re: "Hitting nails on the head"

nmleon had responded to my earlier comment of Thursday, February 9th at 9:42AM EDT, responding to Jeff Emanuel's post at Redstate.

nmleon said:

"Having spent 3 of the last 5 yrs in Iraq (DoD contractor), I can say that Consul has it exactly right as far as he’s commented.

Nobody ate MREs on an extended basis, and the massively complicated logistics supply chain was until last Dec managed by DoD under the aegis of our SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement). With the failure of the administration to negotiate a new or continuing SOFA, we had no option but to withdraw our military forces from Iraq.

Without a SOFA, the remaining USG organizations (and the contractors managing their logistics supply chain) HAD to be folded into DoS (with diplomatic status) or be essentially left as tourists, fully subject to Iraqi law even in the performance of their duties.

As to whether or not USAID etc should have missions there at all, I’m less than certain. While we had a continued (small) military presence I think it was a no-brainer. Iraq is a country with a lot of potential if sectarian strife can be ameliorated. Without our continued military presence I have doubts that will happen."

2/9

re: "diplomacy"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to Jack_Savage's comment of Friday, February 10th at 8:40 AM EST(link).

Jack Savage said:

"When we are in a foreign land, aren’t we ALL diplomats?"

My response:

"Only when we screw up.

Seriously, I got that same briefing as a Private (E-2) in Germany back during the Bad Old Days (TM) of The Cold War as well.

So in a broad-swath philosophical sense that’s true.

From a perspective of international law (specifically the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations), anybody we send over on a diplomatic passport (IF THEY ARE GRANTED A DIPLOMATIC VISA BY THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT) is a “diplomat.”

But in terms of reality, it’s our Foreign Service Officers (FSO; both from State, USAID, and Dept. of Commerce “Foreign Commercial Service) and Foreign Service Specialists (FSS) who are “actual” diplomats by training and profession.

You could add to that some (but not all) of the various attaches (such as military ones) from other government “tenant agencies” as they get specialized training for working in a diplomatic environment."


2/11

re: "Costs"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to snowshooze's comment of Friday, February 10th at 2:00 PM EST(link).

snowshooze said:

"Are you guys really thinking there is any sanity in that?"

My response:

"Building an embassy complex to securely house not only our diplomatic mission but the management of a national reconstruction effort in a combat zone where they take indirect fire every day (including during construction) is going to cost a lot.

A lot.

And when I say “house,” I mean not only their working spaces (and warehouses, workshops, &tc. to support that work) but actual living quarters BECAUSE NONE OF IT MAY BE SAFELY PLACED OUTSIDE OF YOUR SECURITY PERIMETER.

For some perspective, take a look at The Skeptical Bureaucrat’s latest post: http://skepticalbureaucrat.blogspot.com/2012/02/and-another-thing-about-that-baghdad.html

TSB and I go way back. He knows whereof he speaks and is a security professional second to none."



2/11

re: "How funny"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to duncer's comment of Thursday, February 9th at 2:39 PM EST(link).
duncer said:

"Few people are aware of those numbers partly because outside of their immediate family, few people miss the diplomats. The generals are a real loss to the nation as are every enlisted man that has put himself in harms way for love of country,not a career behind a desk."

My response:

"How funny you think that diplomat’s don’t put themselves into harm’s way while serving the country they love."




2/9

re: "Disturbing"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to americanexpat's comment of Thursday, February 9th at 9:34 PM EST(link) said:

"We have truly reached a troubling state of affairs when I have become the voice of reason and experience."

2/9

re: "Thank you, Consul"

americanexpat said some useful things in the comment thread of Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState, on February 9, at 8:34 PM:

"I don’t have the knowledge to respond to a lot of the specific criticisms. Frankly, I don’t always have a lot of respect for those high up in Department hierarchy. But I’ve found that there is a lot of misunderstanding of diplomats and diplomatic families, and a lot of blaming us for policies over which we have no control. My husband is an IT specialist, for crying out loud–his job is to make sure that the embassy here has secure communications with headquarters, something I’d hope everyone agrees is important. Yet some people act as if we alone are responsible for all the things in US foreign policy with which they disagree, and I find myself constantly saying “Now this is just my opinion, not the position of the US government,” even when speaking with other Americans. And I’m not even the employee!

