re: "The Latest Outrage"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") offers a historical parallel.

Money quote(s):

"(M)en – good men- can descend into a kind of inhumanity when faced with a truly hated, fanatical foe."

&

"The Taliban, with their indiscriminate murders and their cowardly tactics, have probably earned a very great deal of enmity from those who have been grappling with them for going on eleven years now. The danger when good men confront evil is that, over time, they may become what they beheld.

None of the foregoing is meant to excuse.

But it may help to explain."

Despite the ill-judgment evidenced by this lapse of discipline, our marines have some considerable distance (astronomical units? light years? parsecs?) to go before they descend to the abysmally routine depths inhabited by the Taliban.

1/12

re: "Deport the Criminals First (and Only?)"

Karl at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") demonstrated how the devil hides in the details.

Money quote(s):

"(A) review of the June ICE memo (.pdf) detaling (sic) the new policy makes clear that the prosecutorial discretion involved is not limited to prioritizing deportations, but decisions to arrest, settle or dismiss proceedings, defer action, grant parole, etc. Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times describes the new policy as “virtually stopping deporting students who are in the U.S. illegally, taking steps even as Congress has resisted passing the DREAM Act.”"

Consular officers familiar with the rules for foreigners seeking to attend schools in the U.S. legally will recognize the great disparity between what we expect of lawful visitors vs. the free ride given to illegal immigrants.

That sucks.

It may not be strictly criminal, but it's grand theft, from the taxpayers, nonetheless.

8/18

re: "Origins of the Palestinian Identity"

Dangerous Company at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") examined the roots of the Palestine question.

Money quote(s):

"No one denies that the Palestinians are a "people." The Israeli government, the United Nations, and the European Union have all recognized the Palestinians as a people with national aspirations.

The question is whether these aspirations evolved organically, or else they were inspired by greater influence from the former Soviet Union and late Arab republics."

It must seem odd, to those who came of age after the First Cold War (i.e., World War III) ended, to learn (or re-learn) just how much of the world's geopolitical landscape was formed (or re-formed) in the manner of an ice age's continent-wide glacial ice sheets, by the late, great Soviet Union and its proxies.

"(T)the Jordanian government remained firm in its position toward Palestine. For nearly thirty years, the West Bank was considered sovereign Jordanian territory. Jordan unilaterally annexed the land, granted all Arab residents citizenship, and conquered East Jerusalem. Unrecognized by the international community, but not challenged. Not the Arab League, the U.N., Israel, nor the Palestinians themselves considered the land "occupied" Palestinian territory. The Palestinian movement delegated all authority to the reigning Arab nations.

Beginning in the 1970s, the Palestinian leadership initiated a campaign to reframe the conflict and invent a local narrative. Riding on the coattails of globalized media, the Palestinians became a post-Soviet Union third-world victim. The alliances the Palestinians made with nations not interested in the creation of a unique Palestinian state were washed from history. Within the halls of the United Nations General Assembly, inflammatory rhetoric comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and South Africa became a defining activity of the organization. The U.N. General Assembly has since passed more resolutions against Israel than all other nations combined.

Though the Palestinian Authority no longer has to smuggle drugs, extort businesses, and engage in blatant theft to support their leaders' wealthy lifestyle, the manners remain the same."

Resistance, revolutionary, or independence movements have this pitfall they can fall into. To raise funds, they undertake illegal activities such as robbing banks (e.g., Stalin's 1907 Tiflis bank robbery), then graduate to protection rackets, smuggling (and not just guns and ammunition), drugs, and prostitution. This is the IRA's fragmented legacy today and it's how the Mafia got its start as well.

"It is easy to simply write off the Palestinians as an invented people, because as far as the facts are considered, their singular purpose is to act as force against Israel. There is no evidence to suggest that the Palestinian government is making meaningful, good-faith attempts to negotiate a state according to realistic conditions. And assuming that they actually did, the Palestinian Authority is so dysfunctional and fractured that any agreement with Israel could not possibly be enforced."

There are, in fact, at least two PAs, each sworn enemies of the other. So they've got that going for them.

"The argument should not be if the Palestinians are an "invented" people. The reality is that their representatives are descendants of terrorists, gangsters, and warlords. The Palestinians of today were never invented. Their identity has yet to be defined. The only defining feature of the Palestinian people is their singular purpose to destroy Israel.

Newt Gingrich should have clarified his views. He should have explained why the Palestinians are an "invented people." The image of the Palestinians is invented. It has been shaped, written, and carved by foreign benefactors. The Jews of Israel do not base their identity on opposition to non-Jewish self-determination. Place the state of Israel anywhere on planet Earth, and it would remain the same. But in the absence of Israel, the Palestinian identity would fall apart." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

12/23

re: "How to handle Islamic supremacists with Western citizenship"

Nicolai Sennels at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") had four suggestions for non-assimilating cultural supremacists.

Money quote(s):

"It was without any doubt a catastrophic mistake to invite millions of followers of a religion that has a strong negative attitude towards us non-believers and our democratic values to the West. Now they are here; their many children and grandchildren are here, and they all have Western citizenship. When we ask them to integrate and change their views of us and our values, their answer is: "Why should we? We were born here; this is also our country." We can't send them home, and they refuse to integrate. So what to do? We make them an offer they can't refuse."

As drastic as Mr. Sennels suggestions may seem, they pale into fluffy-bunnyness compared to those envisioned in Kratman's dystopian Caliphate.

"Offering money for leaving, making lack of integration economically non-beneficial, making it much harder for Islamic traditionalists to practise and spread their aggressive doctrine and enforcing the law are the minimum if we want to solve the problem without too much blood, sweat and tears."



7/20

re: "Newt Challenges the Myth of Palestinian Nationalism"

Bruce Thornton at Private Papers doesn't buy the prevailing myth of Palestinian nationhood.

Money quote(s):

"Newt Gingrich touched off a mini-firestorm when he told a Jewish television channel that the Palestinians are an “invented” people “who are in fact Arabs,” and “who were historically part of the Arab community.” This simple statement of historical fact was of course met with the usual bluster from the Palestinians, who called the statements “ignorant,” “despicable,” and of course “racist,” a meaningless charge. And what response from the Palestinians would be complete without the usual threat that the statement they don’t like will “increase the cycle of violence,” as Palestinian lead negotiator Saeb Erekat put it?

The truly “ignorant,” however, are those who have bought the “Palestinian homeland” propaganda. Where was all this talk about a homeland for the Palestinians in 1948, when the Arab armies invaded Israel? Their aim was not to create a Palestinian state, but rather to carve up the rest of British Mandatory Palestine, as the secretary-general of the Arab League, Abdel Rahman Azzam, confessed at the time: “Abdullah [ruler of Transjordan] was to swallow up the central hill regions of Palestine . . . The Egyptians would get the Negev. The Galilee would go to Syria, except that the coastal part as far as Acre would be added to the Lebanon.” Until 1967, the so-called “West Bank” was part of Jordan, but none of the Arab nations agitated for the creation of a Palestinian state. The “Palestinian homeland” became a tactical weapon after violence failed to achieve the real aim, the destruction of Israel."

