Joshua Keating at Slate ("a daily magazine on the web") reassured the unsettled.
Money quote(s):
"Rex Tillerson’s ongoing reorganization of the State Department, seemingly purposely designed to sideline and scale back the work of career diplomats, is definitely a concerning shift that could have lasting impacts on U.S. diplomacy around the world. But in the absence of leadership, it appears American foreign policy can just kind of run itself for a while. I don’t know how long that can continue before it slips off the rails."
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Friday, September 15, 2017
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Foreign Policy Goals
Somewhere I recall, perhaps fallaciously, reading Russia described as being "Mexico with nukes."
(All apologies to Mexico.)
The main point apparently was that if Russia didn't have nuclear weapons, it's international significance would shrink accordingly to the purely regional powers, like Mexico.
As I observe what passes for foreign policy these days in Washington, I can't help but suspect that the over-arching strategic goal seems to be of reducing America's international significance to being something that could be summed up thusly:
Russia with precisions-guided munitions.
(All apologies to Mexico.)
The main point apparently was that if Russia didn't have nuclear weapons, it's international significance would shrink accordingly to the purely regional powers, like Mexico.
As I observe what passes for foreign policy these days in Washington, I can't help but suspect that the over-arching strategic goal seems to be of reducing America's international significance to being something that could be summed up thusly:
Russia with precisions-guided munitions.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
re: "The Obama Foreign Policy (Part I)"
The DiploMad ("Wracked with angst over the fate of our beloved and
horribly misgoverned Republic, the DiploMad returns to do battle on the world
wide web, swearing death to political correctness, and pulling no
punches.") began a valedictory series of posts about our foreign policy apparatus.
Money quote(s):
"My career in the Foreign Service began when Jimmy "Wear a Sweater" Carter was President; the Shah sat on the Peacock Throne; the Soviets and their Cuban servants were all over Africa, Central and South America, and the Caribbean; our economy was in the sewer; our cities drug and race-fueled combat zones; our military, a hollowed out racially divided horror; and CIA and State, under appalling leadership, could do nothing right internationally. And things only got worse: the Shah fell to the Muslim crazies; the Soviets invaded Afghanistan; Communism, Socialism, and Liberation were on the march around the world. The bon pensant knew the future belonged to the Soviets and the Japanese, while we sat in the dark, shivering in our cardigan sweaters, suffering "malaise," and praying Moloch would eat us last.
Since those dark "Carter on Mars" days, thanks to Ronald Reagan, with his optimism and ability to see through mainstream cant, our country underwent a massive social, economic, and political renovation that showcased an unmatched American ability to regroup, reinvent, and implement. Our economy came roaring back; our military reaffirmed its unequaled status; the Soviets, unable to compete with the American economy and technical wizardry, came crashing down; and mighty ten-foot-tall Japan could not match the United States for innovation and the
ability to put it to work at a dazzling speed. Even Bill Clinton learned not to fix a working model; he went along with GOP efforts to reform welfare, and poured money into sustaining and expanding the world's best special forces--as the Taliban and al Qaeda soon discovered. The confused waning days of the Bush administration, alas, pried opened the Gates of Hell once more; the inept McCain campaign couldn't close them, allowing the malevolent Obama misadministration to escape the Depths, and take over the White House--immediately making us nostalgic for Carter. We are in crisis mode, again." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Persons quibbling with the above summary of those several decades will reveal far more about themselves than they might wish.
"In its defense, let me say that to call it a policy designed for America's defeat gives it too much credit. My experience at State and the NSC, has shown me that most Obamaistas are not knowledgable enough to design anything. Foreign policy for the Obama crew is an afterthought. They really have little interest in it; many key jobs went vacant for months at State, DOD, CIA, and the NSC. The Obama foreign policy team is peopled by the "well-educated," i.e., they have college degrees, and as befits the "well educated" in today's America, they are stunningly ignorant and arrogant leftists, but mostly just idiots. They do not make plans; they tend to fly by the seat of their pants using a deeply ingrained anti-US default setting for navigation. They react to the Beltway crowd of NGOs, "activists" of various stripes, NPR, the Washington Post and the New York Times. Relying on what they "know," they ensure the US does not appear as a bully, or an interventionist when it comes to our enemies: after all, we did something to make them not like us. Long-term US allies, e.g., Canada, UK, Israel, Japan, Honduras, Colombia, on the other hand, they view as anti-poor, anti-Third World, and retrograde Cold Warriors. Why else would somebody befriend the US? Obama's NSC and State are staffed with people who do not know the history of the United States, and, simply, do not understand or appreciate the importance of the United States in and to the world. They are embarrassed by and, above all, do not like the United States. They look down on the average American, and openly detest any GOP Congressman or Congresswoman, especially
Representative Ros-Lehtinen and Senator DeMint, who dares question their wisdom. They have no problem with anti-American regimes and personages because overwhelmingly they are anti-American themselves (Note: I exempt Hillary Clinton from the anti-American tag; she is just ignorant--more on that in my next posting)." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Bear in mind that Rep. Ros-Lehtinen is the Chairman of the House Committee of Foreign Affairs. For anyone who is a staff member at NSC or State to ignore her is about as stupid as ignoring gravity.
"Our foreign policy is not made in any real sense. It slithers out from this foggy fetid leftist primeval mire and "evolves" into the weird amorphous "policy" we now have. It is guided by The Anointed One's long-standing Triple AAA motto: Apologize. Appease. Accommodate. There is no understanding of the relationship between military power and diplomacy, between expending the blood and treasure of America and our interests. For the Obamaistas the topics of burning interest tend to be those far removed from the core national interests of the United States, e.g., treatment of prostitutes in Sri Lanka, gay rights around the world, the status of women in Africa, beating up the inconsequential junta in Burma, helping overthrow U.S. ally Mubarak, but doing nothing about the Iran-Venezuela alliance, the imprisonment of an American AID contractor in Cuba, the growing anti-Americanism spreading throughout Latin
America, the disintegration of the few remaining moderate Muslim states, and on and on. This leftist, anti-American disease is contagious. Just look at the recent statements by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, once a moderate middle of the road politician, now spouting rubbish about needing "international permission" to deploy US military power, undermining over two centuries of US defense doctrine, not to mention the Constitution. " (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
This stuff ("There is no understanding of the relationship between military power and diplomacy, between expending the blood and treasure of America and our interests.") is actually taught in (at least some of) our senior military schools, the war colleges and such. DIMEFILS, for the initiate. Strategy and Grand Strategy. The up-and-coming majors and lieutenant commanders, the lieutenant colonels and commanders, and the colonels and captains, the ones from among tomorrow's generals and admirals will be selected, are at least exposed to the concepts that can mean life or death for entire nations and alliances of nations.