All that to say, thank you for providing a voice of experience and reason in response to these criticisms."

2/9

re: "Sticking It Out"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to Marcus_Traianus' comment of Thursday, February 9th at 1:29 PM EST(link).

Marcus said:

"I was only thinking they would eat MRE’s until they could get to Liberty for some Taco Bell or BK. Either that or to hold them over until the crudites dip was replenished in a week.

Realistically DoS is always a crap shoot. But I think he was hoping for Europe, Scandinavia or even Namibia (Ja, sie sprechen Deutsch). It’s like another guy I know who speaks fluent Spanish and ended up in Rome (where he became a chain smoker waiting for the constant PLO threatened attacks on the embassy).

Look, I don’t like whiners not matter where they live. There is always someone who has it a lot worse. Plus this Walmart-Embassy in Iraq was really not well thought out. That above all else is obvious."

My response:

"I hope your friend stuck it out and got a German-speaking post eventually. While not as widely useful as, say, French or Spanish, it’s certainly not a “boutique language” where you go to a lot of effort learning it and there’s only one place that speaks it (Slovenian, Estonian, that sort of language). With German, you’ve got utility in not only the (several, but not as many as there used to be) posts in Germany, but in Austria and Switzerland as well.

Italian isn’t bad for a Spanish speaker to learn, and Rome a lot nicer than some of the places Spanish speakers get assigned.

As a working level diplomat, I’m not really privy to the big policy-level decisions like “what’s our post-invasion plan for Iraq” or “how big should our embassy be in Iraq.” But those decisions were generally made outside of State or at its very highest levels; i.e., by political appointees."

2/9

re: "Numbers"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to Jack_Savage's comment of Thursday, February 9th at 10:14 PM EST(link).

Jack Savage said:

"Maybe it is because they really don’t do much of anything, and if they do anything, they don’t have a lot to show for it.

Example: You have the finest diplomats on the planet in Baghdad – 16,000 of them, as a matter of fact – and they can’t figure out a way to negotiate getting food shipments in a timely fashion? In a country we rescued from a dictator at great cost in lives and money? And their only strategy to achieve this objective is to whine to the New York Times?

And you seem to think they prevent wars and keep our enemies at bay?

Spare me."

My response:

"According to the original post (above), there _aren’t_ 16,000 diplomats at the Baghdad embassy.

“So the wizards at State has suddenly realized that constructing a 104-acre, $750,000,000.00 embassy complex and building up the embassy staff to 16,000 people (including 2,000 diplomats and several times more contractors), without running either by the Iraqis first, “may have been ill advised.” ”

So support staff is 16,000 (presumably that includes locally-hired Iraqi staff members as well) handling all the support, medical, transportation, SECURITY, &tc. that used to be handled by the U.S. military because those services are/were either unavailable in Iraq or untrustworthy.

Leaving 2,000, of which probably a fifth are specialists of one sort (security, management, communications, administration) supporting the other 80 percent. Figure several hundred of that remainder are program specialists or attaches of one sort or another who belong to “tenant agencies” (such as USAID).

Frankly, if even 2 or 3 hundred of that figure are actual State Dept. commissioned foreign service officers (i.e., actual diplomats) I’d be surprised.

And wasn’t VP Biden “all over” getting that SOFA negotiated? (crickets)

Lastly, as I was ranting to the missus earlier today, too many people working either for State or at our embassies are under the mistaken impression that the New York Times and/or the Washington Post are somehow “on their side,” probably because they foolishly hold the same sorts of demented transnational progressive worldviews espoused by those fishwraps. The truth is that the NYT and the WP are never happier than when they can embarrass those who serve our country, whether that’s in uniform or out of it."

2/9

re: "Something Like That"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to Locked and Loaded 's comment of Thursday, February 9th at 9:22 AM EST(link).