This abortive land grab cannot fail to remind this historically-minded reader of Stalin's deal to split Poland with Hitler.

"Our failures in dealing with a dysfunctional Middle East in part result from a failure of imagination, our unwillingness to think beyond our own ideals and see beyond the duplicitous pretexts of our adversaries. The tactic of a “Palestinian homeland,” for example, exploits the Western ideal of the nation-state as forming the fundamental structure of a people and their collective identity. But nationalism is not an organic part of Islam, which recognizes no separation of church and state. A people are created by their adherence to Islam, by being members of the global umma or Muslim community. The PLO Charter makes this clear in Article 15: “The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation — peoples and governments — with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard.” Palestinian nationalism is an expression of Arab nationalism, in a way unimaginable for any Western country, for the simple reason that Arab nationalism is in fact another expression of universal Muslim identity."

Yes, but.

Much of "universal Muslim identity" is more accurately described as arabian cultural imperialism. Much of the reason the umma is not, in fact, universal is due to some parts of the Muslim military (and cultural) conquests being less digestible and dissolvable than others, notably Persia and the Berbers.

"National identity, then, means something very different to most Muslims from what it means to us. For most Muslims in the Middle East, being Muslim takes precedence over being an Egyptian, a Libyan, or a Palestinian."

Much of the Middle East, like much of the world outside of Western Europe (and the Anglosphere) is centuries behind us in the formation of a national consciousness. This is in part because they started the process of becoming nation-states later, but also because the forces driving that process are both weaker and opposed by countering forces (such as the umma).

12/15

re: "I'll Bet I've Met More Diplomats Than Rick Perry Has."

Donna at Email From The Embassy ("It's a crazy sort of lifestyle, but it's working for us so far.") defended FSOs against an ill-considered remark by Gov. Perry.

Money quote(s):

"The U.S. Department of State looks for the smartest people it can find, and then, if it can interest them in a low-paying, lonely and dangerous job, somewhere in the far reaches of the globe, it hires them.We have Republican diplomats. We have Democratic diplomats. We have gay diplomats. We have diplomats who oppose gay marriage. We have Muslim diplomats and Jewish diplomats, and girl and boy diplomats. Single parents can be diplomats, as can childless singles."

The pay isn't low, exactly. But it is on the lowish end of the salary range that might be earned by people with the sorts of experience, education, and other credentials FSOs bring with them into the Foreign Service.

It can be lonely, at times, and certainly presents its own assortment of dangers, some of them from unexpected directions.

"We have just about every type of diplomat you can imagine, because we represent a fairly diverse cross-section of America."

That's by design, as you might expect. No more "pale, male and Yale" only Foreign Service; that stereotype lingers on generations after it became an institutional memory. The "state school" folks vastly out-number the Ivy League-ers.

"You won't find a single person in the entire State Department who joined solely to get rich, or to advance a personal agenda at some great cost to our nation. People don't always agree with each other in the Foreign Service, and people don't always get along on a personal level. But Foreign Service officers always advance the agenda of our government, without fail. And they work together, no matter their personal beliefs. Because that is what they were hired to do. Imagine that, if you will: Democrats and Republicans, all working together on behalf of our nation - it happens every single day in the Foreign Service."

The folks with personal agendas don't labor in the diplomatic trenches for a couple of decades until they reach the vicinity of a policy-influencing position. The folks with personal political agendas come in with every new presidential administration, with every new secretary of state. Working diplomats implement the foreign policy of the United States as articulated by the president and by the secstate, consonant with the federal laws and ratified treaties which govern our diplomatic relations.

"(T)here aren't a whole lot of them out there (I'm told it is still true that there are more military band members than there are FSOs)."

A bit over ten thousand FSOs total, plus a few thousand more Foreign Service Specialists who make their work possible.

"Diplomats support American ideals in every country across the globe, often at great risk to themselves and their families. Diplomats (and their boss, the Secretary of State) don't set their own policies. Rather, they serve as boots on the ground, the eyes and ears of the President in every corner of the globe. Diplomats report back what they see and hear and think in these countries"

While diplomats aren't spies, precisely, diplomats do provide what's called "diplomatic intelligence." They're on the ground, with local contacts, with their ears to the ground, with (mostly) appropriate language skills, with their finger on the local pulse. Their reporting provides local context to policy makers.

"They present the facts - and yes, they present their own educated opinions - so that our President has the information he needs to create and direct policy. Once the President decides on policy, these same diplomats work to advance his agenda. Not their own agendas, mind you. Never their own agendas.

If they feel strongly enough that they can't support the President's policies, they resign. It happens, on occasion. If you suddenly find that you can't support current policy, you resign, and you go look for a job in the private sector, where you are allowed to disagree publicly with our nation's policies, and where you probably make more money, too.

But the rest of those diplomats work for the United States of America. They don't work for the Republicans, and they don't work for the Democrats. They work for us, for our country. Always."

11/8

re: "PISSING ON THE TALIBAN"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit also had a few things to say about disrespecting the enemy dead.

Money quote(s):

"I have to say I can’t seem to work up any outrage."

If anything, this is psychological warfare (as distinct from public diplomacy) on the cheap.

(We'd already killed them, after all. Sunken costs, just like UBL's funeral.)

"(I)t is easier for civilized men to act like barbarians than for barbarians to act like civilized men, and plenty of events in Afghanistan illustrate this."

A good bit of basic (and advanced) combat training is designed deliberately to sandblast off a bit of that highly civilized behavior, the part about not killing people to be precise.

"CAIR is a bunch of pro-terrorist stooges. Everyone knows that. Okay, maybe not “a bunch,” as their membership is minuscule and I’m pretty sure their money comes mostly from abroad."

1/12

re: "WTF? State Apologizes to Dead Terrorist's Family (Updated)"

Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at The Jawa Report ("Sand people. Get it?") reacted strongly (and negatively) to reports of an official apology.

Money quote(s):

"I'm not sure if I should be laughing at this or getting really, really pissed off.

On the one hand, we pay the State Department to lie. And, if saying you're sorry for killing a terrorist isn't a lie, then I don't know what is!"

Khan wasn't the intended target, apparently, in this; Anwar Al-Alaki (sp?) was.

So perhaps we were apologizing for poor marksmanship?

(Actually not.)

"Please tell me this is part of some larger duplicity which leads to the entire Kahn (sic) family being deported and/or indicted?

I've always had a rather low opinion of State. But after this, I'm left to wonder which side of the War on Terror they're really pulling for?"

Trust me; the people at State who are aware we're in a war at all (and there are many, perhaps even a majority) are pulling for our side. Fact is, State folks have been some of the primary targets for the other side for several decades now.

It's still true that more U.S. ambassadors have been killed in the line of duty since WW2 than general officers and admirals combined.


