers (of a war) have to pay back the winners for the trouble of having to go to war with them.

re: "Rule of law watch: Does Barack Obama have a fool for a client?"

Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") remarks on the first stage of some recent opinion shopping.

Money quote(s):

"Long-standing fans of the back-and-forth will remember the enormous grief that the Bush administration got for following the opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, particularly on the question of enhanced interrogation (or, if you are a liberal, "torture"). The accusation was, more or less, that the OLC's incumbent, John Yoo, was turning analytical cartwheels to arrive at the result that Dick Cheney wanted. Well, it turns out that on the question of the Libya war, Barack Obama overruled the OLC." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

&

"(I)t is "extraordinarily rare" for a president to overrule the OLC -- prior to Barack Obama, the last president to do it was FDR. Obama has now done it twice. Perhaps the president has such confidence in his own legal acumen that he does not need no stinkin' OLC approval."

re: "In Case Anyone Cares, Obama Is Fighting What Is Actually, Demonstrably an "Illegal War" "

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ gets this about ninety-percent correct.

Money quote(s):

"The scheme of the War Powers Act is that a president can make war, absent authority, for sixty days. Once that sixty day limit is reached, he must begin winding down the effort as soon as possible, and must end all confrontation (even of the retreat/withdrawal under fire type) thirty days after that.

Now, the President can of course seek authorization for war in that sixty day window, in which case the Constitution is satisfied and the War Powers Act no longer applies.

The President has not sought any resolution or authorization. Has not even sought it."

There are some exceptions to this, such as when U.S. forces or territory come under attack.

According to the Library of Congress: "the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541)."

"Clinton did the same thing with Bosnia. So this isn't the first time.

Odd that only Republican Presidents need to, and do in fact, seek resolutions of war, while the Democrats who scream the loudest about this part of the Constitution (one of the few they like) just ignore it again and again.

Obama's theory (as was Clinton's) is that because this is being fought "by NATO," then it's not... what, war? I don't get this."

It's always been my understanding that the U.S. was a fully-vested, voting member of NATO. And that the current supreme commander in NATO is a U.S. Navy admiral.

"Most nations go to war as part of an alliance of some kind. They always have. They likely always will.

Where does this idea spring from that when a Democrat wants to go to war without constitutional authorization, he can point to whatever countries he's in alliance with and say "I know the Constitution says I need an authorization of war, but look, I've got Martinique on my side, Hoss. Gold standard." "

&

"I(t) doesn't bloody matter what organization is nominally in charge of a war, or what combination of countries you're allied with. The Constitution does not say that you need either a declaration of war or France has your back.

There is one statement. It applies to all circumstances. It doesn't matter if we're doing it on behalf of the UN, NATO, the G-8, the NAFTA trade zone, SEATO, or fuck-all else."

re: "The Problem is Not the War Powers Act"

Howie at The Jawa Report ("sand people; get it?") does some crystal-ball gazing.

Money quote(s):

"Gadhafi is making Obama and NATO look like a bunch of damned fools."

&

"The Libyan rebels are obviously melting away, waiting on NATO to do the dying for them. At this rate this will go on forever. And I'm getting damn tired of figuring out how to spell Momar's name every day.

So its all that and the War Powers Act. Without the congress Gadhafi can hang like a millstone around Obama's neck through Nov. 2012."

re: "Obama Killed The War Powers Act? No, Congress Did"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") analyzed an analysis from the Washington Post.

Money quote(s):

"Ackerman and Hathway make the same mistake that many people wh(o) analyze this issue do in that they view the Presidency’s power grab int he area of war powers as a completely one sided matter. They forget that there is more than one branch of the Federal Government. As I noted when the debate over the Libyan engagement began (which was roughly an hour after the President announced it), Congress has nobody to blame but itself for the fact that Presidents have essentially written them out of the war powers process over the past 60 years"

Mr. Mataconis also made an on-target criticism whose underlying basis changed just this week past.

"With but a few notable exceptions, two of which happen to share the last name Paul, no Senator or Congressman of either party has stood up and said anything over the past two months about the President’s decision to commit American military forces to action in a nation that did not attack us and poses no threat to us or our interests, in a conflict where we still aren’t even sure if the “rebels” are any better than the government they’re trying to overthrow. Nobody in Capitol Hill with the power to do so has help hearings on the engagement, or suggested that the matter be put to a vote in the House and the Senate."

He concluded:

"The problem is what this means for the future. Once again, Congress has abdicated in the face of a Presidential power grab and that means that, in the future, this President and his successors will feel much more free to act without considering either the desires, or the existence, of Congress. One day, maybe Congress will wake up and realize what’s happened, and when they do they will only need to look in the mirror to find the party responsible for this disaster."

re: "Foreign policy shrapnel, when Europe blows"

Phil Levy at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") is worried about Europe.

Money quote(s):

"There is a strong temptation to take European stability for granted. After an exceedingly shaky start to the 20th Century, Europe got its act together, overcame animosities, and became a steady and supportive ally of the United States."

"What if you're an old-school, throw-weight and Congress of Vienna foreign policy type?"

Guilty. Mr. Levy lists four foreign policy consequences to the current Euro-zone financial crisis. He concludes:

"Decades of European stability have been a wonderful boon. It is hard to see how that stability survives the continent's current economic crisis. If Europe falters, the ramifications will not be limited to the world of finance."

In addition to being "an old-school, throw-weight and Congress of Vienna foreign policy type," CAA is an old Cold Warrior, who cut his teeth on (and in) NATO and our Western European allies, facing off against the Soviet motorized rifle hordes, somewhere over yonder past the Fulda Gap.

CAA likes Europe. CAA likes Europeans. Not more than or to the exclusion of Americans, you understand, but there's a lot of common history and culture shared with our co-civilizationists, plus a lot of personal friendships and other relationships.

On the more Realpolitik side of things, they're also a huge trading partner, not to mention the military-potential side of things. So Europe matters to the U.S., somewhat more than any other landmass of comparable population.

re: "The Final Assault: Foreseeable Mopping-Up Operations"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road extrapolates along similar lines as my yesterday's post.

Money quote(s):

"Since the enactment of same-sex marriage legislation by the State of New York, certain questions have been on the minds of those opposed to the idea:

What else will this change?
Will churches, synagogues, etc. be compelled to solemnize same-sex marriages?
What about businesses run by religious proprietors?"

&

"Given that New York, despite the cosmopolitan-secular veneer afforded it by New York City, is as religious as any other part of the country, the bill could not have passed the Senate without such provisions. However, given the activism of American judges, there is no guarantee that an appellate court will swallow either the exemptions or the inseverability provision. A court decision mandating same-sex marriage without any exemptions is quite possible, just as same-sex marriage was foisted upon Massachusetts by a judicial decree.

Finally, given the documented history of homosexuals' pressure upon the churches, particularly the Catholic Church, to accept them and their ways despite longstanding doctrine, it's easy to foresee additional rounds in this battle." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

re: "Quick Takes, June 16, 2011"

MikeM. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") shares some quick takes.