Locked and Loaded said:

"I see you came to put out fires related to this story.

Well, how about getting to some of the substance of the post? Is the annual outlay in the Iraqi embassy justified? Can you speak to the issue of the level of involvement of the Iraqis in the buildup?"

My response:

"Since I’m not at work today I re-discovered that I already had a log-in at Redstate. It’d been awhile since I commented here…. all props to Eric & Co.

Sixteen thousand sounds like a lot of folks. I don’t know if that includes all the posts in Iraq (not just Baghdad) or not, all the support services or just those being supported.

Remember that, just like in the military, when you deploy someone to support someone else, you now have +1 person to support every single time you do that. So logistics, fuel, food, all sorts of consumables, housing, it all increases as, IIRC, a cube function.

The military is not longer there providing transportation (including air), medical, security, and other services as it was until their withdrawal. So all of the USG efforts of reconstruction, modernization, democratization, stabilization, all of that “ization” stuff is now completely under State’s, and the embassy’s, umbrella. Big Army (and not-as-big-Marines) isn’t there to help anymore. And USAID is not the organization it was 2-3 decades ago. It’s well on its way to becoming fully absorbed by State, just like USIA/USIS was.

I’m not familiar with the personnel breakdown by status or agency; still 16k is a big number. But to do all the things the USG has decided it wanted to do in post-conflict Iraq is going to take a lot of people.

Whether those things, in whole or in part, are good ideas or not is a policy-level decision made by our political leadership, i.e., the White House, Congress, and the SecState. But, (again) just like the military, State is going to salute and implement the programs and tasks its been assigned, and to do that it will need (and ask for) the resources required, whether that be a secure embassy complex or fresh food for the staff.

Anecdotally, the sickest I’ve ever been is after eating local produce in Iraq, Egypt, Kuwait, and the like. Lost 30 lbs. all together in Iraq. So trucking in fresh veggies is the smarter thing to do."

2/9

re: "FS careers"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to Marcus_Traianus's comment of Thursday, February 9th at 8:52 AM EST(link).

Marcus_Traianus said:

"No salad bar? That’s medieval . Wait…what does that make living on some remote FOB and only eating MRE’s? Question for another day.

Personally I skipped out on a career in DoS after a friend of mine spent half his life becoming fluent in German only to get posted in Peru and spending years dodging the Sendero Luminoso. I think he said at the time if he wanted a career where he constantly git sent to remote countries where people were trying to kill him, he would have joined the military.

Note to DoS; an embassy is no substitute for a military base. No matter how appealing it sounds on paper."

My response:

"Congratulations! You are one of the few people who’s ever actually met or known a U.S. diplomat. (There aren’t that many of us,)

Having spent as much time at remote bases eating MREs in Iraq (in uniform) as I’d care to, I would note that they’re not intended for long-term diet. Eating them daily for the duration of a 12-month diplomatic assignment, while it might provide entertainment value for snarky folks far from the warzone, leads to malnutrition.

German is a tough language, I’ll admit. I had a very tough time learning it. On the other hand, I didn’t spend half my life doing it in the expectation that the State Dept. was only going to station me in Germany.

There’s this thing called “Worldwide Availability” in terms of FS assigments. So those folks who learned French aren’t guaranteed careers shuttling between Paris and Brussels. They can expect West Africa and places where they may need to learn another language entirely, like the Philippines."

2/9

re: "Pipeline, &tc."

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to romeg's comment of Thursday, February 9th at 7:13 AM EST(link).

romeg said:

"Saddam Hussein and his family was pilloried publicly in Western media.

While there may be dedicated career members of the Diplomatic Corps and serious-minded State Department employees, it is an agency that is rotten to its core and overrun with fops.

While they are downsizing missions abroad, they may want to consider making equivalent cuts here at home. Why is it that an agency with a budget as large as the State Department takes years to figure out if a pipeline can be built across the U.S./Canada border?"

Response:

"Do you really think that decision was made in Foggy Bottom and not at the White House?

Take another look at Departmental budgets. State is miniscule compared to others.