10/7

re: "Palestinians are an Invented People"

Michael Curtis* at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") applies an historian's skills to the Palestinian question.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hatever one's views of the sagacity or judgment of Mr. Gingrich on other issues, or one's opinions on the more general issue of the desirability and character of a Palestinian state existing alongside the state of Israel, the accuracy of his statement cannot be denied.

The conclusion stems from two factors. One is that Arabs living in the area now known as Palestine were regarded, both historically and in contemporary times, not as a separate entity but as part of the general Arab people. This has been recognized by Arab spokesmen, by scholars, and by objective international official reports. The second is that no independent Palestinian state has ever existed, let alone one that manifested a "Palestinian identity." " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Until now, that is; the PA: for values of "independent" and "state."

"That "Arab nation" never included a state known as "Palestine." Indeed, the inhabitants of the general Palestinian area were subjects, not of an Arab nation, but of the Ottoman Empire which ruled the area and lasted from 1516 until the end of World War 1. This was the last generally recognized sovereign power in the area. The area of Palestine was a district of the Empire, officially a vilayet (province), not a political entity. No independent Palestinian state has ever been established, nor was there a single administrative or cultural unit of Palestinians. Arabs in the area were not different in any way from other Arabs in the Middle East area. . Nor was Israel established on the ashes of any state other than that of the Ottoman Empire.

The first official naming of "Palestine" as a distinct, defined territorial area came with the decision of the League of Nations , dealing with areas of the former Ottoman Empire, to create a Mandate for Palestine. This was accorded to Great Britain which ruled the area, from the Mediterranean Sea to west of the Jordan River, from 1922 until May 1948.

All people living in that area were regarded as "Palestinians" without any ethnic connotations. Ironically, the name was used not by Arabs but only by Jews in the area, as in The Palestinian (now the Jerusalem) Post, and the Palestine Symphony (now Israel Philharmonic) Orchestra. Only after the state of Israel was established in May 1948 did the term "Palestinian" become exclusively used in referring to Arabs in the area.

It is now clear that a concept of Palestinian identity and nationalism has emerged and become a political factor."

It's curious how the very word Palestine (and Palestinian) itself was co-opted from the Israelis as soon as they had finished with it.

"The essential problem is not simply a terminological one, a refusal to acknowledge that the category of Palestinian identity is a recent invention. Rather, the insistence on a presumed time honored right of a Palestinian people to the disputed land is being used as a weapon against the right of Israel to exist. Such an insistence is a handicap to a peaceful negotiated agreement between Palestinians and Israel."

12/13

* Michael Curtis is Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Political Science, Rutgers University

re: "Countersign"

"There is one thing no head of a country can know and that is: how good is his intelligence system? He finds out only by having it fail him." - R.A. Heinlein, The Puppet Masters

Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club has given some big civic-political issues some serious thought.

Money quote(s):

"Walter Russell Mead asks whether Pakistan is at war with the US. “The United States government believes it has evidence linking the Haqqani network, a terrorist organization which has repeatedly carried out attacks against US government personnel and positions, with the government of Pakistan.” Maybe before Haqqani the network of choice was “al-Qaeda”.

Today “war” is less to do with armies of millions marching across borders than with skilled operators backed by millions of dollars. What the Pakistanis might have done is take over the Saudi connection built during the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan and turn it to their own purposes. Then they could wage “intelligence war” on the United States. The public wouldnt necessarily know. As the WMD Commission report concluded the man on the street would probably only find out when the attack was already under way.

Today, we mostly wait for foreign intelligence officers to appear on our doorstep before we even take notice. The lion’s share of our counterintelligence resources are expended inside the United States despite the fact that our adversaries target U.S. interests globally."

The U.S. really does have people, trained people, who consider these issues on a daily basis. Unfortunately, by all outward appearances, it would seem as if the leadership they report to don't take them all that seriously. (And that's the charitable interpretation.)

"The sum total of these foreign intelligence efforts is striking. During the Cold War, every American national security agency—with the possible exception of the Coast Guard—was penetrated by foreign intelligence services. Moreover, in just the past 20 years CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, NRO, and the Departments of Defense, State, and Energy have all been penetrated. Secrets stolen include nuclear weapons data, U.S. cryptographic codes and procedures, identification of U.S. intelligence sources and methods (human and technical), and war plans. Indeed, it would be difficult to exaggerate the damage that foreign intelligence penetrations have caused.

Some of that juice is certainly going to manifest itself in lobbying and political influence peddling. Indeed, the most fertile ground for “intelligence war” will be in Washington DC itself. Here the potential leverage is greatest, mostly by affecting the form in which “policy questions” are posed. If the questions are phrased right so that all the answers lead nowhere then America might not even recognize it had an enemy at all, except for a bunch of people it has wronged and ought to feel sorry for. If intelligence operations were correctly designed then 9/11 might in memory become just another tragedy" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

A free and democratic political system is no guarantee against subversion and active measures by a foreign intelligence service. In some ways, all that freedom and openness actually makes us more vulnerable. It certainly makes us a dangerous adversary (and thus a target) for lots of unsavory folks.

"The most important function that Israel performed in the Middle East was to serve as a scapegoat upon which to vent political dissent within the repressive countries in the region. It was the “far enemy” that regional dictators used to distract their populations so that they would forget the “near enemy”."

Remember who are the "Great Satan" and the "Lesser Satan."

"The media (once called the “press”) was supposed to Americas defense against foreign political intelligence operations. The media is not only the open source world’s main “intelligence agency”, but also its main counterintelligence organ. But if it has performed poorly as the former, it has worked even worse in the latter role. While the blogosphere is full of screeds inveighing against the MSM’s spinning of the news narrative, relatively less has been written about what it does not choose to investigate. And yet it is in what it does not attempt to cover, rather than what it covers poorly where the media’s main failure may be.

Although we can deduce that a very active political intelligence war is probably being waged by foreign powers in Washington DC you almost never hear the press write about it. That is either because it does not really exist or simply because these questions are not asked. If history is any guide, the revelations will come from foreign correspondents who will run into foreign operatives eager to talk about what no one will believe exists. Or perhaps it will come from declassified documents far the future. Traditionally, it is sources from the other side rather than internal security investigators who reveal the presence of hostile operations.

It was the Venona transcripts, derived from signals intercepts for example, that ultimately showed Julius Rosenberg to be a spy and indicated that many of Joseph McCarthy’s accusations were in fact true. The public never learned the truth from the Government during the Cold War. They didn’t learn the truth from the media either."

Readers of the Cold War classic "The Spike" will recall the media itself being a priority target for subversion and compromise of a free society.

"The Fall of the Berlin Wall may have marked the collapse of the Soviet Union. But it may not have marked the end of the Shadow War. Is Pakistan at War with America? Who in the Middle East is America’s friend? Have the perpetrators of 9/11 been brought to justice? It is politicians who answer these questions and if foreign powers start supporting politicians, who’s to stop them?

Domestic counterintelligence is largely a function of the FBI. The problem with that arrangement is that many of the objects of foreign influence are the agency’s civilian superiors. Either the FBI becomes a law unto itself and watches the President or it becomes a plaything of the President and watches his political enemies.