Money quote(s):

"ITEM: He Did WHAT?! Remember, gentle readers, the war over the Falkland Islands? You remember that Argentina seized the British Islands in 1982 and the Brits, plucky critters that they are, seized them back? Since taking office, one of the foremost elements of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy has been egregiously insulting our allies, and none more stupidly and regularly than the British. Last June, he backed an Argentinian call for “negotiations” over the islands (read: for forcing the British to give them to Argentina). And now, fresh from his latest diplomatic debacle of insulting the Queen with a clumsy toast, he has again backed a similar resolution. Oh yes, Argentina is more and more allying itself with our declared enemies in the region, so it’s a cinch that Mr. Obama would support them. Go here for the story."

&

"ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Smart Diplomacy Division. I was shocked, shocked! when I discovered that Mr. Obama and the State Department were—how should I put it? Naïve? Foolish? Abysmally stupid?—in their approach to Egypt and their assumption that everything would be just fine, because after all, the Muslim Brotherhood are really just a bunch of moderates who long for democracy. Right. Not so much. Go here to the Washington Post, which speaks of the current and ongoing battle for the future of Egyptian culture. Will Egypt continue to be a reasonably secular democracy or an Islamic theocracy with all that implies? “There is going to be a battle between two visions for Egypt,” the article quotes. Indeed. And the Islamists are heavy favorites as they will have no hesitation in murdering anyone who disagrees with them. Smart diplomacy indeed."

re: "More Foreign Policy Insanity"

Rand Simberg at Transterrestrial Musings ("Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!") is unable to embrace the absurdity.

Money quote(s):

"There must be some reason, but I doubt if it’s a good one."

re: "Gay marriage: as New York goes, so goes."

Neo-Neocon (" to tell the tale of my political change and provide a forum for others") seems to approve of New York's gay marriage law.

Money quote(s):

"New York has legalized gay marriage in the best way possible: at the state level, by legislation, and with exemptions for “religious organizations to refuse to perform services or lend space for same-sex weddings.”

This is far better than legislation by court rulings, and far better than a federal law."

&

"I do know that I believe that the religious exemptions in the New York law are important, and that they may indeed be threatened by challenges in the future."

My apologies to both my readers for veering into this issue. I'll enter a plea of "this connects with consular work due to the Defense of Marriage Act."

Neo-Neocon correctly notes perhaps the most critical line-in-the-sand relating to this issue: future potential coercion of religious authorities to require they provide marriage services to same-sex couples.

"They" will say that's just nonsense and alarmism, that "they" just want equal standing in civil law. But this is not just a "slippery slope" issue (as Neo-Neocon describes it), but it is also a moving-the-goal-posts issue. Every time ground is gained on a "gay rights" issue that activests publicly swear is all they really want, it's not more than three-to-five years before the next, previously unthinkable, goalpost is reached for.

As Neo-Neocon also remarks, "this question will be moot in another generation or two in most states, because younger people are far more likely to support the legalization of gay marriage than older people are." This is key.

But what is also key is what in the short term will become a third-rail issue for those who cling bitterly to their religion and guns. They will not much cotton to being told, or having their churches told, that they must now practise as a sacrament what would previously have been considered a mortal sin.

Better writers than I, with better imaginations, can readily flesh-out the details of an alternate future where federal agents force the "integration" of churches as a civil rights issue, or, even worse, act out this century's version of the Waco massacre. All of this could proceed, quite logically and predictably, from the legal and legislative developments of today, plus a few years for the voting public to forget the current administration's failings long enough to elect another one like it.

I don't much fear same-sex marriage personally. I'm a U.S. foreign service officer working for the State Department: it's not like I've never met a same-sex couple.

What I do fear is federal over-reach into those freedoms actually and specifically enumerated, cited, and protected in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. That kind of arrogant stupidity causes civil wars.

re: "Why Republicans really want a louder Obama"

Joshua Keating at PASSPORT ("A Blog By The Editors Of Foreign Policy") is usually smarter than this.

Quote(s):

"This doesn't really make any sense. Bachman (sic) thinks the Libya intervention is a disastrously misguided mission, but America should be taking a more prominent role in it? ("We may be going straight to hell but damned if we're going to let the French get there first!")"

Actually, that's not what she said, as Mr. Keating's excerpt makes clear:

"Our policy in Libya is substantially flawed. It's interesting. President Obama's own people said that he was leading from behind. The United States doesn't lead from behind. As commander in chief, I would not lead from behind.

We are the head. We are not the tail. The president was wrong. All we have to know is the president deferred leadership in Libya to France. That's all we need to know. The president was not leading when it came to Libya."

What Mr. Keating missed here is the decision-making aspect of leadership. France has taken the lead with respect to what can laughingly be referred to as NATO's "Libya policy." Not the U.S. Rep. Bachmann said nothing about the U.S. taking a more prominent role in the Libyan intervention. In fact, she seems to be implying that that U.S. leadership might have headed off there being any intervention there at all.

Sadly, this sort of thing was predicted by diploblogging legend Diplomad just yesterday:

"(T)he liberal elite attacks on her will be unrelenting; any minor flub, slip, or inconsistency will be headline news and fodder for the dopey late night "comics." The libs will go through her life with a microscope. This will get ugly. She is going to be abused, maligned, and "Palined" because she does not fit the mould the liberal elite and their MSM pets have decreed for politically savvy and smart women politicians. She is a conservative, a real one, and that's something the libs just cannot abide. To make matters worse, she fights back, and doesn't apologize for being conservative. Women, blacks, Hispanics, and Jews are supposed to be liberal, if they're not, it's OK to call them anything you want: Misogyny or racism in the service of liberalism is just free speech or funny."

re: "Ideas for students..."

UT Team at Foggy Bottom Rambles ("a blog for unaccompanied tour employees and family members") offers some linkage to summer employment opportunities for students at the State Department.

re: "A “Troubled Marriage”?"

Rand Simberg at Transterrestrial Musings ("Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!") calls them like he sees them.

Money quote(s):

"Pakistan is essentially at war with us, and has been for many years."

I'm not going to argue this one way or the other, but I am going to note that the "nation" of Pakistan is a geopolitical fiction. There's a territory on the map by that name, but it's really two or three different "nations" (for values of nationhood). There are definitely major factions (tribal, religious, political, combinations of the preceding, &tc.) at war with the West, with Western Civilization, with Christendom, and indeed with the United States.

"It would be an impossible military task to conquer the country, absent massive carnage, but I wonder if there would be some way to take away the nukes?"

That's a great question and I'm just going to quietly hope that there are some folks on the payroll who've given this some thought.

re: "Bin Laden Deserved No Benefit of the Doubt"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("aims to explain in a open-minded, reasonable way how diplomacy works in practice") lifted an excellent passage worth reading.

Money quote(s):

"Pure foolishness. And therefore all the more prevalent these days."

re: "Quote of the Day"

Andrew at Abu Muqawama ("dedicated to following issues related to contemporary insurgencies as well as counterinsurgency tactics and strategy") liked what SecDef Gates said recently.