These field-grade ("mid-grade, in State Dept. parlance) officers will have already proven themselves tactically and operationally proficient (or at least not criminally inept) by the time they are selected for these schools and colleges, where their studies will be at least nominally at the graduate and post-graduate levels.
And what do we have on the diplomatic side of the house?
The Institute for Peace? Not quite sure what they do, but has anyone else who's worked in Foggy Bottom ever noticed how often they seem to be having big parties and receptions over there across "C" Street at their post-modern building?
(The big catering trucks and the blocked lanes of traffic are kind of a giveaway. As are the hispanic waiters, bartenders, and waitresses coming and going from the Metro Station by GWU.)
Well, there's the Foreign Service Institute, which has a nice campus on the former Arlington Hall Station site (a.k.a. "the George P. Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center").
The key word in that passage is "like." FSI has deans, t-shirts, a registrar, and an attractive coat-of-arms, but it's not a university, not a college, not really a center of advanced or even (for the most part) undergraduate-level education. NFATC is what it says it is in the name, a "Training Center." It's the equivalent of a corporate training center.
Don't get me wrong, FSI training is in fact essential for preparing our employees to accomplish their missions when they deploy abroad to our more than 260 embassies and consulates. The language school alone would be worth the investment of staffing hours and funding. And I hasten to say good things about the FS and CS orientation programs as well as the consular training. Couldn't have done it without you guys!
But it's emphatically not the equivalent of any of the DoD's war colleges, or even the C&GS School.
Former SecState Colin Powell was a big believer in the notion of a training continuum, as befitted a career U.S. Army officer, and he led the Department of State long enough to make that notion part of the corporate culture. That's a good thing.
But there's still a lingering institutional prejudice against professional development education. As FSO blogger Two Crabs quoted from a recent article:
The FS Written Examination (now reflagged as the computer-based FS Officer Test) and the FS Oral Assessment do select for broadly- and highly-educated candidates. While eschewing the explicit requirement of a particular diploma or credential, the more years of formal education a bright FS candidate has completed, the more likely they are to be successful in the FSO accession process.
So our newest diplomats enter the Foreign Service already highly educated (graduate degrees or other post-undergraduate education such as law school, more often than not) unless they manage to wrangle a training assignment (or a sabbatical to take even higher education) away from the State Department they're never really going to get anything but training from FSI.
Training is not education. It's training. Nothing wrong with training; training is good. But training will only train students about how to do things or sets of things. It's a lot less likely to prepare diplomats to think about the why of things any more than their pre-State Dept. education already did.
Heretical statement: diplomats, like leaders, can be born to be diplomats or they can be educated to be diplomats. But even the born-diplomats can be educated to be better diplomats.
"The career Foreign Service is hapless. Many of the FSOs, especially the young ones, come from the same "educational" background as the political Obama types. Many have strong sympathies for the Obama view of the world because it is easy, it requires less work--thinking is hard. It is best to come up with long carefully nuanced memos regurgitating the most conventional of conventional left-of-center "wisdom," so that the powers above do not get displeased. Deny a
problem exists, then you do not have to do anything about it, "He is just an agricultural reformer . . .". " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
Hmm. My initial thought was the "agricultural reformer" line was just Castro, but it was used to label Mao as well.
(And it was "agrarian reformer" the way CAA learned it.)
At least I can't dismiss DiploMad's critique of career FSOs as more outdated stereotypical nonsense about striped-pants and passing cookies. That gets old, although, like Don Quixote, CAA will continue to tilt at that windmill until it finally falls like the skewered ogre it ought to be.
No, DiploMad's comments are up-to-date and Millenial. They encompass the transformational and (for those who can't avoid it) expeditionary diplomacy that currently encoils the Foreign Service.
horribly misgoverned Republic, the DiploMad returns to do battle on the world
wide web, swearing death to political correctness, and pulling no
punches.") began a valedictory series of posts about our foreign policy apparatus.
Money quote(s):
"My career in the Foreign Service began when Jimmy "Wear a Sweater" Carter was President; the Shah sat on the Peacock Throne; the Soviets and their Cuban servants were all over Africa, Central and South America, and the Caribbean; our economy was in the sewer; our cities drug and race-fueled combat zones; our military, a hollowed out racially divided horror; and CIA and State, under appalling leadership, could do nothing right internationally. And things only got worse: the Shah fell to the Muslim crazies; the Soviets invaded Afghanistan; Communism, Socialism, and Liberation were on the march around the world. The bon pensant knew the future belonged to the Soviets and the Japanese, while we sat in the dark, shivering in our cardigan sweaters, suffering "malaise," and praying Moloch would eat us last.
Since those dark "Carter on Mars" days, thanks to Ronald Reagan, with his optimism and ability to see through mainstream cant, our country underwent a massive social, economic, and political renovation that showcased an unmatched American ability to regroup, reinvent, and implement. Our economy came roaring back; our military reaffirmed its unequaled status; the Soviets, unable to compete with the American economy and technical wizardry, came crashing down; and mighty ten-foot-tall Japan could not match the United States for innovation and the
ability to put it to work at a dazzling speed. Even Bill Clinton learned not to fix a working model; he went along with GOP efforts to reform welfare, and poured money into sustaining and expanding the world's best special forces--as the Taliban and al Qaeda soon discovered. The confused waning days of the Bush administration, alas, pried opened the Gates of Hell once more; the inept McCain campaign couldn't close them, allowing the malevolent Obama misadministration to escape the Depths, and take over the White House--immediately making us nostalgic for Carter. We are in crisis mode, again." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Persons quibbling with the above summary of those several decades will reveal far more about themselves than they might wish.
"In its defense, let me say that to call it a policy designed for America's defeat gives it too much credit. My experience at State and the NSC, has shown me that most Obamaistas are not knowledgable enough to design anything. Foreign policy for the Obama crew is an afterthought. They really have little interest in it; many key jobs went vacant for months at State, DOD, CIA, and the NSC. The Obama foreign policy team is peopled by the "well-educated," i.e., they have college degrees, and as befits the "well educated" in today's America, they are stunningly ignorant and arrogant leftists, but mostly just idiots. They do not make plans; they tend to fly by the seat of their pants using a deeply ingrained anti-US default setting for navigation. They react to the Beltway crowd of NGOs, "activists" of various stripes, NPR, the Washington Post and the New York Times. Relying on what they "know," they ensure the US does not appear as a bully, or an interventionist when it comes to our enemies: after all, we did something to make them not like us. Long-term US allies, e.g., Canada, UK, Israel, Japan, Honduras, Colombia, on the other hand, they view as anti-poor, anti-Third World, and retrograde Cold Warriors. Why else would somebody befriend the US? Obama's NSC and State are staffed with people who do not know the history of the United States, and, simply, do not understand or appreciate the importance of the United States in and to the world. They are embarrassed by and, above all, do not like the United States. They look down on the average American, and openly detest any GOP Congressman or Congresswoman, especially
Representative Ros-Lehtinen and Senator DeMint, who dares question their wisdom. They have no problem with anti-American regimes and personages because overwhelmingly they are anti-American themselves (Note: I exempt Hillary Clinton from the anti-American tag; she is just ignorant--more on that in my next posting)." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Bear in mind that Rep. Ros-Lehtinen is the Chairman of the House Committee of Foreign Affairs. For anyone who is a staff member at NSC or State to ignore her is about as stupid as ignoring gravity.