Clearly the utility of the FBI as an agency able to fend off Senators, Congressmen or other high officials under the influence of foreign powers is limited. Therefore the ability to blow the whistle on an illegitimate (however you want to define this) agency of influence belongs in the political process itself, probably largely through the press."

What can America's counterintelligence organs, such as the FBI, really do to defend against high-level agents of influence such as Mr. Fernandez posits? Outside of Ludlum-esque fantasies involving assassinations and arranged "accidents," not too much. The American system for ensuring the (Constitutional) fidelity of its elected officials is the election itself, with vetting conducted on behalf of the people themselves by our press (and by opposing candidates).

"Political counterintelligence is what the “gatekeepers” do, but the lesson of the last decade is that they are probably not doing it too well."

Once upon a time, major cities would have newspapers (plural) that leaned Republican as well as Democrat, or neither. With all but Fox News, talk radio, and the blogosphere utterly in the tank for just one party, that party gets a pass on actual scrutiny. Witness the court proceedings no afoot in Georgia, deliberating over whether the presidential incumbent will even be on the ballot this time around.

Say what you like about "birthers," but if the media had done any due diligence four years ago (beyond paeans to the Democratic candidate's multiple biographies), this sort of thing would have no traction at all.

"The two party system is largely the guardian of legitimacy. Back in the day both parties were far more accountable to local leaders than they are today. The emergence of a permanent political and media class has meant that notions of “legtimacy” (sic) — they would call it bigotry — at the grassroots count for less and less.

This centralizing tendency has meant that it becomes easier for foreign shadow warriors to “capture the flag” due to the nodal nature of its structure. The best political counterintelligence activity is ironically reforming governance and bringing back the power to local levels insofar as possible. It is far harder for Middle Eastern potentates to capture 50 states than it is for them to capture DC."

9/19

re: "Days eaten by locusts; a Marine urination kafloozle."

Dr. Jerry Pournelle from Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook.") gave this possible lapse in discipline some sober thought.

Money quote(s):

"(S)some things are pretty clear. First, they allowed a comrade to tape this, and he put it up on a social medium, and it got loose. Is anyone here astonished? Which says several things about these particular Marines.

First, they won their battle. It’s them that’s doing the urinating, not being urinated on. Urinating on the enemy is a practice of war from at least 3,000 years ago, and probably a lot longer. It’s better to be the guy letting fly than the recipient. When you send young men into combat and they win this is what happens.

Second, none of these guys is ready for promotion to any kind of command NCO level. They may be good as combat leaders and may not – they did win this fight, after all – but they don’t think through enough. This hands the Taliban a bit of a propaganda device, but then we have plenty of tapes the Taliban made about themselves.

Third, this is a Marine matter, and if it were left to me I’d leave it to the Company Commander. That’s what company grade officers are for. There will be howls from the media, of course. It’s a free country. Of course it’s free because we have troopers like these.

And fourth, if nobody else wants them, in the extremely unlikely event that they post me to a combat command over there, I’ll take them. They look like good troops to me."

That pretty much sums it up.

1/11

re: "South Sudan offers peacekeepers"

Joshua Keating at PASSPORT ("A Blog by the Editors of FOREIGN POLICY") shows how a new country steps up.

Money quote(s):

"Though still dealing with unresolved border disputes and internal rebelions, the newly indpendent government of South Sudan has offered to help the peace in another country"

Nothing like "giving back."

"Since South Sudan is likely to continue to requre quite a bit of international assistance for its development and security in the coming years, the government consider this a wise investment meant at building up international good will. It can also be a sound economic move.

International peacekeeping missions, including the AU's force in Somalia, are generally funded by Western nations and manned by developing ones. Peacekeeping is often a valuable source of revenue for cash-starved governments."

It's a good way for emerging powers to get operational experience in the multinational military environment.

8/16

re: "A badly invented people"

Robert at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") shares a long exerpt from an essay by Daniel Greenfield.

Money quote(s):

"the utter spuriousness and jihadist motivation of the Palestinian claim to nationality"

Mr. Greenfrield wrote:

"Aside from all the hysterical "sky is falling" nonsense, is the comparison between the Americans as an invented people and the Palestinian Arabs.

Let's look at how wrong this is and in how many ways. To begin with the American colonies did not demand their independence based on some spurious ancient history."

"Americans are not a self-invented people, they are a self-evolved people. The American revolution was a struggle between a colony and the mother country that ended in a break and the creation of a new
country that still used the language and much of the culture of the
mother country, but at the same time the colonies had been slowly evolving their own unique identity.

The "Palestinian" Arabs on the other hand are an invented people, and not even a self-invented people. That dubious honor fell to some comrades in Moscow and the Arab nations who found it convenient to have terrorist militias that could launch attacks across the border, supposedly on their own initiative, but in reality answering to them.

Their whole claim to a state is the bizarre insistence that they are the
region's original inhabitants who were driven out by the actual original inhabitants, the Jews. When they are actually the descendants of the Muslim conquerors who drove out or
subjugated the native inhabitants."

Yes. They're also the descendents of those other original inhabitants, Christian, Jewish, Pagan, who converted to Islam.

12/12

re: "Meanwhile, in other news..."

Bill at Castle Argghhh! ("just retired warriors and fellow-travelers") had some interesting news awhile back.

Money quote(s):

"Iran got tired of just shelling Iraqi Kurds and launched a raid into the area around Suleymania (S'leymani, if you'd prefer it in Kurmanji). The Revolutionary Guards evidently got their butts kicked good -- not surprising, since we've been training the Kurds since '03, at least. The RG's target was one of the towns where a lot of Free Life Party of Kurdistan (PJAK) members make their home, because PJAK openly sides with Iranian Kurds agitating for an autonomous homeland in Iran. In what would normally be a puzzling move, in 2009 the Treasury Department declared the PJAK a terrorist organization -- right before Obie's "peace overtures" to Tehran. Got that? The *Treasury* Department -- not the State Department, and not the Justice Department, and not in coordination with either -- made that call, evidently based on an *Iranian* TV newscast linking PJAK with the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK)." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

7/20

re: "Gingrich’s Fresh Hope"

Caroline Glick at Big Peace stuck up for former-Speaker Gingrich in the Jerusalem Post.

Money quote(s):

"(F)ormer speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, did something revolutionary. He told the truth about the Palestinians. In an interview with The Jewish Channel, Gingrich said that the Palestinians are an “invented” people, “who are in fact Arabs.”

His statement about the Palestinians was entirely accurate. At the end of 1920, the “Palestinian people” was artificially carved out of the Arab population of “Greater Syria.” “Greater Syria” included present-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan. That is, the Palestinian people were invented 91 years ago. Moreover, as Gingrich noted, the term “Palestinian people” only became widely accepted after 1977.

As Daniel Pipes chronicled in a 1989 article on the subject in The Middle East Quarterly, the local Arabs in what became Israel opted for a local nationalistic “Palestinian” identity in part due to their sense that their brethren in Syria were not sufficiently committed to the eradication of Zionism."