Money quote(s):

"From the perspective of many U.S. legislators and tax-payers, one of the reasons the states of Europe enjoy such nice social welfare programs is because the United States has effectively subsidized the continent's defense spending since 1989. A few weeks back, I was in a meeting with some representatives from one of our NATO allies, who warned me that if the United States moved troops out of Europe, European states would respond by only developing military organizations capable of operating in Europe and North Africa.

I responded that would be a real improvement!

Currently, the European states seem unable to carry out mid-sized military operations independently."

One of the, at the time, touted advantages of the NATO military alliances was sort of an economy of scale. With all these different nations pooling their military resources, each didn't have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, and were thus able to specialize somewhat, rather than suffer multiple duplications of effort so that each country had their own full range of military capabilities.

Unfortunately, what we have today is, rather than national specializations, is something more akin to a collection of boutique militaries, each expecting Big Sam to provide all those over-arching (and expensive) capabilities like reconnaissance, logistics, aircraft carrier battle groups, and the like.

"This kind of reckoning between the United States and the states of Europe has been long overdue. Some European states have proven themselves serious about both the alliance and their own national defense. (I'm looking at you, Denmark.) Others have not. If Germans complain with justification that their workers subsidize Greek hair-dressers taking early retirements, it's perfectly fair for the United States to complain German workers enjoy comfy state benefits in part because U.S. tax-payers underwrite their national defense."

re: "Lawfare v. Warfare: Bin Laden family uses a little “Alinsky” on US and Obama"

McQ at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") understands the mental judo being attempted through lawfare.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he “bin Laden family” condemns the attack on their father and demands that there be a reckoning"

There was a reckoning. That was the whole point.

"They’re also threatening to take the case to the International Criminal Court which would be an interesting turn of events.

The hidden premise, of course, is OBL was a criminal, not an unlawful combatant and we violated the law."

Which "law" was that exactly?

International law, like the international community, is a fiction. It's a useful one, sometimes, but it's more aspiraational than real. The "World" has no court. The "World" has no policemen. Sovereign nations do, and sometimes let international organizations like the U.N. use them.

"The death of bin Laden is being described in some quarters as an “extrajudicial killing”. In fact, bin Laden was always considered to be an “unlawful combatant” by us and as such had no such protections. In warfare, the targeted killing of an enemy, in this case unlawful combatant, is quite legal.

So what you are seeing here are competing premises, one saying terrorism is simply a criminal act and therefore terrorists must be treated as common criminals would be treated as well as afforded various rights because of that status. The other says they are enemies who have declared war on the US, committed numerous acts of war and, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, are “unlawful combatants” and enemies whose targeted killing is an accepted practice of warfare.

Lawfare vs. warfare.

I think we’ve been pretty clear since the beginning, with the AUMF (which the Obama administration ironically used as the legal basis for its raid into Pakistan), that we’re at war (and yes, I also accept the AUMF as a declaration of war) what we consider these terrorists."

While, as a traditionalist, I would prefer our declarations of war to have "DECLARATION OF WAR" printed in bold typeface at the top of a sheet of parchment, with heavy maroon wax seals in gilt skippets suspended by wide red ribbons, that's just not how congress rolls these days.

"This is not a criminal matter. It is a military matter and it was executed as such. The lesson it teaches other terrorists who’ve declared war on “the Great Satan” is we are relentless and remorseless. Those are two good messages to send." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

re: "The Ideology of Pestilence"

Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna ("At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.") explains how conspiracy is not necessary when consensus suffices.

Money quote(s):

"To conceive of the Islamic invasion as a centrally-directed process is to misunderstand its nature and impose a Western model of behavior on the collective psychological, social, and political actions of Muslims.

Overall Islamic strategy is not coherent and well-organized, no matter how shrewd and effective any of its individual actors and groups may be. To conceive of it as a political entity with a dictator or single decision-making body is to miss the point.

Islam is effective precisely because it is a distributed phenomenon, and utilizes what might be called a micro-ideology — a small set of easily-understood instructions that are encoded and replicated in hundreds of millions of minds across the length and breadth of the Ummah." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Author Tom Kratman says something similar about transnational progressivism; that it's not necessary for there to be a conspiracy, only a widely-accepted consensus about a world-view.

"The exploitation of the infidel may involve a full violent jihad. It may also take the form of razzia — armed raids, pillaging, looting, rapine, and destruction.

In 21st-century Europe, Canada, and the United States, however, the preferred method is what has been called the “stealth jihad” — the gradual but steady infiltration, occupation, and subversion of Western countries.

This does not need to be a hierarchically-arranged and centrally-directed process to be effective. In fact, a full onslaught organized by an outside political entity would be detected and countered, because this is the traditional form of political conflict which the West recognizes, and in which it is supreme.

The stealth jihad in all its forms is the only strategy which can conquer the West, and it is very effective indeed, since our political systems have no template that includes it. We cannot fit it into any conceptual framework, and seem unable or unwilling to devise a new one that would allow us to deal with it effectively." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

The Muslim Brotherhood actually developed, and U.S. law enforcement discovered, the plan for an Islamic takeover of the U.S. Set your search engine for the Holy Land Foundation trial and take a look at was was entered into evidence. Or peruse some of my earlier posts with the Muslim Brotherhood tag.

"Most of the boat people who arrive on Lampedusa or Pantelleria do not view themselves as the vanguard of an Islamic invasion. They come with all the various motivations that you would expect from a group of poverty-stricken and mostly illiterate refugees — fear of repression and violence back home, a desperate search for a better means of subsistence, the desire to take advantage of the legendary bounty of Europe, etc.

However, since they carry within themselves the encoded instructions of Islamic micro-ideology, their modus operandi will be one of rapacious exploitation. They will have no moral scruples of the sort that a Westerner would understand, and feel no shame or embarrassment about being indolent parasites upon their infidel hosts — the simplified Islam they bring with them tells them that this is exactly their due, their basic right as members of a superior social group living amidst their inferiors.

Individual behavior driven by this imperative, when multiplied by thousands or millions, aggregates into an Islamic conquest. Not necessarily suddenly. It doesn’t have to happen all at once. Gradually, over decades, there are more and more Muslims. Always taking, taking, taking from the kuffar. Slowly, imperceptibly, as they become more numerous, our system fades away and is replaced by theirs.

In the long run, Islamic exploitation always fails. The parasite always kills its host. The process takes centuries — the glory of the Persians and the Byzantines persisted for a long time after the Islamic conquest. But in the end their lights guttered and died, and they became corrupt and backward satrapies until the magic of petroleum revived them."

This process is well understood among leading Islamic scholars. Witness a recent call, in the interests of ending Egyptian poverty, for the taking of loot, booty, and slaves from the (infidel) West.

re: "Let’s Talk Amnesty Again"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") presents the downside of immigration reform attempts.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hy bring up amnesty for illegal immigrants now? And you just know it’s a loser issue in how dishonest people excusing illegal immigration are. For one, they always try to group in illegal immigration with legal immigration since illegal immigration is pretty indefensible by itself. And the people for amnesty are always so schizophrenic on whether illegal immigration is a bad thing in the first place. Like Obama is proudly making the ridiculous claim that the border fence has been completed — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants is a good thing — but then wants us to pass amnesty — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants isn’t a big deal. Which is it? And the amnesty people are never clear on what their endgame is. Do they want to get rid of borders? Do they want to keep a broken system they can demagogue about? Who knows. No wonder amnesty people are always turning to the racist charge since a coherent argument isn’t an option.