"Our foreign policy is not made in any real sense. It slithers out from this foggy fetid leftist primeval mire and "evolves" into the weird amorphous "policy" we now have. It is guided by The Anointed One's long-standing Triple AAA motto: Apologize. Appease. Accommodate. There is no understanding of the relationship between military power and diplomacy, between expending the blood and treasure of America and our interests. For the Obamaistas the topics of burning interest tend to be those far removed from the core national interests of the United States, e.g., treatment of prostitutes in Sri Lanka, gay rights around the world, the status of women in Africa, beating up the inconsequential junta in Burma, helping overthrow U.S. ally Mubarak, but doing nothing about the Iran-Venezuela alliance, the imprisonment of an American AID contractor in Cuba, the growing anti-Americanism spreading throughout Latin
America, the disintegration of the few remaining moderate Muslim states, and on and on. This leftist, anti-American disease is contagious. Just look at the recent statements by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, once a moderate middle of the road politician, now spouting rubbish about needing "international permission" to deploy US military power, undermining over two centuries of US defense doctrine, not to mention the Constitution. " (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
This stuff ("There is no understanding of the relationship between military power and diplomacy, between expending the blood and treasure of America and our interests.") is actually taught in (at least some of) our senior military schools, the war colleges and such. DIMEFILS, for the initiate. Strategy and Grand Strategy. The up-and-coming majors and lieutenant commanders, the lieutenant colonels and commanders, and the colonels and captains, the ones from among tomorrow's generals and admirals will be selected, are at least exposed to the concepts that can mean life or death for entire nations and alliances of nations.
These field-grade ("mid-grade, in State Dept. parlance) officers will have already proven themselves tactically and operationally proficient (or at least not criminally inept) by the time they are selected for these schools and colleges, where their studies will be at least nominally at the graduate and post-graduate levels.
And what do we have on the diplomatic side of the house?
The Institute for Peace? Not quite sure what they do, but has anyone else who's worked in Foggy Bottom ever noticed how often they seem to be having big parties and receptions over there across "C" Street at their post-modern building?
(The big catering trucks and the blocked lanes of traffic are kind of a giveaway. As are the hispanic waiters, bartenders, and waitresses coming and going from the Metro Station by GWU.)
Well, there's the Foreign Service Institute, which has a nice campus on the former Arlington Hall Station site (a.k.a. "the George P. Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center").
"The Foreign Service Institute is organized like a university and
consists of five schools:
The School of Language Studies
The School of Applied Information Technology
The School of Leadership and Management
The School of Professional and Area Studies
The Transition Center "
The key word in that passage is "like." FSI has deans, t-shirts, a registrar, and an attractive coat-of-arms, but it's not a university, not a college, not really a center of advanced or even (for the most part) undergraduate-level education. NFATC is what it says it is in the name, a "Training Center." It's the equivalent of a corporate training center.
Don't get me wrong, FSI training is in fact essential for preparing our employees to accomplish their missions when they deploy abroad to our more than 260 embassies and consulates. The language school alone would be worth the investment of staffing hours and funding. And I hasten to say good things about the FS and CS orientation programs as well as the consular training. Couldn't have done it without you guys!
But it's emphatically not the equivalent of any of the DoD's war colleges, or even the C&GS School.
Former SecState Colin Powell was a big believer in the notion of a training continuum, as befitted a career U.S. Army officer, and he led the Department of State long enough to make that notion part of the corporate culture. That's a good thing.
But there's still a lingering institutional prejudice against professional development education. As FSO blogger Two Crabs quoted from a recent article:
"The people who are successful in the State Department are people who
can be thrown in the deep end of the swimming pool and not drown; but the department never teaches them to swim, and the successful ones even come to discredit the value of swimming lessons, because they succeeded without them."
The FS Written Examination (now reflagged as the computer-based FS Officer Test) and the FS Oral Assessment do select for broadly- and highly-educated candidates. While eschewing the explicit requirement of a particular diploma or credential, the more years of formal education a bright FS candidate has completed, the more likely they are to be successful in the FSO accession process.
So our newest diplomats enter the Foreign Service already highly educated (graduate degrees or other post-undergraduate education such as law school, more often than not) unless they manage to wrangle a training assignment (or a sabbatical to take even higher education) away from the State Department they're never really going to get anything but training from FSI.
Training is not education. It's training. Nothing wrong with training; training is good. But training will only train students about how to do things or sets of things. It's a lot less likely to prepare diplomats to think about the why of things any more than their pre-State Dept. education already did.
Heretical statement: diplomats, like leaders, can be born to be diplomats or they can be educated to be diplomats. But even the born-diplomats can be educated to be better diplomats.
"The career Foreign Service is hapless. Many of the FSOs, especially the young ones, come from the same "educational" background as the political Obama types. Many have strong sympathies for the Obama view of the world because it is easy, it requires less work--thinking is hard. It is best to come up with long carefully nuanced memos regurgitating the most conventional of conventional left-of-center "wisdom," so that the powers above do not get displeased. Deny a
problem exists, then you do not have to do anything about it, "He is just an agricultural reformer . . .". " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
Hmm. My initial thought was the "agricultural reformer" line was just Castro, but it was used to label Mao as well.
(And it was "agrarian reformer" the way CAA learned it.)
At least I can't dismiss DiploMad's critique of career FSOs as more outdated stereotypical nonsense about striped-pants and passing cookies. That gets old, although, like Don Quixote, CAA will continue to tilt at that windmill until it finally falls like the skewered ogre it ought to be.
No, DiploMad's comments are up-to-date and Millenial. They encompass the transformational and (for those who can't avoid it) expeditionary diplomacy that currently encoils the Foreign Service.
3/15
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
re: "Obama and Foreign Policy: Just Kidding"
Robert J. Avrech at Seraphic Secret examined the foreign affairs portfolio as the final year of presidential campaigning begins.