Oh, and thanks for entertaining the notion that State does include some dedicated employees. Seriously."


2/9

re: "Mission"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to Adjoran's comment of Wednesday, February 8th at 11:27 PM EST
(link).

Adjoran said:

"but it doesn’t have to be more than a Secretary and a couple dozen support staff. There is no need for embassies anymore, only consulates to serve Americans abroad (but those getting the services should be paying for them). They don’t conduct any “diplomacy” besides throwing parties for corrupt despots and their pals, and haven’t for decades.

Most of the State Department deserves the description they earned long, long ago: “a nest of traitors.”"

Response:

"The U.S. diplomatic mission in Iraq (including activities in places like Basra, Mosul, &tc.) are doing what the elected government in Washington sent them there to do.

You raise a debatable point about the need for embassies in today’s modern world, one that gets hashed over every few years when somebody notices that it’s easy to make a long-distance call to a foreign capital and decides we don’t need embassies and should just have a web site instead.

So the point gets debated, all sides are heard from, and eventually the decision makers realize they weren’t aware of what those embassies had been doing all along and maybe we should shutter them just yet.

State has virtually no domestic political constituency, because the work force is do diffuse (from all over) that the votes don’t impact any one congress member, because the money gets spent overseas mostly, and because visiting members of congress searching for facts abroad get the red carpet rolled out for them so they have no idea what day-to-day life is like in that embassy.

(It’s really not four star hotels and restaurants all the time; those are for when congress members visit.)"


2/9

re: "Dead Ambassadors"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to snowshooze 's comment of Wednesday, February 8th (at 9:36PM EST (link).

snowshooze said:

"For all the good they have done, even that is too good.The United States should sent one Ambassador.He can talk the US line all by hisself. Hell, I would do it.And I would be glad to stay in a motel and fry my own eggs for breakfast.16,000… you hve got to be kidding me.That is an occupation."

Response:

"Since World War II, we’ve already had more U.S. ambassadors killed in the line of duty than generals and admirals.

Putting one into a Baghdad motel (assuming such a thing existed) is a spectacularly bad idea."

2/9

re: "Spies Like Us"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to punditpawn 's comment of Wednesday, February 8th (at 9:36PM EST (link).

punditpawn said:

"16,000 employees? Does that mean in reality that 15,995 of those are CIA spies and the other 5 run the embassy?"

Response:

"Embassies are the U.S. government representation in a foreign country. They house not only an ambassador and various State Dept. functions (consular, management, political, economic, and public diplomacy) and the activities (communication, security, &tc.) necessary to support them, but various “tenant agencies” housed along with them.

Overseas, those range from the routine (IRS, FAA, GSA, military attaches and liaison/assistance officers) to the exotic (DEA, Marshal Service, Library of Congress).

Much of the Baghdad mission is likely (I have no personal knowledge of this) engaged in various USAID and other development/reconstruction activities with the Iraqis.

Oh, and being called a CIA agent got old when I worked in DC; it’s a lot less funny overseas."

2/9

re: "Second Item"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:

"Second, the “urgent” town hall meeting was nothing of the kind.
Town Hall meetings are held all the time, both at Main State, and at our misions around the world.

One FSO stood up and made stupid comments.

By contrast, every single FS position, which have to be re-filled
every 12 months, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, have been filled with volunteers every single year since 9/11. No FSOs have had to be ordered to go involuntarily. Ain’t happened.

Not that State hasn’t had to institute various incentives to make
that happen, but there are incentives (including financial ones) for military service in those places as well. It’s somewhat apples and oranges, but there are parallels.

This old Town Hall Meeting story is like a zombie. It rises from
the grave, no matter how many times discredited, whenever someone needs a handy club to bash the Foreign Service."

2/9

re: "Two Items"

CAA responded to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:

"Two items:

The first is logistics. “Unexpectedly,” since U.S. diplomatic
activities can no longer piggyback (which made lots of sense at the time) on U.S. military logistic and other support activities, long and vulnerable supply routes are an easy way for the Iraqis to put pressure on us.

