re: "Re: Who Was Awlaki"

Mario Loyola at The Corner takes it by the numbers.

Money quote(s):

"First, for purposes of combat actions such as the targeted killing of Awlaki, the battleground in our war against al-Qaeda is not “everywhere.” It is in those few countries that either willingly or unwillingly provide significant safe havens for al-Qaeda. Yemen is in the first rank of that group of countries, along with Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Somalia.

Second, legitimate al-Qaeda targets in each of those countries are subject to attack pursuant to Congress’s 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force after 9/11, which even Vice President Biden has deemed a constitutionally sufficient declaration of war. That disposes of the concern that the executive branch is operating without the imprimatur of Congress. And the president is at all times subject to a variety of laws that constrain his conduct as commander-in-chief. Just because this particular killing is not justiciable (on the facts known to us) does not mean that federal courts cannot hold the president to account for violations of U.S. law.

Finally, to the extent your reference to “checks and balances” goes to due process, our rules of engagement are informed by international law and fall within the regulatory powers of Congress. Nobody is alleging that the rules of engagement were not followed in this case. The Constitution’s due process guarantees for criminal defendants in a civil prosecution are meant to protect private citizens from the power of the state. They have never (at least not until recently) been understood to benefit combatants – U.S. citizens or otherwise — who have taken up arms against the state itself."

He (correctly) draws the following conclusion:

"An al-Qaeda convoy riding along a desert road in Yemen is a legitimate bombing target, period."

(9/30)

re: "Avoiding Armageddon with China"

Dan Blumenthal, Mark Stokes, and Michael Mazza at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") look at changing U.S. perception of China's intentions.

Money quote(s):

"It is good news that James Traub, a highly regarded journalist and writer, may be startled out of his belief that China is a "status quo" power, based in part on a paper we wrote.

We hope that more writers of Traub's caliber will be similarly startled by China's growing menace. The truth is that like every rising power in history (including the United States) China wants to change rules, territorial delineations, and laws written while it was weak."

CAA is by no means a China (or even an "Asia") "hand." Not my speciality. But for any practicioner or student of foreign, military, or intelligence affairs, China is simply too big to ignore.

Like unto Texas, there are (or should be) more than one China. Probably (again like unto Texas), there should be at least five Chinas. And that doesn't even include Formosa in the count.

"Throughout its history, China has lumbered into disaster after disaster, costing untold sums in lives and treasure (e.g. the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, Beijing's war with Vietnam). Certainly as China re-emerged as a power it had its chance to "bide its time and hide its capabilities" as Deng Xiaoping instructed. But instead, it decided to build a highly destabilizing military (see the last decade of Department of Defense reports on China's military power, the latest of which is here) and has proceeded to rattle its saber against Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, South Korea, and, most troublingly, the United States. It has now created the conditions for the encirclement is so fears."

There's this concept of imperial overreach. Make no mistake about it, any China larger than one-fifth of its current mass constitutes an empire and may be expected to behave (and misbehave) accordingly.

Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

"Responding to years of Chinese harassment of U.S., Japanese, Vietnamese, and Philippine ships, last year Clinton broke new ground by declaring at a summit in Hanoi that "The United States, like every nation, has a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia's maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea." This is a diplomatic way of telling China that we will continue to exercise our forces inside its exclusive economic zone, consistent with international custom, and we will ensure that our partners in Asia are able to resist Chinese bullying.

This brings us to what seem to be Traub's biggest problem with the paper: that doing what Gates and Clinton proclaimed we need to do (respond with our own military programs and ensure freedom of navigation and open access to Asia's maritime commons) is expensive. True enough. National security is an expensive endeavor. But as our own history shows (pre-Pearl Harbor, pre-Korean War) military weakness in the face of new threats are more expensive still, in lives and in treasure."

Nothing I read in our nation's capital newspaper(s) give me any confidence that we are any less likely to re-commit our interwar and post-WW2 forefathers' mistakes with respect to military preparedness. And as my WW2 veteran grandfather rather chillingly put it to a much younger CAA, young men end up paying for that with "a bayonet in the guts."

"The Cold War is too simple a metaphor to describe Sino-U.S. relations. China is an economic partner, and Washington is deeply engaged in a diplomacy that tries to convince China to peacefully take its place as a great power. At the same time, we are balancing China's power and hedging against a more bellicose China."

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. China certainly is, expanding its military and naval capabilities at a rapid pace, becoming in fact the peer-competitor that theorists like to pontificate about.

"The idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy -- of turning China into an enemy by treating it as one -- is like a unicorn; it is a make believe creature that still has its believers. The United States has done more than any other country to "turn China into a friend" by welcoming it into the international community. Alas, China has not fulfilled this U.S. "prophesy of friendship." Instead China has built what all credible observers call a destabilizing military that has changed the status quo by holding a gun to Taiwan's head even as Taiwan makes bold attempts at peace, by claiming ever more territory in the South China Sea, and by attempting to bully and intimidate Japan."