Money quote(s):
"The hard-left are unhappy because Obama has failed to close Gitmo, has not withdrawn fully from Iraq and Afghanistan, and has expanded George Bush’s excellent policy of assassinating jihadists by drone. The left, in a hissy fit, might stay home in November."
Fortunately (from their perspective), there are plenty of hot-button Leftist red-herrings, er, domestic issues that can be interjected into the campaign in an effort to a.) energize the Democratic base; and b.) attempt to split the Republican's various constituencies.
"Europe, a collection of welfare states, is melting; the Arab Spring is an Arab Winter; and China is building a such a formidable military machine that our Joint Chiefs are waking up in a cold sweat at four in the morning.
And of course Israel is being squeezed by the genocidal yearning Persians, the genocidal yearning Palestinians, and the Turks who have lots of experience with genocide having murdered 1 million Armenians in 1915.
(The Armenians are still waiting for the Turks to admit their guilt, apologize, and pay reparations. Good luck with that.)
American power and influence in the Middle East is negligible. Witness the Palestinian’s defiance of US policy in favor of the UN’s poisonous embrace." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
None of these items has improved particularly since being written.
9/20
Monday, January 9, 2012
re: "Friendless in the Middle East"
Daniel Pipes at DanielPipes.Org ("the Internet's most accessed sources of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam") explains why the "Arab Spring" and "democracy" aren't necessarily good things in the mid- to long run.
Money quote(s):
"(O)ther than in a few outliers (Cyprus, Israel, and Iran), populations are predominantly hostile to the West. Friends are few, powerless, and with dim prospects of taking control. Democracy therefore translates into hostile relations with unfriendly governments.
Both the first wave of elections in 2005 and the second wave, just begun in Tunisia, confirm that, given a free choice, a plurality of Middle Easterners vote for Islamists. Dynamic, culturally authentic and ostensibly democratic, these forward a body of uniquely vibrant political ideas and constitute the only Muslim political movement of consequence.
But Islamism is the third totalitarian ideology (following Fascism and Communism). It preposterously proposes a medieval code to deal with the challenges of modern life. Retrograde and aggressive, it denigrates non-Muslims, oppresses women, and justifies force to spread Muslim rule. Middle Eastern democracy threatens not just the West's security but also its civilization.
That explains why Western leaders (with the brief exception of George W. Bush) shy away from promoting democracy in the Muslim Middle East." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
Interesting that Prof. Pipes includes Iran among the outliers whose populations are not hostile to the West, but it's substantially true. It's Iran's governing regime, the mullah-cracy, that hates the West, not the overwhelming majority of the people(s) in Iran.
"Summing up the West's policy dilemma vis-à-vis the Middle East:
Democracy pleases us but brings hostile elements to power.
Tyranny betrays our principles but leaves pliable rulers in power.
As interest conflicts with principle, consistency goes out the window. Policy wavers between Scylla and Charybdis. Western chanceries focus on sui generis concerns: security interests (the U.S. Fifth Fleet stationed in Bahrain), commercial interests (oil in Saudi Arabia), geography (Libya is ideal for Europe-based air sorties), the neighbors (the Turkish role in Syria), or staving off disaster (a prospect in Yemen). Little wonder policy is a mess."
It's very easy to criticize U.S. foreign policies in the Near and MidEast regions.
(It's so easy that even CAA can do it!)
Prof. Pipes does us all a service by pointing out some of the limiting realities that constrain any effort to design and implement a humane, consistent, and non-suicidal foreign policy.
(It's rather like the "you-can-have-this-cheap-good-fast-pick-any-three" conundrum, only with humanitarian, consistence, and self-interest being your "pick-any-two" constraints.)
11/8
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
re: "Hillary Clinton has serious concerns about Russia's parliamentary election vote. I have serious concerns about State."
Pundita ("US foreign policy for the 21st Century") enumerates her concerns about the State Dept.'s polities in Afghanistan.
She lists six concerns.
12/5
She lists six concerns.
Her damning conclusion:
"If State argues it can't be held responsible because it doesn't write U.S. foreign policy and military strategy -- what kind of policy is it, what kind of strategy can it be called, when you're aware that your government knowingly pays another to murder and maim the very troops sworn to protect your life and your nation? This is not a policy or strategy issue. This is about demonstrating baseline human decency, as did the British military officers who resigned their commands to protest their government's betrayal of British troops in Afghanistan.
So I'd say that at this juncture the Secretary of State should be less concerned about human rights abuses in Russia and more concerned about the conduct of the agency she heads. The conduct has helped make a mockery of human rights in Afghanistan and the United States and specifically in the treatment of Americans serving tours of duty in Afghanistan and the Afghans serving in their country's military. And that's not even mentioning the mayhem that State has helped unleash on Pakistan."
Frankly, CAA would be reluctant to credit mayhem unleashed in Pakistan to anyone other than the Pakistanis themselves.
12/5
Sunday, September 4, 2011
re: " diminished president, a diminished global power"
Peter Feaver at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") shared some observations from Singapore.
Money quote(s):
"Traveling abroad is a great opportunity to look at American foreign policy and politics with fresh eyes. And this time, with the debt ceiling debate receiving prominent attention in every corner of the globe, the effect was especially vivid."
How so?
"(W)hen I talk with government insiders, people with actual experience dealing with the U.S. government (as opposed to watching it on BBC and the Daily Show), there is often a quietly expressed nostalgia for earlier administrations -- even, gasp, the Bush administration. A grudging consensus appears to be emerging"
How can this be?
"(Interestingly, my interlocutors are much quicker to give Secretary Clinton strong marks. They seem to attribute any good things to her and any bad things to the president.)
Yet the parameters of the debate were further damaging to our global leadership. The choice appeared to be between, on the one hand, joining the ranks of bankrupt failed states who default on their financial obligations or, on the other hand, drastically slashing those parts of the government budget that are most crucial to our global role (defense and international operations). There were few voices, on either side of the aisle, making the case for adequately funding these key pillars of American power and the inference that many would draw seems inescapable: Americans are heeding the siren song of isolationism and global retreat. No one I talked to wanted to see the United States walk any further along this path. But few were confident we could or would reverse course soon."
It's fascinating how Sec. Clinton (or "S" in FSO-speak) has politically managed to both be part of the administration and not tarred with the brush of its problems. My admiration for her political chops increases nearly daily.
Friday, September 2, 2011
re: "Look out, Foreign Policy! Here comes Talyn!"
Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("1. A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not. 2. fig. A quixotic attempt to make sense of the senseless; a spark of hope. 3. v. To narrate in a not necessarily coherent way one’s life and views") tackled some commentary on an article he'd written.