So the latest date is 1977, which would (in Western demographic terms) a generation ago, but in Middle Eastern terms is more like two generations. Long enough for the myth of national consciousness to become a reality.

(Which doesn't make Gingrich a liar.)

"In their view, Gingrich is an irresponsible flamethrower because he is turning his back on a 30- year bipartisan consensus. That consensus is based on ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are an artificial people whose identity sprang not from any shared historical experience, but from opposition to Jewish nationalism.

The policy goal of the consensus is to establish an independent Palestinian state west of the Jordan River that will live at peace with Israel.

This policy was obsessively advanced throughout the 1990s until it failed completely in 2000, when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected then-prime minister Ehud Barak’s and then US president Bill Clinton’s offer of Palestinian statehood and began the Palestinian terror war against Israel.

BUT RATHER than acknowledge that the policy – and the embrace of Palestinian national identity at its heart – had failed, and consider other options, the US policy establishment in Washington clung to it for dear life. Republicans like Rubin’s mentor, former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, went on to support enthusiastically Israel’s surrender of Gaza in 2005, and to push for Hamas participation in the 2006 Palestinian elections. That withdrawal and those elections catapulted the jihadist terror group to power.

The consensus that Gingrich rejected by telling the truth about the artificial nature of Palestinian nationalism was based on an attempt to square popular support for Israel with the elite’s penchant for appeasement. On the one hand, due to overwhelming public support for a strong US alliance with Israel, most US policy-makers have not dared to abandon Israel as a US ally.

On the other hand, American policy-makers have been historically uncomfortable having to champion Israel to their anti-Israel European colleagues and to their Arab interlocutors who share the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist."

Being uncomfortable sometimes is just something that goes with the job. As fond as I am of Europeans, I don't expect that I'll always agree with them.

"Throughout the Arab world, Islamist forces are on the rise.

Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.

The US is no longer seen as a credible regional power as it pulls its forces out of Iraq without victory, hamstrings its forces in Afghanistan, dooming them to attrition and defeat, and abandons its allies in country after country."

This too shall pass.

"Both Rubin and Abrams, as well as Romney, justified their attacks on Gingrich and their defense of the failed consensus by noting that no Israeli leaders are saying what Gingrich said. Rubin went so far as to allege that Gingrich’s words of truth about the Palestinians hurt Israel.

This is of course absurd. What many Americans fail to recognize is that Israeli leaders are not as free to tell the truth about the nature of the conflict as American leaders are. Rather than look to Israel for leadership on this issue, American leaders would do well to view Israel as the equivalent of West Germany during the Cold War. With half of Berlin occupied by the Red Army and West Berlin serving as the tripwire for a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, West German leaders were not as free to tell the truth about the Soviet Union as American leaders were."

Interesting parallel that appeals to my inner Cold Warrior.

"When Romney criticized Gingrich’s statement as unhelpful to Israel, Gingrich replied, “I feel quite confident that an amazing number of Israelis found it nice to have an American tell the truth about the war they are in the middle of, and the casualties they are taking and the people around them who say, ‘They do not have a right to exist and we want to destroy them.’”

And he is absolutely right. It was more than nice. It was heartening."

Said (actually written) by an Israeli, writing for the Jerusalem Post. So I'm inclined to accept the sentiment as genuine.

12/12

re: "General Fuller's Career-Ending Message for Americans"

Fred J. Eckert at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") considered the message and the messenger.

Money quote(s):

"Major General Peter Fuller's career-destroying offense was to publicly criticize Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai for saying during an October 22nd interview with Pakistani news media that if the U.S. and Pakistan got into a war, he and Afghanistan would side with Pakistan in fighting against the United States."

You've got to figure that a three-star general has had plenty of experience in considering, and rejecting, the impulse to make career-destroying public statements. Any officer (military or otherwise) has to develop a facility for picking ones battles. Is this the hill I want to (figuratively) die on? Is this the sword I want (my career) to fall upon?

Some issues are going to be worth it. For someone in MG Fuller's position, he must have judged it was.

"General Fuller also referred to Karzai's being "erratic," expressed hope that Afghanistan's next leader will be more "articulate," said he thought Afghan government leaders are "isolated from reality" in their expectations of what America should expend in that country, and said those Afghan leaders "don't appreciate" the sacrifice that the United States is making in "blood and treasure" for the people of their country."

Retiring as a major general whose last official act was to speak the uncomfortable truth in response to a politician's dishonorable speech isn't exactly the worst way to go out.

"Everything General Fuller said that got him fired is true and needs to be understood by the public and by the media. Bear in mind that General Fuller, a man who has served our country as a U.S. Army officer for more than 30 years, was the deputy commander charged with turning Afghan's military into an effective fighting force. Knowing this, there is something lacking in anyone's sense of patriotism who does not understand and share the general's annoyance and frustration about Karzai's revealing that he would have no qualms about ordering Afghan soldiers trained by Americans to fight and kill Americans.

And yet...it is not the place of General Fuller to presume without authorization to make and conduct U.S. foreign policy. Clearly he crossed the line. Thus, it is beside the point and matters not one bit that what he said in public is true and very likely echoes what the superior officer who fired him and just about every other American military official in Afghanistan says in private." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Yes. And yet....

"The firing of General Fuller raises a much larger unanswered question, the question that should have been raised and discussed in the media all along from the very moment that Hamid Karzai publicly made his inappropriate, insulting remarks at which General Fuller and every other clear thinking American rightly takes great offense: what should U.S. leaders say and do when a foreign leader who owes his country's freedom, and perhaps even his own life, to American goodness acts towards America as one would act towards an enemy?"

Politics, and diplomacy, is the "art of the possible." Higher pay grades than MG Fuller's have decided to overlook (or swallow) the insult.

"When NATO and American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John R. Allen, explained that he was firing General Peter Fuller because of "inappropriate public comments," he may not have caught the irony. General Fuller's "inappropriate public comments" were a reaction to Karzai's wildly "inappropriate public comments" that insulted our country and are an affront to any and every American who has aided the people of Afghanistan."

11/8

re: "Robust Briefing on Camp Ashraf and the Robust MEK"

Peter at We Meant Well ("How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People") brought us up-to-date on our PMOI friends.

Money quote(s):

"Ambassador Daniel Fried is the Special Advisor for Camp Ashraf. He is tasked with overseeing a nice ending to a problem the US (and Iraq) have conveniently put off for almost nine years during the Occupation.

The MEK people are still living in Iraq, at a place called Camp Ashraf, and Iraq would generally prefer that they all die, or disappear or die and disappear. The US has run the gamut of emotions and policy positions on MEK (it’s complicated), but prefer that they just disappear without the being massacred by Iraqis part."

The motivation for massacre comes in two parts: first is resentment/revenge on the part of the Iraqi themselves; the second is acting on behalf of the nearby Iranian regime.