Engagement works both ways. All the economic levers we attempt to work into our engagement with China run right back to us through our own economy and international economic institutions and arrangements. And China's military theorists aren't shy in their theorizing about the multidimensional nature of any future conflict with the U.S. Forewarned isn't necessarily fore-armed, but it's a start.

"(I)t is time for the United States to offer more serious assistance so that matters do not get out of hand. A strong U.S. presence and commitment to the region's security can help avoid a regional nuclear arms race, for example. The United States can be a force multiplier by providing the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance that only Washington possesses, and by training, and equipping our allies and friends.

This strategy is one way of beginning to put Asia back in balance as China changes the status quo. Not doing so, we fear, would lead to Armageddon."

(9/6)

re: "More on Biden and His Fat Mouth"

Patterico at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") is unimpressed by dangerous buffoonery in high office.

Money quote(s):

"The other day I noted how Joe Biden had run his mouth about who killed bin Laden, putting SEAL Team 6 at risk. I said: “there is no way to know whether this was an orchestrated ambush targeting Team 6. But it is an important reminder why it’s not just comedy relief to have cynical glory-seekers and complete buffoons at the highest levels of government.”

Well, the possibility of an orchestrated ambush looks much more likely — as an Afghan official tells the press that’s exactly what happened"

Among professionals, the heart of what makes intelligence information classifiable (i.e., secret, top secret, or confidential) is whether it discloses sources and methods. On the military side, this means not disclosing or publicizing information which reveals to the enemy that which the enemy can use against you. Operational details, procedures, capabilities; if it's public, it gets play. Somewhere. And if it's public somewhere, it's public everywhere. The information superhighway has off-ramps into some very bad neighborhoods, after all.

"In other words, a Taliban no doubt incensed at bin Laden’s death set up an ambush designed to target exactly the sort of forces that would respond to a report of high value targets.

Did the families fear this? You betcha."

Military families have, as they say, "skin in the game." They have an acute appreciation of their loved one's vulnerabilities to this sort of exploitation operation.

"When morons like Biden run their mouths, they put good men at risk. When the Obama administration decided to release all the information about who killed bin Laden, they put good men at risk."

This is why I hate working with amateurs.

(8/6)

re: "A Death in Texas"

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.") shed some light on the Leal execution and the issue of consular notification/access.

Money quote(s):

"Just reading that last night the State of Texas put to death "Mexican" national Humberto Leal Garcia for the 1994 rape and murder of a sixteen-year-old girl. This execution took place despite efforts by the White House, the Government of Mexico, the UN, the OAS, a host of NGOs, and others to halt the execution because Leal had not been notified at the time of his arrest that he had the right to consult the Mexican consulate. He reportedly died yelling, "Viva Mexico!"

I agree that the execution of Leal last night is an outrage. He should have been executed about fifteen years ago.

In the course of my career I have had to deal with stories such as the Leal case. Almost always they involve somebody here illegally who commits a heinous crime, and is not even particularly aware that he has the right to contact his consul. In many cases, the Leal case seems to be one, the criminal is not even aware that he is the national of another country, as he has been in the US for many, many years."

On the one hand, you have arrestees who are unaware of (or actively concealing) their (illegal) alien status from law enforcement officers.

On the other hand you have law enforcement officers who are actively investigating a rape/murder case and who (justifiably) might view an inquiry into a suspect's nationality and/or immigration status to be either/both an investigative dead-end or a waste of limited manpower.

"The access to the consul issue only arises late in the process when slick appeals attorneys, looking for anything to save a murdering scum client, discover the matter of the consular access. This is a bogus issue. Some Texas sheriff does not have the obligation to advise a detainee that he has the right to his nation's consul. That is something for which the detainee needs to ask: IF he asks, then the police have the obligation to pass along the request to the appropriate embassy or consulate. There is no evidence that Leal asked, and, of course, none that Texas law enforcement denied his request to see a Mexican official. Should the police notify the German, Irish, or Italian Embassy every time somebody with a German, Irish, or Italian name is arrested? Should they automatically assume that anybody arrested who "looks" Mexican is a Mexican? Anybody with a Jewish name should have the Israeli Embassy notified? Can you see the law suits over racial profiling? Lawyers would get rich (er)!"

In our border states, where the otherwise (deliberately) misleading "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us!" slogan actually might have some validity, dialing up the local Mexican consulate every time someone who might have Mexican nationality is a non-starter. As industrious as the Mexican consular officials of my own acquaintance have been, there's a lot more Texas (and Arizona, and New Mexico, and California) cops than there are of them.