Money quote(s):
"(I)f you want to be paid to do a job, do the job as best you can (which is not always easy). If you have real qualms about the wisdom or morality of what you are told to do, go and get another job. Foreign Policy moves on, with you or without you."
It wasn't that long ago that I'd hear rumblings, from prospective FSO candidates, about their disagreements with the Bush administration's foreign policies, and about their moral qualms about it and how they'd have to resign in protest.
Generally, my advice to such is to maybe see about getting that job before deciding to resign in protest.
U.S. foreign service officers, and our British counter-parts, do not, by and large, make or set our nation's foreign policies. We carry it out, we communicate it, we implement it, but except at the very highest levels, we have Damn-all to say about what it's going to be on any given day.
FSOs do (or can) have some influence. We develop personal expertise in foreign areas and regions, obscure languages, personal contacts. We communicate, coming and going, what we learn and know to our superiors at post and, in our reporting, to Washington, D.C. And, until Wikileaks caused that conduit to dry up, our reporting cables could be accessed and read by analysts and policy-makers across the U.S. national security, defense, and intelligence communities.
So my advice to actual FSOs (not those wannabees in high dudgeon) is to make your reporting opportunities count. But tell the truth. Tell what you know and how you know it. Tell what you believe and why you believe it. Tell what you surmise and both its relevance and how you came to your conclusions. But above all tell the truth, not what you'd like to be true (though the Heavens fall).
"What's odd in fact is how few diplomats ever feel their bodily nerves a-rebelling against their instructions. Are diplomats insensate, wicked creatures little more than slaves whose servitude comes with better than average accommodation and lots of dull receptions?
Or is it that they know that as part of the way the world works and always will work there need to be ways for messages to be sent frankly between countries and leaders, even (especially?) when things get tough and unpleasant? A dirty job sometimes, but someone has to do it.
I report. You decide."
Remember the definition of a diplomat as an honorable man sent abroad to lie for his country? That honorable man retains his honor by never knowingly sending lies back to his country.
Policy-makers are going to make policy. It's what they do. And as frustrating as it sometimes is for intelligence analysts and for diplomats, your job is to serve as a conduit for information, adding whatever value you can along the way.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
re: "Foreign policy shrapnel, when Europe blows"
Phil Levy at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") is worried about Europe.
Money quote(s):
"There is a strong temptation to take European stability for granted. After an exceedingly shaky start to the 20th Century, Europe got its act together, overcame animosities, and became a steady and supportive ally of the United States."
"What if you're an old-school, throw-weight and Congress of Vienna foreign policy type?"
Guilty. Mr. Levy lists four foreign policy consequences to the current Euro-zone financial crisis. He concludes:
"Decades of European stability have been a wonderful boon. It is hard to see how that stability survives the continent's current economic crisis. If Europe falters, the ramifications will not be limited to the world of finance."
In addition to being "an old-school, throw-weight and Congress of Vienna foreign policy type," CAA is an old Cold Warrior, who cut his teeth on (and in) NATO and our Western European allies, facing off against the Soviet motorized rifle hordes, somewhere over yonder past the Fulda Gap.
CAA likes Europe. CAA likes Europeans. Not more than or to the exclusion of Americans, you understand, but there's a lot of common history and culture shared with our co-civilizationists, plus a lot of personal friendships and other relationships.
On the more Realpolitik side of things, they're also a huge trading partner, not to mention the military-potential side of things. So Europe matters to the U.S., somewhat more than any other landmass of comparable population.
Money quote(s):
"There is a strong temptation to take European stability for granted. After an exceedingly shaky start to the 20th Century, Europe got its act together, overcame animosities, and became a steady and supportive ally of the United States."
"What if you're an old-school, throw-weight and Congress of Vienna foreign policy type?"
Guilty. Mr. Levy lists four foreign policy consequences to the current Euro-zone financial crisis. He concludes:
"Decades of European stability have been a wonderful boon. It is hard to see how that stability survives the continent's current economic crisis. If Europe falters, the ramifications will not be limited to the world of finance."
In addition to being "an old-school, throw-weight and Congress of Vienna foreign policy type," CAA is an old Cold Warrior, who cut his teeth on (and in) NATO and our Western European allies, facing off against the Soviet motorized rifle hordes, somewhere over yonder past the Fulda Gap.
CAA likes Europe. CAA likes Europeans. Not more than or to the exclusion of Americans, you understand, but there's a lot of common history and culture shared with our co-civilizationists, plus a lot of personal friendships and other relationships.
On the more Realpolitik side of things, they're also a huge trading partner, not to mention the military-potential side of things. So Europe matters to the U.S., somewhat more than any other landmass of comparable population.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
re: "U.S.-Pakistan Relations in Decline"
Daniel Pipes at DanielPipes.Org ("a fast way to comment on many topics") makes some foreign policy suggestions.
Money quote(s):
"(H)ere is a realistic policy recommendation that serves American interests:
Give up on the pretence that the two governments are allies and treat Pakistan – with its many madrassahs, its Islamist military leadership, and rogue intelligence service – as a danger zone. Adopt a policy of containment vis-à-vis the Islamism coming out of it, rewarding cooperation and punishing hostile acts. This approach permits Washington flexibly to collaborate or confront as circumstances warrant and needs change."
The most obvious and immediate drawback for this approach is that Pakistan comprises the main supply routes (MSR) for our military forces in Afghanistan.
This is not so say we can't or shouldn't do this, but that there are consequences to doing so and preparation would be essential for managing them.
Money quote(s):
"(H)ere is a realistic policy recommendation that serves American interests:
Give up on the pretence that the two governments are allies and treat Pakistan – with its many madrassahs, its Islamist military leadership, and rogue intelligence service – as a danger zone. Adopt a policy of containment vis-à-vis the Islamism coming out of it, rewarding cooperation and punishing hostile acts. This approach permits Washington flexibly to collaborate or confront as circumstances warrant and needs change."
The most obvious and immediate drawback for this approach is that Pakistan comprises the main supply routes (MSR) for our military forces in Afghanistan.
This is not so say we can't or shouldn't do this, but that there are consequences to doing so and preparation would be essential for managing them.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
re: "Military Intervention In Libya Is A Bad Idea"
streiff (Profile) at Redstate ("We’re happy warriors and we’re glad to have you in the fight.") does not favor U.S. intervention in Libya.
Money quote(s):
"One of the immutable laws of politics is that the Democrat party will refuse to use military intervention in any location where the US has strategic geopolitical or trade interests. The corollary to that law is that there is no Third World craphole (see Somalia, Darfur, Haiti) to which the Democrats will not offer to send US troops so long as it is high risk and with no real purpose.