"The UN has come up with a solution that might work. The MEK people will move from distant, tainted and often rocketed Camp Ashraf into the recently-abandoned Camp Liberty. Once the home of Iraq’s largest PX store during the Occupation, Liberty now has lots of openings for new residents. The nice thing is that Liberty is pretty close to the World’s Largest Embassy (c) and so the US can play a “monitoring” role, basically visiting once in a while to deter the Iraqis from just rolling in and killing everyone one night. The UN is later supposed to arrange something for the 3,200 MEK folks– refugee status, immigration, Publisher’s Clearing House prize, anything to get them out of Iraq before they all are ground into sausage meat by the democracy there."

Moving the PMOI to the-Camp-formerly-known-as-Liberty makes it much less likely that they will suddenly "commit suicide" one dark night (at the hands of other than themselves). Proximity to our embassy and to U.N. missions tasked with their welfare means the problem doesn't get massacred or wished away.

"A statement by people in Camp Ashraf said that as a first step, a group of 400 are ready “to move to Camp Liberty with their vehicles and moveable belongings on December 30.” The transfer, however, did not happen as the Iraqi government stepped in to require that people did not carry more than a travel bag to the new looted camp which now lacks basic infrastructure and drinking water.

Ambassador Fried (his real name) held a briefing at the State Department that was quite informative, with a transcript now online. Among the many complications, he reveals that there are at least two (Iranian-) Americans among the Camp Ashraf residents. The briefing sidesteps the messy question of MEK’s status on the US terrorist list and keeps the focus on the humanitarian side, which is probably the best way out."

The PMOI has considerable in the way of moveable assets, equipment, personal belongings, everything from kitchen implements to their museum, even possibly their dead (there is a cemetary). They would, naturally enough, like to take as much of what makes their life survivable and livable with them, as well as their non-combat vehicles, with them. Anything left behind will be looted and/or desecrated, possibly as they exit the camp gates.

Another issue will be route security. Moving 3,200 people or so from Camp Ashraf to Baghdad is a non-trivial task in a combat zone, which Iraq sadly remains.

12/31

re: "Spending bills threaten Foreign Service pay and hiring"

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") outlined the demerits of cutting the salaries of diplomats deployed beyond the beltway (and the borders).

Money quote(s):

"Government Executive has an excellent piece on the spending bills before Congress and what this could mean for the Foreign Service.These bills would cut my pay by 16% while I am overseas, on top of the fact that my pay is already frozen for the next two years at least."

Anecdotally, most FSOs I've spoken with understand the necessity for freezing government worker's pay, particularly in an economic environment where many Americans have lost their jobs or otherwise lost ground economically. Nobody's crazy-happy about it (who would be?), but the political necessity, the optics of it, are apparent enough.

Also, the pay freeze simply means that pay rates stay the same; no across-the-board salary increases of some percents or so. Individuals can still advance by promotion or longevity pay to higher pay grades; it's just that those pay grades remain constant for two years.

On the other hand, decreasing, by 16 percent, the pay of FSO serving abroad (while leaving that of those in Washington intact) doesn't pass the smell test.

"Yes, we get free housing overseas. But we still have our mortgage to pay at home. And renting our place doesn't cover that."

"Free" housing overseas is one of those areas where the Foreign Service is more like unto the military (and naval) services than is the Civil Service.

(Caveat: CAA has been a member of not only the Foreign Service and military service, but was also in the Civil Service for several years.)

(Note: There are actually three foreign services; those of the State Dept., USAID, and the Foreign Agricultural Service of the USDA. For CAA purposes, assume "Foreign Service" refers to that of the State Dept.)

Most Civil Service folks (there are exceptions, e.g., DIA, FBI, &tc.) are appointed into a position for which they qualify and stay there. Their "rank" is by position, not by individual. And they can stay in that job until the heat death of the universe without penalty; they get promotions by competing for (and being hired into) jobs at a higher grade.

A consequence of this is that, compared to the foreign and military services, is much less geographical mobility. In each of the cases, this is not a bug, it is a feature. Foreign Service and military members expect to move around during their careers; Civil Service much less so.

So, like for military members, housing (or a housing allowance) is provided for Foreign Service members, but only when stationed or deployed abroad.

Military folks get their housing allowances no matter where they are stationed; this is not a complaint, merely a statement of the reality.

Something like 99 percent of FS jobs are in the D.C. area. There are passport centers, diplomatic security field offices, and some facilities that support State operations located beyond the beltway, but the Department's center-of-gravity in terms of personnel is Washington, D.C. This has been true since long before the Department took up residence in Foggy Bottom.

Granted, the decision to buy (or not) a home is an individual one. The government doesn't make FSOs buy houses. That being said, if in the course of your career you're going to be overseas two-thirds of the time and spend the remaining third of your working life in a single metropolitan area, then you're an idiot (or have another plan involving a place to retire to elsewhere) if you don't invest in owning your own residence there. Otherwise you're just micturating your money away on rent rather than building some equity.

"Because most in the FS are not tandem couples like M and I, going overseas means the loss not just of that 16% but of one spouse's ENTIRE income. Most spouses who work in the states have a limited ability to do so overseas, and even when they do, it is for substantially less pay.

Especially for those with children, this is an nearly impossible loss to bear.

None of us mind sacrificing for the country. We know that this is part of the nature of our service. We willing leave our homes, our stability, our families, for the good of the country."

The days of Leave It To Beaver stay-at-home spouses as the rule stopped being true for middle class couples and families as a consequence of the sexual revolution. No big surprises there. As often as not (there are still lots of single-income families out there) though, university-educated couples tend to be two-income couples.

College-educated persons tend to marry other college-educated persons.

It shouldn't be any surpise that at least 98/99 percent of FSOs have at least a university degree (and that 100 percent of FSO have at least some college).

One of the consequences (for good or bad) of Foreign Service life is the difficulty FS spouses (of either sex) have in finding gainful employment during the course their FSO spouse's career. There's been lots of progress made in this arena in terms of creating opportunities for FS spouses to work, where appropriate, in our overseas posts. Even in D.C. this is a problem, in large part because FSO will generally only serve for two years at a stretch in the U.S. before going back overseas for three (or more) years.

This works out to a huge bite out of an FS couple's lifetime earnings compared with similarly-educated/credentialed persons working in the U.S.

I mention this not so much to complain as to explain why nickel & diming FS families on their primary income becomes so significant; much of the time it will be their only income.

"(W)hen you carve out 16% of our pay, bear in mind that the senior levels of the Foreign Service do not experience this cut. The other agencies serving with us at post do not experience this cut. The military and their civilian employees do not experience this cut. Their base salaries are their DC salaries, not some fake base salary with DC locality pay.

It is only those of us in the mid and lower levels who must take a pay cut to serve you overseas."

Shockingly, when Senior Foreign Service (SFS; the Foreign Service's "flag officers") compensation was "reformed" so that D.C. base pay was incorporated, much of the steam seemed to go out of Department's leadership in terms working to get that accomplished for the lower and middle-ranking FSOs.

Fancy that.

All snarking aside, the issue was (at long last) addressed just a few short years ago and a three-step phase-in was begun to bring overseas compensation in line with D.C. pay so that diplomats would not actually have to take a pay-cut in order to serve overseas.