I think people would have a lot more sympathy, though, for illegal immigrants if they were more sorry about it. Like if they all were like, “We’re really sorry to do this, but you have to understand how much Mexico sucks and how nice your country is. You wouldn’t want to live in Mexico.” But instead illegal immigrants are all indignant we even care about this and think they’re owed citizenship." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

A little bit of remorse would go a long way in this regard, rather than ahistorical claims that they didn't cross the borders, the borders crossed them.

re: "This Week at War: Moral Hazard at NATO"

Robert Haddick at Small Wars Journal ("facilitates the exchange of information among practitioners, thought leaders, and students of Small Wars, in order to advance knowledge and capabilities in the field") foresees the end of the free ride.

Money quote(s):

"Europe may not be able to rely on America's free security guarantee forever."

Nothing is forever. That should be plain enough. But even in geopolitical terms, where a single lifetime approximates for "forever," alliances require constant tending, by all their members. Or they're not really alliances.

(Don't get me wrong, as an old "Cold Warrior," I think NATO, when it worked, was one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century.)

"In blasting NATO, Gates explains what moral hazard feels like

In what he termed his "last policy speech as U.S. defense secretary," Robert Gates ripped into his policymaking peers at NATO headquarters in Brussels last week for allowing "significant shortcomings in NATO in military capabilities, and in political will" to occur. Gates noted that although the non-U.S. alliance members have more than 2 million troops in uniform, these countries struggle to deploy 40,000 soldiers into an effective military campaign. Gates also pointed to NATO's embarrassing performance in Libya, noting that European members, despite having a multitude of officers collecting paychecks at frivolous staff billets, have failed to generate the intelligence support and command capabilities needed to wage an effective air campaign. Gates warned of a "dismal future for the transatlantic alliance."

Gates's frustration was no doubt sparked by the realization that his department has become the victim of moral hazard. The United States provides a free security guarantee to Europe. Europeans, meanwhile, have responded in an economically rational way by taking greater risk with their external defense. With the collapse of the Soviet Union removing the last plausible military threat, it was logical for European policymakers to avoid spending on expensive space, communications, and intelligence systems that the United States was largely providing for free. Gates and many other U.S. policymakers see an alliance with too many free riders"

This has always been the case, at least as long as I can recall. But at least before, when NATO as an alliance had as its primary military purpose the defense of Western Europe, even the smaller, less militarily-capable members knew, and planned for, a fight that would probably take place on, and above, their own territories. So even if they didn't have that many chips to put into the pot, they planned to ante-up with what they did have.

"Gates fears that the United States will have to bail out the Libya operation. This week, Adm. Mark Stanhope, Britain's top naval officer, warned that budget limits and unit rotation requirements could force NATO combatants over Libya to soon have to choose between Libya and Afghanistan. Should a shortfall of European forces in either campaign result, Gates undoubtedly fears that the United States will have to make up the gap.

Over the longer term, the moral hazard issue extends beyond NATO into the Western Pacific, the South China Sea, and soon the Persian Gulf. For example, the United States has a great interest in signaling to China that it has strong security commitments to its partners in the region. Washington likewise wants those partners to share the defense burden and to also avoid provocative behavior. The stronger the signal it sends to China, the less incentive the partners have to do their part."

&

"Gates concluded his speech by warning Europe's leaders that the next generation of U.S. leaders lacks nostalgia for the Cold War struggle and could walk away from the NATO alliance. In the future, Europe will undoubtedly have to do more for its external defense. That doesn't seem like a problem now since there is no apparent external threat. But should they have to more fully insure themselves, European defense planners should consider how they would rebuild their defenses. They should consider how much time it would take to mobilize political and budgetary authority to prepare for these threats and how long it would take to rebuild the required military forces. Most notable in this regard is the risk of losing both a defense industrial base and functioning military institutions, which once gone might never be restored, at least within a relevant time frame."

You're a member of the NATO alliance you have, not the one you wish you had.

(Or, alternatively you're not.)

A country which so degrades its military institutions to the point where there's not any there left, is likely to have to learn the harsh lesson that one doesn't reconstitute that institution by last-minute conscription notices. This is as true for our European (and other) allies as it is for the U.S.

re: "re: "This Week at War: Rise of the Irregulars" "

Robert Haddick at Small Wars Journal ("facilitates the exchange of information among practitioners, thought leaders, and students of Small Wars, in order to advance knowledge and capabilities in the field") turns a frequent criticism on its head.

Money quote(s):

"Last week, the Washington Post's David Ignatius discussed how the line between the Central Intelligence Agency's covert intelligence activities and the Pentagon's military operations began blurring as George W. Bush's administration ramped up its war on terrorism. In his column, Ignatius took some swipes at former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for exceeding his authority by encroaching on turf legally reserved to the CIA. The Defense Department also was criticized for taking on too many diplomatic and foreign aid responsibilities as well. Ignatius expressed concern that without clearer boundaries separating covert intelligence-gathering from military operations, "people at home and abroad may worry about a possible 'militarization' of U.S. intelligence."

Ignatius missed the larger and far more significant change that continues to this day. In order to survive and compete against the military power enjoyed by national armies, modern irregular adversaries -- such as the Viet Cong, Iraq's insurgents, the Taliban, and virtually all other modern revolutionaries -- "civilianized" their military operations."

Read the whole thing here.

re: "Camp Ashraf attacked, USG observes"

Daniel Pipes at DanielPipes.Org ("a fast way to comment on many topics") had updated his blog about the massacre at Camp Ashraf.

Money quote(s):

"The MeK reports that Iraqi troops killed 33 at Camp Ashraf"

The numbers may be inflated (or they may be accurate); the PMOI likes to work the media in their favor to influence on their behalf.

"The U.S. government had troops nearby but did not deploy them; instead, the Department of State condemned the attack ("deeply troubled") after it happened. On the scene, AP reports, "A U.S. Army officer at the camp Friday looked very angry when talking to the Iraqi commander at the scene. Asked why, an Iraqi translator accompanying the U.S. officer replied: 'Because of the high casualties'."

Let their be no mistake: the PMOI/MEK/NCRI are not the good guys. They may, however, be less-bad-guys than the folks who'd like them dead. That being said, I'm not a fan of adding them to the list of folks the U.S. has stood by and let be killed off, rather than make a fuss about things.

re: "Obama takes Argentina’s side in Falklands dispute."

Moe Lane at Redstate ("the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill, is the most often cited right of center blog in the media, and is widely considered one of the most influential voices of the grassroots on the right") explores the motivations.

re: "White House’s ‘Libya Isn’t A War-War’ Defense Not Going Over Well In Congress"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") describes the push-back by Congress.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he Obama Administration responded to Congressional demands for more information regarding the mission in Libya by saying that the War Powers Act doesn’t apply because American forces are not engaged in hostilities in or near Libya. Not surprisingly, that explanation has not gone over well among Congressional critics of the Administration’s policy"

"(T)he House may consider cutting off funding for the Libya mission if the Administration does not further clarify its position"

IIRC, that's kind of what the Constitution envisions in a situation like this.