One must understand both these rules to comprehend the calls coming from the left demanding US intervention in Libya."
The above would be hilarious if it didn't ring so historically true. Why it is that the U.S. must always act in its disinterest remains an intellectual leap beyond my poor powers.
"(I)t all boils down to the same thing: they are considering sending young men and women to death and injury for no purpose larger than feeling good about themselves and they are doing it with the same callous insouciance with which they cheerfully supported John Murtha’s (D-Ninth Circle) slow bleed strategy in Iraq."
It's an easy thing to do, when you don't have any skin in the game. Having said that, active duty aviation colleagues of mine seem to feel pretty can-do about being able to handle the job of a no-fly-zone.
Naturally, if Italy, for example, invokes the NATO charter in the face of a sea-borne invasion from Libya, the U.S. would be honor-bound to assist, I'm sure.
"Libya is the anti-Iraq. Where Iraq occupied key real estate and had the underpinnings of being a significant regional power, Libya has nothing and virtually is nothing.
If we’ve learned anything in the past 20 years is should be that we cannot let US foreign policy be driven by media coverage. We intervened in Haiti’s internal strife in 1994, again to make a certain class of intellectual feel good about “doing something” and withdrew having done nothing but show the world we did nothing. More tragically, we became embroiled in Somalia for the same reason, to “do something” without any observable strategic purpose, and our subsequent pell-mell retreat convinced bin Laden that he could replicate the effect.
Truth be told, what happens in Libya doesn’t matter to us so long as it stays confined to Libya. If anyone should be concerned it is the Euros who, no matter which way the situation turns out, will be on the receiving end of a stream of political refugees. If the EU does become involved it is hard to see exactly what value-added US forces will represent given the relative proximity of the EU to Libya."
The U.S. was already suckered into doing the heavy lifting in the Balkans, which at least had the excuse of not actually being contiguous with any actual NATO countries. And yet, I seem to remember it was the same NATO partner which faced the Former Yugoslavia across the Adriatic Sea as is directly north of Tunisia. Hmmm. I'm trying to recall whether Italy sent anything to Iraq except Communist journalists and spooks to pay their ransoms. Maybe they were more involved in Afghanistan.
"Let’s not fool ourselves. If we intervene in Libya we do so for no strategic or humanitarian purpose and without any real consideration of what may follow."
A strategy for which an intervention operation would be an integral part would be such a nice thing to have.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
re: "The difference between pacifism and non-violence"
Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") has a suggestion.
Money quote(s):
"We need to have a national policy that allows us the flexibility to support national sovereignty movements and finally give up on the Realpolitik of supporting the least heinous of the bastards in a particular region. Isn't that the perfect job for our moral superiors on the left? Shouldn't they jump at the chance to community organize actual oppressed people, instead of working the faux victim racket here at home? Let's give them the chance. That is why there is a USAID, a State Department and hordes of NGOs and other agencies. Let's decide to actually mean what we say about all men being created equal and endowed with certain rights. That would require a way to support non-violent means of resistance, but it should also come with a reminder that we don't cotton to those who slaughter non-violent protesters.
It never hurts to be on the side of freedom & liberty in a war of ideas against submission and oppression."
Money quote(s):
"We need to have a national policy that allows us the flexibility to support national sovereignty movements and finally give up on the Realpolitik of supporting the least heinous of the bastards in a particular region. Isn't that the perfect job for our moral superiors on the left? Shouldn't they jump at the chance to community organize actual oppressed people, instead of working the faux victim racket here at home? Let's give them the chance. That is why there is a USAID, a State Department and hordes of NGOs and other agencies. Let's decide to actually mean what we say about all men being created equal and endowed with certain rights. That would require a way to support non-violent means of resistance, but it should also come with a reminder that we don't cotton to those who slaughter non-violent protesters.
It never hurts to be on the side of freedom & liberty in a war of ideas against submission and oppression."
Sunday, February 13, 2011
re: "Apocalyptic Mental Midgetry...."
Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") is underimpressed with the current foreign policy leadership.
Money quote(s):
"The apocalyptic lack of actual experience in the area of foreign affairs, foreign policy, and knowledge of what actually works is becoming stunningly clear to those Americans who are willing to do the barest amount of news-watching. I wonder where we can find more of these people to hire?
And with men like Leon Panetta (whose foresight on intelligence matters is limited to his playing "Risk" in college, and evidently, watching the news), and DNI James Clapper (who evidently didn't see the word "muslim" in the title "Muslim Brotherhood"), and SOS Hillary Pantsuits (well, ummm... Never Mind..) advising the community organizer in chief on how best to not show weakness, send a consistent message and try not to alienate the .02 percent of the population that attended UC Berkeley who would vote for him 2012; we end up with a situation that, unfortunately, our enemies are watching very closely, because they get a vote in what happens as well."
Ouch. More than a little bit of partisan anger is clouding the criticism here, which should be examined cooly and with some professional detachment, thank-you-very-much.
"This is not leadership. Vacilation is not a leadership trait. Good leaders make consistent decisions from consistent thinking with intelligence guided by experience and training. This President seems to be flipping a coin or taking a poll in the Situation Room by a show of hands.
I know what real leadership looks like, the writers and viewers of this blog know what leadership looks like, and this ain't it. Fire Panetta now. Fire Clapper now. Fire Clinton now."
One of the things that's so frustrating sometimes is knowing just how little the U.S. can actually do, sometimes, to influence events in faraway places. For instance, when unorganized protesters occupy a major public square for a week or more, who has their leader (hint: there isn't one) in their Rolodex file? Lack of understanding of just how limited our options sometimes are makes it easy to direct the anger this frustration produces on simplistic targets.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
re: "The Country’s In The Very Best Of Hands"
Rand Simberg at Transterrestrial Musings ("Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!") bundles some smart analysis and then brings the snark.
Money quote(s):
"It makes me long for the robust, intelligent foreign policy of Jimmy Carter."
Sunday, December 19, 2010
re: "The Effects of WikiLeaks on Those Who Work at the State Department"
Samuel Witten at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") has a great analysis on the Wikileaks fallout at the State Dept.
Money quote(s):
"The diplomatic cable, a tool used by many governments, provides an official channel for U.S. diplomats abroad to report back to Washington and for Washington to instruct diplomats on how to approach relationships with foreign governments, the public overseas, international organizations and many other audiences. Many cables to and from our diplomatic posts include analyses of complex issues of foreign policy and diplomacy. Others provide candid recommendations of ways to advance U.S. interests against steep odds in dangerous and uncertain places. Some seek urgent guidance and identify sensitive information and options to address contingencies. Others offer insights into the character and motivations of foreign leaders, potential U.S. allies and opponents, opposition political parties, human rights activists, and dissidents.