That's right. Diplomats take a pay-cut (to their base pay) when they leave Washington, D.C., and deploy abroad to serve their country.

As a one-time Business Administration major, this kind of financial disincentive scheme leaves me nearly speechless at its utter counter-intuitive idiocy.

Now, to give the whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth, many overseas assignments bring with them certain other pay allowances, such as cost-of-living allowances, hardship allowances, and danger pay. But it still never made any sense that someone leaving D.C. would have go to a post where hardship and danger pay allowance exceeded 2o percent or more just to break even.

So that's what Digger's talking about.

10/7

re: "Caroline Glick: Newt’s comments “a cause for hope” "

William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection gleaned the best of Caroline Glick's commentary on criticism of former-Speaker Gingrich's remarks.

12/12

re: "Islam Is Islam, And That Is That"

Federale ("That Is The Sound Of Inevitability") remarked on willful blindness and those who promote it.

Money quote(s):

"Words of wisdom from Prime Minister Recep Erdogan of Turkey. Spencer Ackerman and Joe Lieberman seem to disagree. They think there are peaceful manifestations of Islam. Well, there are Muslims who don't practice their religion to varying degrees, but Islam is Islam; vile, warlike, dangerous, hateful, and bigoted against whites, Christians and Western Civilization.

However there has been much ado about recent FBI training that exposes Islam for what it is, Islam. The Danger Blog in particular is waging jihad against some who agree with Islamic scholars and political leaders like Erdogan who accept Islam for what it is; A warlike religion opposed to Christendom. And doing so violently.

Unlike DHS which views the threat to America as coming from white, Christian, heterosexual, gun owning veterans, the FBI has been ignoring PC and providing accurate information about Islam to its agents. That, of course, is unacceptable to the left, as Islam is a religion of peace."

Good for the FBI. You've got to get fairly well into the IC before you'll find folks (analysts and others) who'll call a spade a spade, there being since 9/11 the declaration from the White House on down that "Islam is a religion of peace."

Frankly, CAIR needs to be thought of as being the post-9/11 equivalent of the old German American Bund.

"(T)he FBI does not use Mafia attorneys to vet its organized crime training either. And wisely so, because just as so-called Italian-American groups denied the existence of the Mafia, and communist front groups denied that there was Soviet subversion in the U.S., Islamists deny that there is any radicalization problem among American Muslims, but Major Nidal Hassan, the Times Square Bomber, Najibullah Zazi, and the Arkansas Recruiter Shooter are just a few of the local Muslims that became radicalized by becoming more devout. The FBI training is not as Ackerman claims playing into the hand of Al Queda, but accurately describing the process of radicalization and its connection to the very nature of Islam. The more Muslim a Muslim, the more danger that Muslim presents to America."

CAA recently read a statistic (can't remember where, somewhere online) that at 80 percent of American mosques, visitors can get radical materials and propaganda. This should surprise no one except to note that 20 percent of may not be centers of Islamist radicalization.

9/18

re: "State Department scrambling to move the MEK -- to a former U.S. military base?"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") gave a good state-of-play on our PMOI friends.

Money quote(s):

"The Iraqi government has promised to shutter Camp Ashraf -- the home of the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) -- by Dec. 31. Now, the United Nations and the State Department are scrambling to move the MEK to another location inside Iraq, which just may be a former U.S. military base."

Obviously, this date has slipped some since Mr. Rogin's post.

"The Marxist-Islamist group, which was formed in 1965, was used by Saddam Hussein to attack the Iranian government during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and has been implicated in the deaths of U.S. military personnel and civilians. The new Iraqi government has been trying to evict them from Camp Ashraf since the United States toppled Saddam in 2003. The U.S. military guarded the outside of the camp until handing over external security to the Iraqis in 2009. The Iraqi Army has since tried twice to enter Camp Ashraf, resulting in bloody clashes with the MEK both times.

Now the United Nations, led by Martin Kobler, the head of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), is working with the State Department to convince the Iraqi government and the MEK to open up a new home for MEK members inside Iraq, at a facility near the Baghdad airport. U.S. officials won't confirm, but also won't deny, that facility is a U.S. military base that was recently handed over to the Iraqis."

Mr. Rogin omits mention that Saddam also used the PMOI against internal opponents, including Kurds. The U.S. personnel (and civilians) assassinated by the PMOI were working in Iran before the Revolution.

"Nobody knows how many people are in Camp Ashraf, because nobody can go inside. The residents are also suspected to be well armed. There could be as many as 3,200 people there, according to the State Department. If they are evicted from the camp, some will voluntarily go back to Iran and some will go to other countries. Others still may not actually be MEK members but could be living there for their own reason, making their relocation easier, the official said. The unknown number of "card-carrying members" of the MEK who can't or won't be relocated are the ones who the United Nations and State are trying to move to the new camp."

Camp Ashraf's residents used to be extremely well armed, but their armored vehicles and artillery were given to newly-formed Iraqi army units several years ago. Still, CAA is not alone in his suspicions that Camp Ashraf has supplies of (at least) small arms and ammunition hidden away for a rainy day.

As for "card-carrying," CAA can attest that they didn't have membership cards at Camp Ashraf until 2003 when U.S. forces conducting conducting screening operations there issued photo-IDs to residents as part of the process where they were photographed and fingerprinted.

"(T)he Iraqis have been warning for months that they would close Camp Ashraf by the end of the year. So why is everybody scrambling in the last two weeks? The State Department is placing the blame squarely on the MEK."

Well, we would, wouldn't we?

"The official said the new facility would be better because it would give the Iraqi government some control over what goes on there.

"[Camp Ashraf] is a state within a state. It is run by the MEK and when anybody else tries to enter, well, we've seen what occurs," one State Department official said, explaining that the new camp would have some type of Iraqi government administration and yet not be in total control of the MEK. "Iraqi soveriegnty will prevail with a robust set or arrangements and U.N. monitoring."

Another reason the United Nations and State are pushing for the MEK to be moved from Camp Ashraf to another facility is that the U.N. High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has refused to give refugee status to Ashraf residents because of the MEK's tight control over the people there."

Also, Camp Ashraf (near Khalis) just isn't that close and convenient to Baghdad where international organizations can get to quickly and without a lot of red-tape and hassles.

"Advocating for the MEK is a tricky proposition for the State Department, because the organization is on its list of foreign terrorist organizations. The MEK has been lobbying hard for its removal from that list and State's review of their status has been "ongoing" for years.

As part of its multi-million dollar lobbying effort, the MEK has paid dozens of top U.S. officials and former officials to speak on its behalf, sometimes at rallies on the State Department's doorstep. MEK supporters have been stationed outside the State Department non-stop for months now, and are even showing up at Congressional hearings."

State's review of the PMOI's status is reviewed just as regularly as every other organization listed by State as being terrorists. Which is to say as often as regulations require.

"(W)hat happens after the MEK moves to the new facility, even if the current deal is worked out in time? What's the plan to deal with these people over the long run?