"The White House, meanwhile, has basically said it doesn’t intend to respond any further to the House"

Yeah, ignoring Congress is a win-win of a strategy. (Oh wait: I meant just the opposite.)

"(W)e may be headed for some kind of real confrontation between the House and the White House over the mission in Libya. Frankly, it’s already gone further than I expected. Usually, Congress just rolls over and plays dead on these sorts of things but it’s clear that the hyperpartisan atmosphere in Washington, combined with the fact that the Libya mission remains decidedly unpopular, have emboldened Boehner and others to actually take a stand here.

If that’s the case, I’m glad to see it. It’s been far too long, since the passage of the War Powers Act really, that Congress has acted in any decisive manner to try to reign in the Executive Branch’s power grabs in the war making department. Regardless of the outcome of this particular policy dispute, the fact that Congress, or at least part of it, is acting with some backbone here is a welcome sight, especially in light of the specious reasoning that the Administration uses in its report."

Not to be too hung-up on process when results do matter, but since the only oaths or vows I've ever publicly sworn have been (in order) to the Constitution and to Madame-At-Arms, I take Constitutional processes pretty seriously. (That's just how I roll.) But let's look at results as well:

Qahdafi has been on my better-off-dead list since at least the 1980's. He's just that bad of a "blackhat." But realities of international politics and diplomacy have meant that we've let him stay alive lo all these intervening decades.

Pres. Bush (#43) even managed to get the guy, after publicly naming Libya as part of the Axis of Evil and then taking down Saddam's Iraq in about a week, to give up his WMD programs and start playing responsible adult (as much as the murderous tyrant was capable of portraying, anyhow).

So going on the warpath and trying to take out Qahdafi (while saying we're doing something else, but that's another argument) just doesn't make sense to me from an American perspective. Does. Not. Compute. Arab Spring or no, we had Muammar Qahdafi in the box we wanted him in, not troubling us and not looking to trouble us.

And now, any other dictator with WMD has got to wondering how it's to his benefit to give that up.

So how does this make sense?

"(T)he idea that the President can engage in hostilities with a nation that has not attacked us and poses no threat to our interests, and then fund the military war without Congressional appropriations seems to defy any reasonable reading of the Constitution."

I'm pretty good at reading comprehension (less so reading-between-the-lines) and I concur with Mr. Mataconis' assessment

re: "We were all fooled by the “floating hotel” cover story, weren’t we?"

Murdoc at Murdoc Online ("my quasi-journalistic weblog with military news commanding the greater part of my attention") asks a more-or-less rhetorical question.

Money quote(s):

"It was sold by the Ukraine to China on the condition that it never be used as a warship."

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that China is welching on the terms of the deal. You could knock me over with a fender.

Pray they do not alter it any further.

re: "This Week at War: Send in the Lawyers?"

Robert Haddick at Small Wars Journal ("facilitates the exchange of information among practitioners, thought leaders, and students of Small Wars, in order to advance knowledge and capabilities in the field") answers the question "Why the president's legal advisors are in no hurry to justify the bin Laden raid."

Money quote(s):

"Osama bin Laden's fourth son Omar along with some of his brothers have called for an international investigation into the killing of their father. A statement written by the sons and published in the New York Times calls for President Barack Obama to cooperate with their demand for a U.N. inquiry into the question of "why our father was not arrested and tried but summarily executed without a court of law." Should there be no response within 30 days, the sons have pledged to assemble a "panel of eminent British and international lawyers" to pursue legal action against the U.S. government and its officials."

This is called lawfare.

"Bin Laden's sons as well as other analysts outside the United States view the raid in the context of the procedures of criminal law. By contrast, Holder and most observers inside the United States view the raid as a military mission with bin Laden just another combatant. Enemy military personnel are not subject to the rights due a suspect under criminal procedure but rather are at risk of ambush and sudden lethal attack without warning. In the military context, it doesn't matter if the combatant is not holding a weapon, is not in a military uniform, or is in an "unthreatening" posture (such as asleep). The only circumstances under which military forces are required to "give quarter" is after an enemy combatant has completed a surrender or is too wounded to resist, something very unlikely to have occurred in the bin Laden compound given the aggressive rules of engagement issued to the assault team. Bin Laden's sons reject this interpretation, viewing bin Laden as a criminal suspect deserving the rights of legal process."

Those inclined to take the criminal law/enforcement model seriously (Sen. Kerry, call your office) will do so. All young Omar and his ilk deserve from the U.S. Government is, perhaps, the traditional telegram notification sent to next-of-kin.

"The U.S. view is that the 9/11 attacks sparked an "armed conflict" between the United States and al Qaeda, a legal status that both the Congress and the United Nations quickly affirmed. The "armed conflict" status has allowed the United States to use its military power and the international laws of war to permit such techniques as lethal drone attacks and commando raids against combatants -- legally delivered without warning or legal process.

All modern conflicts involve irregular non-state actors as combatants. These combatants and their fellow travelers seek to emphasize their status as civilians when useful, both for defense against modern military technology and in an attempt to take advantage of legal rights. Conversely, the United States government will seek, when necessary, to achieve an international recognition of armed conflict status against its irregular adversaries in order to take advantage of the military and legal advantages it gains from such a status. The government's challenge will be justifying the particular circumstances that warrant unsheathing the government's armed conflict powers against specific adversaries."

Considering that UBL had issued his own declaration of war against the U.S. as early as the 1990s, plus all those fairly damning video diatribes, it's difficult to imagine a more clearcut case of an irregular non-state actor qualifying as a combatant (unlawful or otherwise).

re: "Obama Overruled Lawyers at DoD and DoJ Over Libya and War Powers Act"

Dave in Texas at Ace of Spades HQ believes that lawyers disagree and argue: after all, it's what they do.

Money quote(s):

"Obama is dancing on the head of a pin if he thinks he can sell drone-launched missiles as some kind of NATO logistical support (what, our "our explosives are transporting large amounts of concrete and steel to thousands of different locations within the proximity of the boom"?)"

Which member of congress said that this didn't "pass the straight face test"?

re: "Do Victory Laps and Spiking the Football outweigh Operational (and Personal) Security?"

Jeff Emanuel at Redstate ("the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill") considers the Tourette's Syndrome approach to OPSEC.

Money quote(s):

"Shut up about the SEALs already, please"

Excellent advice. Here's why:

"While the information being reported by various media outlets and individuals has often missed the accuracy bulls-eye by quite a bit (yet again demonstrating that life imitates the Onion), enough accurate-ish information has apparently been revealed to the public by the usual suspects - the administration and those members of Congress who hold security clearances because of the voters’ actions rather than for any personal character qualities they may actually possess - that some units within, and affiliated with, JSOC are reportedly being forced to consider adapting their Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) — not to mention the fact that some operators are now concerned for the safety of their families (more on this later).