We truck in our supplies, including food, for the same reason
the military did: local supplies are either unreliable (in terms of quantity and quality) and untrustworthy (in terms of security).

Fresh produce, including salad bar type items, are simply the
“canary in the coal mine” in terms of this logistical chokehold. While it’s easy to make fun of “arugula” eaters (and I would make fun of it too if I was entirely certain what arugula was/is), this is just the first turn of the ratchet for putting the squeeze on our diplomatic mission.

(Of course, it could just be a question of paying more bribes
at the border.)"

2/9

re: "The State Department Staff at the Baghdad Embassy is Embarrassing Itself "

Jeff Emanuel at RedState ("the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill") made some fairly predictable snipes at State Dept. folks serving in Iraq.

Money quote(s):

"A Tuesday New York Times article called “U.S. Planning to Slash Iraq Embassy Staff by as Much as Half” purported to describe the plight of U.S. State Department employees in Iraq, whose diplomatic efforts are being rebuffed by a host nation and government that has little use for them." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA became somewhat, er, involved in the comment thread there.

What people don't understand is that perishables like fresh produce for the salad bar are the "canary in the coal mine" in terms of logistics and supply chains.

2/8

re: "February 11"

Thanks to John Brown at Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review, Version 2.0 ("particularly interested in the relationship between public diplomacy and propaganda") for the mention and the quote:

"PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

The State Department Staff at the Baghdad Embassy is Embarrassing Itself - Jeff Emanuel, redstate.com: "So the wizards at State has suddenly realized that constructing a 104-acre, $750,000,000.00 embassy complex and building up the embassy staff to 16,000 people (including 2,000 diplomats and several times more contractors), without running either by the Iraqis first, 'may have been ill advised.' [Comment by] Consul_At_Arms ... Embassies are the U.S. government representation in a foreign country. They house not only an ambassador and various State Dept. functions (consular, management, political, economic, and public diplomacy) and the activities (communication, security, etc.) necessary to support them, but various 'tenant agencies' housed along with them. Overseas, those range from the routine (IRS, FAA, GSA, military attaches and liaison/assistance officers) to the exotic (DEA, Marshal Service, Library of Congress). Much of the Baghdad mission is likely (I have no personal knowledge of this) engaged in various USAID and other development/reconstruction activities with the Iraqis." "

re: "Newt Gingrich Tells the Truth About the Palestinian Non-Entity"

Daniel Horowitz at RedState ("the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill") provided more of the actual history of the Palestinians.

Money quote(s):

"Newt Gingrich hit it out of the park with his succinct assessment of the “Palestinian” cause.

One of the most incorrigible fallacies pertaining to the Middle East is the notion that the Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own. This fallacy stems from the misconception that there is a nation of ‘Palestinians’, and to the extent that such a nation exists, this name is an accurate representation of the Arabs who live in modern Israel. This artful manipulation of the geopolitical lexicon was meant to bestow upon a group of random Arabs a false sense of geographical ties to the Holy Land."

Part of the conceptual problem we Americans have springs from our Western European intellectual heritage, specifically that having to do with the Westphalian notion of the nation-state.

We would be better off, sometimes, to reflect upon our own distinctly American experiences having dealt with tribal peoples of sometimes dubious geographical provenance.

"This delusion is no trivial matter. For years, the left wing foreign policy establishment has rapturously promoted the ‘Palestinians’ as the cause célèbre of our national security interests. Instead of focusing on the real threats to our national security (such as those who, incidentally, fund the so-called Palestinians), the foreign policy establishment has singularly focused on creating a state for the most virulently anti-American people on the face of the planet. Their maniacal fixation on the Palestinians has left them devoid of solutions regarding the broader turmoil in the Middle East.

The first step in undoing this foreign policy mess is for the next president to deracinate the entire myth of a ‘Palestinian people’. Kudos to Newt Gingrich for finally telling the truth about the geopolitical cause célèbre of all the world’s imbeciles."