"Right now our priority is in a successful, peaceful relocation," the State Department official said. "One huge problem at a time."

UPDATE: The AP reported has just reported that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has decided to grant a 6-month extenstion on the closing of Camp Ashraf, although he is backdating the start of the extension to November."

So, we can expect the next crisis to loom on schedule later this year, perhaps beginning in March.

12/21

re: "On Gingrich, The Palestinians, And “Invented People”"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") considers the facts-in-the-minds-of-the-people-on-the-ground.

Money quote(s):

"Whether or not it is historically accurate to say that there was no such thing as the idea of a Palestinian nation prior to the early 20th Century is largely irrelevant. What matters is what the facts on the ground are right now, and right now there are some 4 million people in the West Bank and on the Gaza Strip who consider themselves part of a Palestinian nation. Ignoring that reality is impossible, and engaging in historical diversions about the Ottoman Empire, the Caliphite that preceded it, or the Roman Empire that once ruled Palestine is really quite pointless." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Can I get an "Amen!"?

Sure, prior to the XX cent. the "history" of the Palestinian people is pretty much fairy-tales (unless you're talking about the Jews, &tc.). But, deliberately or not, there's a very real sense of national consciousness there now, and that has to be accepted (and dealt with).

12/11

re: "US ConGen Chennai: "Dirty and Dark" Tamil Remark Lands US Diplomat in Very Hot Water"

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.") explored how this could have happened.

Money quote(s):

"(A) US diplomat was caught in a very public row over her insensitive and thoughtless remark about Tamils during a speech at a local university in Chennai, India."

A fairly experienced individual, but new to formal diplomacy. Foreigners can be a mite tetchy about First World diplomats talking down to them, even if the diplomat didn't mean to do so.

"U.S. diplomats are on 24/7, 365 days a year. Even the lowest ranked, most junior U.S. diplomat is a representative of the United States Government.The press, and host country nationals in fact, will have high expectations even on the newest vice-consul. If there is a lesson to this, it is that no matter how junior a diplomat the individual might be, what he/she says and does reflect on the United States. The press, local or otherwise, will not make allowances that this is a diplomat's first assignment or whether or not he/she had lessons in public affairs and public diplomacy."

All true. It can be a bit heady; it's also quite dangerous (to the junior diplomats more than anyone).

Presumably V/C Chao's supervisor looked at her long experience in education and thought she'd be the ideal person to handle this particular speaking event. We all have to speak in public sooner or later; this is covered at least somewhat during the A-100 orientation that all FSOs attend.

"In a very competitive service, entry level officers often try to set themselves apart from the pack. Most volunteer for additional assignments, others use their portfolio assignments to stand out; in a pack of highly educated, talented newbies, they mostly want to be memorable to their bosses. But it can sometimes backfire.

In the last several years, there has also been a pushed for new officers to be out there. Even "newbies" on their first tours in consular sections are being asked to conduct consular public diplomacy outreach with radio, television and the print media. The State Department culture often presumes that a Foreign Service Officer, a generalist can do just about anything, whether they are trained for it or not. Some officers are indeed talented in dealing with the general public and the media; but others are not so."

First tour officers are worried about their annual performance appraisals; supervisors of those first tour officers are worried about coming up with something to write for each of perhaps as many as a dozen or more such individuals that makes each evaluation individual. So they get special projects or assignments, none of it make-work, that give them an opportunity to shine (or not).

I suspect that this vice consul's supervisor has had lots of occasion to reflect on all the ramifications of that.

"In another life -- in at least one consular section, I have seen a Consul General tasked entry level officers with extremely limited press training to go out and deal with the media in the section's public outreach. And it was not optional. The result was a group of new officers who desperately wanted to excel on something they were set to fail. For those naturally talented or PD-coned, the task was manageable; if you have the knack for it, you can get by by the skin of your teeth. For those who are non-PD coned, or those with no substantial experience dealing with foreign publics--some not always friendly to the United States, it was often like amateur hour. Why would a senior manager do something like this? Rumor had it that the Consul General was trying to impress somebody from his/her home bureau with an "innovative" program for new officers which carry no training cost. It was a shitty program but the junior officers were too afraid to complain or demand appropriate training." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

All FSOs, but especially new ones, suffer (is the right word?) from varying degrees of Lake Woebegone-ness. That is, none of them can be described as being anything but above average. They can't be average (or below) to get anywhere within spitting distance of being hired into this line of work, no matter what fellowships or other line-cutting opportunities they're gifted with beforehand.

CAA admits to a certain trepidation when it comes to dealing with the media, but has benefited from generally U.S.-friendly interviewers and media outlets, which allowed him to gain experience without tongue-trampling too badly on camera (or in print).

"(E)ntry level officers who are on overseas assignment for the first time ought not deal with the foreign public/media without specific guidance/training from post's Public Affairs Officer. Some sections where bosses are not too addled with the illness known as promotiontitis, the officers get to do murder boards before they show up for public engagements. Despite what the name implies, a murder board does not involve actual murder and gets its origin from the U.S. Army's extensive training system; it simulates the actual presentation where the audience (usually colleagues) engaged in a role play including asking difficult and gotcha questions that the target group is likely to ask. It is a practice session that not only allows newbies to make mistakes in a learning environment; if handled effectively with appropriate feedback, it also help the new officers improve their persuasion, presentation and public speaking skills."

The concept of a "murder board" is also utilized when preparing political appointees for their confirmation hearings. The main drawback is time. Anyone who would be needed to put one of these together almost certainly has other things eating up the limited number of hours in their work day. So preparing media newbies for their first foray into the lion's den has to be made enough of a priority (by management) that it happens. To do otherwise invites media disaster, as we've seen.

8/15

re: "Threatening Military Pay Emboldens Adversaries and Destroys Morale…Way to Go, Obama!"

Michael Angley at Big Peace had strong things to say about leadership in high places.

Money quote(s):

"(P)ronouncements (or lack of reassurances) not only demonstrate cowardice and an absence of leadership, they may suggest to a potential enemy that we are not going to fund a strong military, a situation fraught with dangerous potential. The mere fact that Obama failed to assure the military that it would get paid is a despicable action by a Commander-in-Chief, one that has already fostered low morale among the troops. This damage cannot be undone, and no matter what happens with paychecks, the fact that Obama did not prioritize troop pay will not be forgotten."

Never let a crisis go to waste; never let an opportunity to let something turn into a crisis slip by unexploited.

"Real leaders rise above petty party politics and reassure the American people that their lives will not be disrupted as the machine of government grinds its gears and debates heavy issues like the debt ceiling. Real leaders take care of seniors, soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and veterans. Real leaders signal to our adversaries that no matter what political issues simmer on the domestic front, that we are a United States of America and we will always have a military force with high morale and esprit de corps ready and capable of destroying any threat we face." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

7/19

re: "US Mission Italy: #CostaConcordia Shipwreck (Contact Numbers)"

Consular contact information regarding the Costa Concordia shipwreck, provided at Diplopundit.

1/14