Joint Special Operations Command is the umbrella under which “black SOF” falls. This does not mean that every individual within the command is a secret agent or Chuck Norris-like commando; however, it does mean three things: (1) the organization, its people, and those it aligns itself with for mission and intelligence purposes conduct operations which are of particular importance to the national security of the United States, and therefore are of particular sensitivity; (2) its members utilize specific procedures and equipment which are highly specific to the types of missions they undertake (and which can therefore be outside the norm of conventional military procedures and equipment, or even of those utilized by “white SOF” units); and (3) due to the former two points, the equipment used by JSOC units and those with which they work, the TTPs employed by them, and the identities of the operators themselves are sensitive to excessive sunlight. In other words, of all the military units the United States has, JSOC is perhaps the one most damaged by public attention being paid to its equipment, its TTPs, and its personnel."

Newsflash: CAA is not now nor has he ever been assigned or attached to a JSOC unit. But the principles of operational security (OPSEC) which underly this are the same ones which applied to our MI units operating in OIF1.

"The high-profile nature of the target made it virtually impossible not to acknowledge the success of this particular mission or to provide some details regarding how, and by whom, it was accomplished. However, the Obama administration’s tourette’s-like insistence on telling the press whatever version of the operational story they felt like giving at that time or on that day (before they decided not to say anything any more), in tandem with the president’s own insistence on reinforcing his narrative of the “gutsy call” that resulted in bin Laden’s death at fundraisers and through media surrogates, have demonstrated that OPSEC and the safety of America’s premier special operators and their families are far less important to the Commander in Chief and his administration than taking so many victory laps and spiking the football with such frequency and repetition that it’s a wonder Obama himself hasn’t coughed up a (redacted) lung yet while simultaneously deflating the prop football he’s been handed for this purpose."

&

"(A)dapting to a changing battlefield environment and a changing enemy is one thing; being forced to adapt because members of your own government - particularly those who see one successful mission as a silver bullet to be used in a reelection campaign, and to enact a comprehensive and completely unrelated agenda - couldn’t keep their traps shut about sensitive information."

re: "US Mission Iraq: Not DOD's Giganotosaurus Footprint, But a Super Embassaurus For Real"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") has the details for our diplomatic footprint in Iraq.

Money quote(s):

"It'll be your new normal diplomatic one-year deployments with no end."

Since at least 2003, when the first bid list for the not-yet-open new embassy in Baghdad was first published, it was obvious that this "new normal" was destined to become the deployment "tail" that would subsequently "wag" the Department's assignment "dog."

Learning Leadership

One of CAA's loyal readers is a new FSO stationed somewhere in The Great Abroad. He or she really liked something I had posted, specifially:

"For all the great stride the Department has made towards improving State's traditionally dismal leadership culture, we're just not there yet. New officers are getting leadership training from the very beginning, with reinforcements throughout their careers. It's still not inculcated the way the uniformed services do it (and they have their own,
recurrent, problems) but we're getting there. It's the more senior folks, both on the Civil Service as well as the Foreign Service sides, who sometimes fail to get leadership isn't just one of those management fads that comes along periodically, like Six Sigma, just-in-time-inventory, or TQM."

She or he provided the following words by email, posted here with kind permission:

"I couldn't agree more. Having been in the military, I am finding myself feeling at times like a fish out of water here at State; chafing at some folks' inability (or outright refusal) to deal with problem employees, as well as make unpopular but necessary decisions. Earlier this week I was grousing with a colleague about the EER process, recalling how in the military evaluations were a top-down process. Your supervisor or CO tells you what's right with you and what's wrong with you, and that's it. The EER at State is like the grown-up version of zero-outcome soccer. Everybody's a winner, just some people are bigger winners than others. Everything is a collaborative effort, even when you are being evaluated. Given the amount of time I have spent so far on my first EER, I would much prefer to receive an assessment based on my supervisor's impression of me, and not something that I have cooked up myself. The whole process seems to have been born of a reluctance to criticize.

I did see eval inflation in the military also, though- but your eval and how your CO dealt with you on a daily basis were two different things. One of my old skippers ripped me a new one so many times I thought I was a knob back in college, but come eval time he made me look like the best thing since sliced bread. I think that is the difference between DoS and DoD. It's rainbows and puppy dogs all the time at State. At Defense, your CO will generally tell you when you are screwed up, but won't depth charge you on your eval if you fix your problems after they are pointed out."

re: "Personal Army"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex.") seems troubled at the size of this contract.

Money quote(s):

"DoS reveals its plan to secure their personnel in Iraq after the troops come home"

&

"The size of the US mission in Iraq was forecast to be roughly 3000 souls, or 1.5 contract support personnel per DoS employee. The sums spent on contract support are nearly double the entire amount spent by State in Iraq in 2010, and represents nearly 18% of the entire FY10 budget. 5,100 contractors is roughly the size of a reinforced brigade."

Three thousand "souls" is a huge-ass country mission. Many of these folks will be from tenant agencies, some will be contract hires brought aboard solely to work in Iraq, and there'll probably be at least that many more (more like two times as many) in locally engaged staff (LES) employees.

Still and all, if it seems like it's going to take a major and costly effort to support our diplomatic/civilian mission in Iraq, that's because it is a major and costly effort. Except, until now, that fact has been masked considerably by the fact that State has been able to "piggy back" on the U.S. military establishment in Iraq.

The U.S. military deployment, and its support infrastructure, are going away. Real. Soon. Now. The diplomatic deployment (i.e., embassy, consulates, regional offices, and PRTs) aren't going away. (At least not yet.) And the need for support services of all types, that simply aren't to be had "on the economy" in Iraq, persists nonetheless.

re: "Let’s Talk Amnesty Again"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") speaks frankly (as only he can) about illegal immigration and amnesty.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hy bring up amnesty for illegal immigrants now? And you just know it’s a loser issue in how dishonest people excusing illegal immigration are. For one, they always try to group in illegal immigration with legal immigration since illegal immigration is pretty indefensible by itself. And the people for amnesty are always so schizophrenic on whether illegal immigration is a bad thing in the first place. Like Obama is proudly making the ridiculous claim that the border fence has been completed — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants is a good thing — but then wants us to pass amnesty — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants isn’t a big deal. Which is it? And the amnesty people are never clear on what their endgame is. Do they want to get rid of borders? Do they want to keep a broken system they can demagogue about? Who knows. No wonder amnesty people are always turning to the racist charge since a coherent argument isn’t an option.

I think people would have a lot more sympathy, though, for illegal immigrants if they were more sorry about it. Like if they all were like, “We’re really sorry to do this, but you have to understand how much Mexico sucks and how nice your country is. You wouldn’t want to live in Mexico.” But instead illegal immigrants are all indignant we even care about this and think they’re owed citizenship. You know, we have plenty of overly-entitled, native-born people I would love to deport, so we don’t need more from out of country." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)

re: "How to save money in Iraq? Withdraw the troops, send in the diplomats ... and get ready with the fire hoses"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") sees some contradictions inherant in the Iraq changing-of-the-guard.

Money quote(s):

"At the highest level of the Iraq war which happened during the surge, the average monthly DOD obligations in Iraq peaked at $11.1 billion in FY2008. Note -- monthly obligations. Just roughly the same amount Congress plans to cut from the State Department annual, yearly, 12 month budget in FY2012.