Cables are a fundamental part of the State Department’s core culture, an essential component of how State Department diplomats and lawyers do business. The process of obtaining “clearance” on a proposed cable within the State Department (or from other concerned federal agencies) ensures that messages and instructions reflect all of the interests at stake and have the benefit of cumulative experience. Cables also create an official, historical record of the U.S. Government’s international actions and help ensure accountability for decisions."
The above is without doubt the best two-paragraph explanation of a cable that I've ever seen.
Left out are the categories of cable which are, I believe, excluded from the Wikileaks breach, which are the relatively non-sexy cables having to do with official orders (such as travel or assignments, promotion lists, &tc.), law enforcement and consular-related communications which incorporated personally identifying information.
"Damage from WikiLeaks disclosures go well beyond the immediate consequences reported in the media. The releases undermine the essential ability of our foreign affairs professionals to do their jobs. The leaks compromise the acquisition and flow of information around the world, reduce the effectiveness of our international outreach, and may put lives at risk."
"Our foreign affairs professionals can do their jobs properly only when they can exchange information in confidence with foreign leaders, would-be leaders, academics, non-governmental organizations, and private citizens. Many interlocutors are willing to engage with American diplomats only because of implicit or explicit understandings that the exchanges will be kept confidential."
If no one is willing to talk to us, we're not going to be able to do much in the way of promoting mutual understanding. Or much of anything else.
"It seems inevitable that many officials from foreign governments or international organizations, not to mention private persons at risk, will be more reticent in their contacts with the United States. The releases already made thus are likely to put a chill in our normal diplomatic dialogues; in some cases, it may take years to restore confidence and underlying relationships."
This is huge. The impact of this simply can't be over-stated. No one can possibly believe their identities and the information they provide us will be held in confidence. We simply will no longer be trusted to pass information to the right ears and no further.
"Diplomats are asked from the first day of their training to think critically. Their job is not merely to report on what they see and hear, but to evaluate, challenge conventional wisdom, and recommend strategies for advancing U.S. interests in complex situations."
"(E)xperts in Washington benefit from “atmospheric reporting” (such as reports of what people are saying informally or what the public mood might be in some locations) because it helps them put other information in context. Candor and creativity in reporting and analysis could well be casualties of the shadow cast by WikiLeaks."
Any cable-drafter already knows that the potential readership of any given cable is quite large. Potentially, anyone within (and in some case outwith) the State Dept. possessing the right accesses could become a reader, either today or next week, next month, or next year. Cables are forever, communications-of-record; if nothing else their contents will become summarized and encapsulated in reports which trickle ever upwards.
"Cables are both vehicles for instructions to our negotiating delegations and part of the record of our negotiations."
Nothing levels our side of the playing field quite so drastically as when our mail is being read, even long after the fact. Candor and plain-talking are essential or you're just spinning your wheels.
"Candor, creativity and “out of the box” views are appropriately sought – and needed – by decision makers. Thanks to WikiLeaks, cable-drafters are now seeing their candid words, thoughts, and analysis, all intended for internal consumption, splashed on the front pages of newspapers and circulated around the world on the internet. Concerned for perhaps the first time in their careers that they have damaged U.S. interests, at least some of these employees could be more cautious in the future."
Time and again I've instructed report-writers to tell the facts, what they know and how they know it, what they saw and heard, as distinct from what they think and deduce from it (but include that too, clearly differentiated) and let "higher" do the second-guessing from their position of access to a wider ranger of information. Don't self-adjudicate.
Mr. Witten concludes:
"For the foreseeable future, foreign officials and private persons will understandably be worried about whether their dialogues with the State Department will be secure. Some candor and critiques by our own professionals may go unwritten or held in narrow channels of distribution."
I must confess I've done this myself, pre-Wikileaks. Not writing everything I know or have heard about something, but passing the information (less the specific identity of a source) to "higher" through channels as secure (actually, in hindsight much more secure) as cable traffic but without the same paper trail. I thought I was just being paranoid about protecting my sources, but it's true what they say: Paranoia Is Its Own Reward.
It also deprives "higher" with the fuller appreciation of that information which knowing the actual source can provide.
Money quote(s):
"The diplomatic cable, a tool used by many governments, provides an official channel for U.S. diplomats abroad to report back to Washington and for Washington to instruct diplomats on how to approach relationships with foreign governments, the public overseas, international organizations and many other audiences. Many cables to and from our diplomatic posts include analyses of complex issues of foreign policy and diplomacy. Others provide candid recommendations of ways to advance U.S. interests against steep odds in dangerous and uncertain places. Some seek urgent guidance and identify sensitive information and options to address contingencies. Others offer insights into the character and motivations of foreign leaders, potential U.S. allies and opponents, opposition political parties, human rights activists, and dissidents.
Cables are a fundamental part of the State Department’s core culture, an essential component of how State Department diplomats and lawyers do business. The process of obtaining “clearance” on a proposed cable within the State Department (or from other concerned federal agencies) ensures that messages and instructions reflect all of the interests at stake and have the benefit of cumulative experience. Cables also create an official, historical record of the U.S. Government’s international actions and help ensure accountability for decisions."
The above is without doubt the best two-paragraph explanation of a cable that I've ever seen.
Left out are the categories of cable which are, I believe, excluded from the Wikileaks breach, which are the relatively non-sexy cables having to do with official orders (such as travel or assignments, promotion lists, &tc.), law enforcement and consular-related communications which incorporated personally identifying information.
"Damage from WikiLeaks disclosures go well beyond the immediate consequences reported in the media. The releases undermine the essential ability of our foreign affairs professionals to do their jobs. The leaks compromise the acquisition and flow of information around the world, reduce the effectiveness of our international outreach, and may put lives at risk."
"Our foreign affairs professionals can do their jobs properly only when they can exchange information in confidence with foreign leaders, would-be leaders, academics, non-governmental organizations, and private citizens. Many interlocutors are willing to engage with American diplomats only because of implicit or explicit understandings that the exchanges will be kept confidential."
If no one is willing to talk to us, we're not going to be able to do much in the way of promoting mutual understanding. Or much of anything else.
"It seems inevitable that many officials from foreign governments or international organizations, not to mention private persons at risk, will be more reticent in their contacts with the United States. The releases already made thus are likely to put a chill in our normal diplomatic dialogues; in some cases, it may take years to restore confidence and underlying relationships."
This is huge. The impact of this simply can't be over-stated. No one can possibly believe their identities and the information they provide us will be held in confidence. We simply will no longer be trusted to pass information to the right ears and no further.