What complicates this perspective is that when a people of homogenous language and culture tell themselves and teach their children a national myth for multiple generations, the myth becomes the reality and the previously inchoate "Arabs" become "Palestinians."

"All students of history, barring those who attended left-wing universities, know that the origin of the term Palestine comes from the Roman Empire. When they captured Judea during the first century, the Romans renamed the Jewish kingdom ‘Palestine’ after the ancient Philistines referenced in the Bible. After the British kicked out the Ottoman Turks from Transjordan (comprised of modern-day Israel and Jordan), they renamed it the British Mandate of Palestine, once again hearkening back to its ancient etymology. Although the original Balfour Declaration called for a Jewish homeland in the entirety of this territory, 78% of it was ultimately siphoned off for the modern state of Jordan in 1946. Unsatisfied with 78% of the territory, Jordan invaded the new Jewish state of Israel in 1948 and illegally occupied half of the remaining 22% of the territory for 18 years.

In 1967, the Jordanians (not the so-called Palestinians), along with its Arab neighbors, invaded Israel once again in the hopes that they would wipe out the remaining Jewish presence. Israel won that war and kicked out the Jordanians from the land they illegally occupied, known as the West Bank. This land has nothing to do with a Palestinian people; it was illegally part of Jordan for 18 years. 80% of the so-called Palestinians are Jordanian Arabs. Hence, there already is a ‘Palestinian state’ in Jordan."

All true. But given the short 20-year generational cycle of the typical Middle Eastern family, two entire generations have grown to adulthood since 1967, passing on to their children (and grandchildren) their Palestinian nationality.

"(T)here are those who actually understand history, and intuitively reject the notion that we should invest our time and treasure into a lie."

Also true. And given the geographic fragmentation and political disfunction of the Palestinian people as they exist, there are better, closer, and more appreciative ratholes down which U.S. dollars can be poured.

"The Palestinians are the global warming climate change of geopolitical conflict. They use deceptive parlance to advance their agenda. Thankfully, Newt is speaking the truth, instead of worshiping at the altar of the pan-Islamists in the UN. Mitt Romney is accusing him of undercutting the Israelis, but Newt was wise to express the truth from the American perspective. There is no national interest for America in the creation of a state for a non-entity, irrespective of what the Israelis chose for their own interests." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA is unable to locate a distinctly American advantage for championing a Palestinian "statehood" against nominally friendly Israeli interests in the region.

(If the Israelis care to champion such, then they should bankroll it as well.)

12/10

re: "Attrition Through Enforcement Immigration Policy Works in Alabama"

Daniel Horowitz at RedState ("the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill") believes attrition through self-deportation works.

Money quote(s):

"Proponents of illegal immigration and open borders are constantly propagating a straw-man argument for amnesty that offers false policy choices. They contend that “we cannot possibly send back the illegals without physically deporting every one of them, and therefore, we are forced to grant them amnesty, in addition to a ‘pathway to citizenship.’ Those with some sense of sanity have always realized that the source of the problem is our incentivizing of illegal behavior, and that a concerted effort to enforce the laws would drain the illegal population through “attrition by enforcement.” "

If you reward (or "incentivize") something, you get more of it. That's basic psychology and basic economics. If you dis-incentivize something, you get less of it than you would have otherwise. Maybe not none of it, but less of it.

"(P)eople vote with their feet. They did the same thing in Arizona. Even though SB 1070 was never implemented, roughly 100,000 illegals left the state. The bottom line is that when they are not collecting $4.2 billion in refundable tax handouts, receiving some form of welfare on behalf of their American-born children, or obtaining employment, they will leave."

In part, this is the beauty of the federal system. Individual states act as laboratories of a sort to try out all sorts of things and other states can learn (or not) from their experiences.

"Texas, which has experienced an economic boom, is the only state with a growing population of illegals. 200,000 more illegals have invaded the Lone Star State from 2007-2009. Now, if only we could actually remove the magnet without destroying our economy, we would solve the illegal problem without mass deportation or amnesty – or even worse, a pathway to citizenship. In other words, treating illegals as illegal actually works."

10/4