In the infinite wisdom of our elected representatives, given that we will "save" tons of money from the withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, we will "save tons more" by slashing the budget of the State Department -- because why not? Instead of DOD completing the job over there, we'll now have DOS doing the job for a lot less. A lot less money and a lot less people and a lot less of everything!

Obviously, given the history of that made up controversy about the Iraq recruitment in 2007, State is anxious to show the flag. It will have personnel for Iraq, ready or not. If it does not have enough folks, it will hire 3161 limited appointees to staff up the place. It will have its own private army to protect our diplomats. It will have its own air fleet to shuttle our personnel from one end of the country to another. It will have its own life support personnel, presumably all contractors. It will be starting close to scratch on just about everything, from how to bring in food and other supplies, aircraft mechanics for its new air fleet to pest control guys.

But this is a gig set up to fail.

Congress holds the purse strings and the folks over there have never been particularly fond of these foreign affairs officers, as they are with the soldiers in their voting districts. One senator is opposed to the State Dept getting any of DOD's equipment or creating its own mini-army. Others are not happy about the projected growth of contractors working for State. What, you want our diplomats in Iraq armed with toothpicks? Make up your minds, dammit!

The State Department has never taken on a responsibility like this; there will be lots of hiccups even as demands for quick results go off the roof. Um, okay, hiccup is an understatement.

Personnel will continue to rotate on short-term, one year deployments, on voluntary basis. At some point, this repeated deployments of an agency small enough its FSOs can all fit in an aircraft carrier, will have institutional consequences and personal repercussions. Bench strength? What's that?

Iraq as a democracy in our own image is a foolish dream. The State Department will now be expected to be the firewall against its descent back into chaos."

Not a lot to add to what she's said. She's right.

re: "Since you enjoy your job so much, Congress wants you to take a pay cut .... "

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") explains what's stupid about this amendment.

Money quote(s):

"In case you did not see this -- Rep. Thomas Reed, R-N.Y sponsored an amendment that cut the locality pay for Foreign Service officers serving overseas. Mr. Reed's press release touts the removal of the "automatic 24 percent pay raise for foreign service officers," his third successful amendment apparently. And it passed the House over the weekend.

There is locality pay for all CONUS states. Why Congress is only targeting the 11,500 Foreign Service workforce is not clear. About 70% are not in the Senior Foreign Service and could be affected by this cut when deployed overseas. I mean really, that's about 7,600 federal employees serving overseas in over 260 posts. Mr. Reed's state is home to some 69,000 federal employees (not counting the feds working for CIA, DIA, NSA and the other "A"s who may be assigned in the state of New York). Look - that's 9 times the Foreign Service number. Imagine the savings there?"

The overseas locality increase, which is only about two-thirds implemented (it has been being phased in over a period of years since it's long-overdue approval) is being mis-cast as a payraise. And in the current economy, it's hard (politically) to make the case for payraises for diplomats. We get that.

It's why, along with all other federal employees, our salary scale is frozen. We get that too, and I've heard precious little squacking about that, even in private. We all have family and friends back home who're out-of-work or struggling and we get it.

But "getting it" shouldn't be a two-way street.

"(A)s Ed points out "the House bill as enacted has no hope of Senate passage or earning President Obama's signature, so this proposal -- while interesting and certainly controversial -- may not survive."

May not survive this time, that is not to say it won't happen ever.

All that did not preclude folks from slinging around their ignorance online --

You folks working overseas apparently do not pay the first $80K of your income overseas. Did you know that? Hah! That IRS has been cheating on FS folks again! It collected every tax penny from your salary including self-employed spouse's annual income of less than $700. If you believe everything you hear, that IRS did not have to collect anything from your $56K + $700 income? Really.

Go ahead and believe that crap, and you might end up sharing a jail cell with whatshisname actor and tax evader.

Foreign Service folks are not/not exempt from paying full federal, state, and Medicare/SS tax on salaries just because they live in Burkina Faso or whatever the name of the hellhole they're presently assigned to. They pay their taxes happily and willingly, 'cuz if they don't, they could get written up for atrocious unlawful uncivic unprofessional behavior, then they won't get promoted, then they get kick out, then they're just part of the 9% unemployment stats. The end."

Pushing back against this sort of recurring ignorance is one of the unstated purposes of this web log. Okay, it's a (former) mil blog as well as a diplo blog. And sometimes I try to bridge the cultural gap between the two, as well as the greater one with the larger public.

I don't be-grudge military members their being tax-exempt during combat deployments. We don't get that, even when deployed to the same places, because we have a different compensation system as foreign service officers. As a consular officer who's worked American Citizen Services, more than once I've encountered the expat American abroad who declares "I pay your salary."

Um. Unless you're making a lot more than you're letting on (and thus are liable for federal tax on your imcome above the $80 or $90k mark), no, you don't.

Not that it matters in terms of how helpful we can (or can't) be, but it's one of those phrases that can bring a (suppressed) smile to a consular officer's face when he hears it.

"(D)espite prevailing belief to the contrary, Uncle Sam's employees overseas are not exempt from paying taxes (unless they're civies at Gitmo). The foreign earned income does not include amounts paid by the United States or an agency thereof to an employee of the United States or an agency thereof. Congress wrote that up. It's the law of the land."

"You also -- supposedly ride around town in a $50,000 Cadillac with diplomatic license plates on the bumper like -- let me get this right -- "like you are better than the very citizens you are supposed to be serving." Ouch! Such sparkling prejudice. Really, a Cadillac? That must be the low level Qatari diplomat riding around in his regular car in DC streets. Have not seen any Cadillac at US overseas posts, not saying there's none, just haven't see any from the embassy compounds I've been to. Saw lots of armored Chevy where you can't roll down the windows. In case you think its armored for decoration, I can assure you it's not. It is armored from front to back and have bullet resistant glass because driving/riding around in a USG vehicle overseas is like driving around with a target mark on your back. What? Um, sorry, not target, they're called cross-hairs now. And in case you think this is vehicle security gone mad, it's not that either. See, the US ambassador to Lome got carjacked recently. And the ICE agents in Mexico who were recently killed/wounded in Monterrey were also using an armored SUV. If not for armored vehicles, not Cadillacs, mind you --- there would be many, many more names up on that memorial plaque on the wall."

Note to residents of and visitors to Washington, D.C., New York City, and other cities which host diplomatic and consular missions from other countries within the United States: the diplomatic and consular license plates you may notice on cars parked illegally or cutting you off in traffic? Not being driven by American diplomats.

Hard to imagine, but we don't get diplomatic plates (or immunity) when we're stationed at home.

Those annoying diplomatic luxury cars you may encounter? Driven by foreign diplomats.

"We have unarmed diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in Pakistan where they hate/hate the USA terribly and now think all diplomats are spies. And you don't ever get a tax break for service in those posts."

It would be nice, don't get me wrong. But we don't expect that it will ever happen. And that's okay. Just don't erroneously assume and accuse us of getting what we don't receive and aren't entitled to, at least not as a pretext for denying that which we are.