(7/8)

re: "Marginally More Serious Fare"

The Diplogeek ("FSO Geekery") shared some of his life on "the line."

Money quote(s):

"So I’m aware that I don’t talk about the nitty-gritty of work all that often on this blog, beyond things like the vast numbers of applicants showing up in our waiting room and the fact that I work with a very cool group of people (well, cool in that slightly Type A, geeky way unique to quiz bowl teams and the Foreign Service). Part of this is because in all honesty, barring a uniquely awesome/not-remotely-awesome applicant, most days are kind of the same; I go to work, check my e-mail, sit at an interviewing window and interview people until there are no more people left to interview. The next day, I do it again. That’s not to hate on the job, by the way; it’s way more intellectually taxing than I would have initially thought. But short of detailing the stories of individual applicants, there’s not a ton to tell, and I’m not going to delve into particular applicants here because really, would I want some visa officer at the… I don’t know, Turkmeni Embassy laughing on the (very public) internets at my loser-ness? Probably not."

DG is a good (albeit new) officer. He's conscientious, self (and publicly) aware, and clearly maximizing the opportunities of his current assignment. He may go far in the (consular) business.

"(A)ccording to the law, we couldn’t issue. The applicant was understandably devastated and wept in the window for a good ten minutes. The whole thing was pretty horrible, and not what I would call one of my proudest moments, despite having followed the law, which is, after all, my job. This is, as one of my coworkers put it, why we get paid the big bucks."

This part sucks. Crying at the window. The U.S. does not, so far as I'm aware, intentionally hire heartless automatons to be vice consuls. Quite the opposite. But, as I've noted previously, we implement the law as it's written, not as we'd necessarily have written it ourselves. That is, indeed, why we get "paid the big bucks."

(An aside: in the current economy, the salary and benefits package for an FSO, at least when contrasted against unemployment benefits, may appear to be "big bucks." It's also, like all government salaries, currently frozen. And I haven't heard anybody on this side of the payroll actually complain about that. We all have family and friends who are not federal employees and we get it.

For actual "big bucks," however, one would do well to complete one's probationary period, be promoted into the mid-grade ranks, and, eventually, "cross the threshold" into the Senior Foreign Service.)

I used to tell my vice consuls, when they were a little depressed from having to deliver bad news like DG did, that they should expect to have someone cry at least once a week; and that at "visa mill" posts that would be daily. (More experienced officers will quickly learn about "crocodile tears.")

I also used to tell my vice consuls, when disappointed visa applicants threatened to complain to their supervisors, that dealing with complaints was part of my responsibility, why I got the "big bucks" and that if they were doing their jobs and applying immigration law correctly they didn't need to worry.

(Of course, if they weren't doing their jobs and were applying immigration law incorrectly, that was also my responsibility.)

Every visa refusal (plus a percentage of mostly randomly-selected issuances) gets reviewed by a more senior consular official. Daily. Them's the rules. Part of a consular managers job is to train line officers how to write their case notes so that it's clear to the reviewing official exactly what led them to make the refusal/issue decision they reached. If there's an error of law or if there's some additional or overlooked information about a decision that the manager thinks the adjudicator should consider, then the manager brings that to the line officer's attention. Ideally, it's a daily series of what I like to call "learnable moments."

(I find the term "teachable moment" to be annoying in the extreme.)

"(E)ven if I’m refusing someone a visa or telling them that I can’t give them what they want very badly, I can at least do so in a compassionate and respectful way. When you’re interviewing upwards of a hundred and fifty people a day, it’s easy to lose sight of that, I think, and get impatient and frustrated.

Anyway, that’s me processing. Clearly, it’s a good thing that it’s my visa adjudication that’s bringing in the (alleged) big bucks and not my Torah scholarship. And I promise more cheerful content next time, but I do think it’s worthwhile for anyone reading this who’s thinking of joining the Foreign Service to understand what it can mean, sometimes, agreeing to uphold these laws and interests of ours. Most of the time, the law and my feelings on a particular case coincide, but when they don’t, it can be a difficult thing to rationalize."

It's important to be professional in dealing with the public, even when "the public" is just one single individual on the other side of a bullet-resistant interview/transaction window. After all, on our side of the transaction window, we're the U.S. Embassy, the "G," in all its awful majesty. So courtesy is essential. Even when you're delivering bad news, you deliver it sincerely and respectfully.

(6/26)

Bidding Hiatus II

Today marks a milestone in this season's bidding process: the day bids are due.

For the next couple of weeks, the various bureaus will be sorting and consorting and deciding which jobs to offer "handshakes" to which officers. Officially, no "handshakes" can be offered until Nov. 4. At that point, things can get pretty interesting and intense.

CAA is interested in some more, you guessed it, consular work. And feels pretty confident he'll find some. The thing is, in consular work, even when you're not looking for it, it finds you.

Cheers!