"I just don't think the FS has the numbers. Even if the entire Foreign Service, and spouses and kids write to their congressfolks and senators, that may not really matter when push comes to shove. The diplomatic service needs to tell its story better. You need more than employees and family members to step up and say -- it's unfair to single out a small group of people for a pay cut."

This is a common lament. The Department of State and the U.S. Foreign Service (and its members) have no domestic political constituency of any consequence. Which is why I'm never shy, when I have a happy American customer who's thanking me profusely, about suggesting they drop their congressional representative a short note or email, if they really are that happy about the service and help they've received, and share their impressions.

They don't have to commend anyone by name, it's not about individual credit, but there are always plenty of congressional inquiries being initiated about complaints, fair is fair.

re: "Last Men Out"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex.") notes the difficulties of a withdrawal under fire.

Money quote(s):

"The Status of Forces agreement George Bush negotiated with the government of Iraq expires in December, in anticipation of a withdrawal of US troops. The USG has dropped heavy hints over the last six months that the Department of Defense was amenable to leaving behind some significant military forces in Iraq to safeguard the country’s borders and continue the training and logistical support of the Iraqi Army."

That's not going to be politically possible, in either the U.S. or Iraq, even if there was a will to do it in Washington. Is there?

"$120K per “friendly” tribal chief per year may be cheap against the cost of a $400K MRAP, not to mention the human cost.

But .50 cal ammunition is pretty cheap too."

_____

It seems very unlikely that a U.S. military member will be the United States' "last man out" of Iraq.

Why?

Stay tuned.

re: "The Lawfulness of Killing Bin Laden"

Butch Bracknell at Small Wars Journal ("facilitates the exchange of information among practitioners, thought leaders, and students of Small Wars, in order to advance knowledge and capabilities in the field") lays out the legalities of schwacking UBL.

Money quote(s):

"Much has been made of the recent revelations that Osama bin Laden was unarmed at the moment he was killed by U.S. special operations forces in close quarters battle. Let us put this issue to rest with dispatch, once and for all: Killing bin Laden was not an extrajudicial execution, a murder, or a war crime. It was a combat engagement lawful under U.S. and international legal authority – full stop."

Mr. Bracknell takes some care explaining the self-defense and jus in bello rationales before continuing:

"Osama bin Laden was an enemy combatant – again, full stop. His status as a virtual enemy of the United States is grounded on several factors: his declaration of war (fatwa) by Al Qaeda, of which he was the nominal chief, against the United States; the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of September 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-40); and, most likely, declaration of a state of hostilities (essentially, a state of “war”) by the President against an opposing belligerent: Al Qaeda, its footsoldiers, and its leaders. The qualifier “most likely” indicates that if the President has, in fact, declared Al Qaeda to be a hostile, belligerent force, the designation probably would be classified and non-public. It is also superfluous, as Congress supplied the necessary authority in the AUMF to make combat actions against Al Qaeda lawful. They described a category of combatants who may be targeted by U.S. forces, and Osama bin Laden fell squarely into that category more precisely than any other person in the world. Targeting bin Laden was based on bin Laden simply being bin Laden: his conduct as he stared down the wrong end of an MP-5 was immaterial.

Once designated a hostile enemy combatant, there are only two ways a combatant can be exempted from lawful targeting: by manifesting a clear and unequivocal intent to surrender, and by becoming wounded or otherwise incapacitated and incapable of resistance (hors d’combat). There is no evidence bin Laden was wounded prior to administration of the lethal force which ended his life. Moreover, U.S. forces engaged in armed conflict are under no obligation to give an enemy combatant a chance to surrender; the enemy combatant must practically force his surrender on the U.S. force by manifesting it clearly, timely, and in a manner which enables U.S. forces to discontinue the use of lethal force. At this instant, a shield of legal protection descends around him, and U.S. forces are obligated to treat him humanely and consistent with the laws of armed conflict pertaining to detainees. Until the shield is present, triggered by manifest surrender, it is absent. Without the shield that only he could initiate through his surrenderous conduct, bin Laden remained a legitimate target and was treated so by the assaulting U.S. force.

Bin Laden’s death was a triumph for the American intelligence community and the armed forces and provides, at long last, some solace to the victims of 9/11 and Al Qaeda’s other terroristic acts. His death will likely prove to be a strategic gain, and it eliminates a continuing threat to Americans at home and her citizens and forces abroad. It also was completely sanctioned under U.S. and international law."

Bottom line: it was a righteous shoot.

re: "June 7"

John Brown at John Brown's Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review, Version 2.0 ("ideas about public diplomacy") shared a great quote:

"No wonder people are nostalgic for USIA: at least it had a
name."

re: "Ten Congressmen Sue President Obama Over Libya Mission, War Powers Act"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") gives a factual assessment of the suit's merits and standing.

Money quote(s):

"Ten Members of Congress, represented by George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, have filed a lawsuit against President Obama seeking a Declaratory Judgment that he has violated the War Powers Act by failing to get Congressional approval for the mission in Libya"

It'll be quite interesting to see how (and when) the court rules. Don't be surprised if this gets slow-rolled.

"There are few things more important than the Separation of Powers between the Executive and Legislative Branches and the question of the proper extension of the War Power. Unfortunately, this lawsuit is most likely destined to fail just as all previous attempts to resolve this issue in the Courts have failed."

As much as the judicial branch likes to order one or the other of the executive and legislative branches (not to mention the several states), ordering around both branches seems to be a bit more than they like to bite off.

"(G)iven the Court’s reluctance to get involved in disputes between the Legislative and Executive Branch over war powers in the past, it seems highly unlikely to me that the standing issue will be any less of a problem now than they were in 1999. In some sense the court in Campbell is right, if Congress believes the President has acted unconstitutionally, they have the power to cut off funding for the Libyan action, or even to impeach the President, if they have sufficient votes to support that action. if they don’t, I’m not at all certain that getting judges involved in this particular policy area makes any sense at all."

Good luck with all that.

re: "Lawfare v. Warfare: Bin Laden family uses a little “Alinsky” on US and Obama"

McQ at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") gets this exactly right.

Money quote(s):

"The death of bin Laden is being described in some quarters as an “extrajudicial killing”. In fact, bin Laden was always considered to be an “unlawful combatant” by us and as such had no such protections. In warfare, the targeted killing of an enemy, in this case unlawful combatant, is quite legal.

So what you are seeing here are competing premises, one saying terrorism is simply a criminal act and therefore terrorists must be treated as common criminals would be treated as well as afforded various rights because of that status. The other says they are enemies who have declared war on the US, committed numerous acts of war and, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, are “unlawful combatants” and enemies whose targeted killing is an accepted practice of warfare.

Lawfare vs. warfare.

I think we’ve been pretty clear since the beginning, with the AUMF (which the Obama administration ironically used as the legal basis for its raid into Pakistan), that we’re at war (and yes, I also accept the AUMF as a declaration of war) what we consider these terrorists.

Second guessing by all the world’s hand wringers should simply be ignored. This is not a criminal matter. It is a military matter and it was executed as such. The lesson it teaches other terrorists who’ve declared war on “the Great Satan” is we are relentless and remorseless. Those are two good messages to send."