"Diplomats are asked from the first day of their training to think critically. Their job is not merely to report on what they see and hear, but to evaluate, challenge conventional wisdom, and recommend strategies for advancing U.S. interests in complex situations."
"(E)xperts in Washington benefit from “atmospheric reporting” (such as reports of what people are saying informally or what the public mood might be in some locations) because it helps them put other information in context. Candor and creativity in reporting and analysis could well be casualties of the shadow cast by WikiLeaks."
Any cable-drafter already knows that the potential readership of any given cable is quite large. Potentially, anyone within (and in some case outwith) the State Dept. possessing the right accesses could become a reader, either today or next week, next month, or next year. Cables are forever, communications-of-record; if nothing else their contents will become summarized and encapsulated in reports which trickle ever upwards.
"Cables are both vehicles for instructions to our negotiating delegations and part of the record of our negotiations."
Nothing levels our side of the playing field quite so drastically as when our mail is being read, even long after the fact. Candor and plain-talking are essential or you're just spinning your wheels.
"Candor, creativity and “out of the box” views are appropriately sought – and needed – by decision makers. Thanks to WikiLeaks, cable-drafters are now seeing their candid words, thoughts, and analysis, all intended for internal consumption, splashed on the front pages of newspapers and circulated around the world on the internet. Concerned for perhaps the first time in their careers that they have damaged U.S. interests, at least some of these employees could be more cautious in the future."
Time and again I've instructed report-writers to tell the facts, what they know and how they know it, what they saw and heard, as distinct from what they think and deduce from it (but include that too, clearly differentiated) and let "higher" do the second-guessing from their position of access to a wider ranger of information. Don't self-adjudicate.
Mr. Witten concludes:
"For the foreseeable future, foreign officials and private persons will understandably be worried about whether their dialogues with the State Department will be secure. Some candor and critiques by our own professionals may go unwritten or held in narrow channels of distribution."
I must confess I've done this myself, pre-Wikileaks. Not writing everything I know or have heard about something, but passing the information (less the specific identity of a source) to "higher" through channels as secure (actually, in hindsight much more secure) as cable traffic but without the same paper trail. I thought I was just being paranoid about protecting my sources, but it's true what they say: Paranoia Is Its Own Reward.
It also deprives "higher" with the fuller appreciation of that information which knowing the actual source can provide.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
JO - Ja wouldn't stare down Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil
From my archive of press clippings:
Jamaica Observer
Ja wouldn't stare down Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Dear Editor,
With his back to the wall, the prime minister has devised a tactic which at least has a fighting chance of working. He has come out of his corner of the ring swinging, in the diplomatic fight with the Obama administration. His bona fide in the Dudus matter may be a little weak, as many suspect, and his position, in real terms, may well be motivated by self-interest and self-preservation, but at least he is a fighter, and not a weeper, as a certain woman was reputed to have become when faced with the Trafigura scandal.
Read the whole letter here.
Snippet(s):
"Word in Washington is that Obama can indeed be bullied - and has been bullied - according to his opponents, because of not wanting it to appear that as a liberal he is a hard taskmaster, preferring to be known as "non-confrontational". Now, where did I hear this term before? After all, he has just let Honduras bully the USA.
Now, this assumption may be a risky one, since others - Obama's supporters - say that he is as tough as nails, but acts in such a deliberate manner that he is not easily drawn by hot rhetoric."
&
"(O)ne of the things which has most riled the State Department is Minister Baugh's and the administration's foreign policy moves. We have joined the Latin American and Caribbean breakaway OAS group. Its first item of business is the stated desire to break what they see as US hegemony in the region, and then to support Argentina in its grouse with Britain over the Falklands."
_____
Patrick Blake
mysterymonpatrick@hotmail.com
Jamaica Observer
Ja wouldn't stare down Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Dear Editor,
With his back to the wall, the prime minister has devised a tactic which at least has a fighting chance of working. He has come out of his corner of the ring swinging, in the diplomatic fight with the Obama administration. His bona fide in the Dudus matter may be a little weak, as many suspect, and his position, in real terms, may well be motivated by self-interest and self-preservation, but at least he is a fighter, and not a weeper, as a certain woman was reputed to have become when faced with the Trafigura scandal.
Read the whole letter here.
Snippet(s):
"Word in Washington is that Obama can indeed be bullied - and has been bullied - according to his opponents, because of not wanting it to appear that as a liberal he is a hard taskmaster, preferring to be known as "non-confrontational". Now, where did I hear this term before? After all, he has just let Honduras bully the USA.
Now, this assumption may be a risky one, since others - Obama's supporters - say that he is as tough as nails, but acts in such a deliberate manner that he is not easily drawn by hot rhetoric."
&
"(O)ne of the things which has most riled the State Department is Minister Baugh's and the administration's foreign policy moves. We have joined the Latin American and Caribbean breakaway OAS group. Its first item of business is the stated desire to break what they see as US hegemony in the region, and then to support Argentina in its grouse with Britain over the Falklands."
_____
Patrick Blake
mysterymonpatrick@hotmail.com
Thursday, April 8, 2010
re: "Petraeus asks to add Israel & Palestine to AO"
Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive evaluated Gen. Petraeus' request.
The set-up:
"There is an element within the US foreign policy establishment that believes that virtually every problem we have with Arab and/or Muslim countries can be tied to our support for Israel. They take the realpolitik view that since this is what their counterparts from these countries say then we should adapt our policies accordingly to gain traction with them. There is no question that our alliance with Israel makes our relations with many countries more difficult. The question remains as to whether changing this will actually benefit us and if that is worth throwing one of the few true allies we have in the region under the bus."
The conclusion:
"This looks like a request to alter our force posture and a major alliance to produce better relations with other countries concerned about Israel v. the Palestinians.
Now I am hardly a fan of the State Department, but that sure seems like their job. The military is sometimes used to increase our government to government relations, and my team went to Singapore when the Philippines announced they wanted to close our bases there specifically to do this. But I think it is a stretch, and one in the wrong direction, for a theater commander to be requesting a change to his AO that would reverse decades of US policy. If this happened as it is portrayed, then those within the State Department who have been complaining about mission creep from the military may have a point. As Clausewitz said, war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means, but we should not consider that to be an invitation to reverse the flow."
The set-up:
"There is an element within the US foreign policy establishment that believes that virtually every problem we have with Arab and/or Muslim countries can be tied to our support for Israel. They take the realpolitik view that since this is what their counterparts from these countries say then we should adapt our policies accordingly to gain traction with them. There is no question that our alliance with Israel makes our relations with many countries more difficult. The question remains as to whether changing this will actually benefit us and if that is worth throwing one of the few true allies we have in the region under the bus."
The conclusion:
"This looks like a request to alter our force posture and a major alliance to produce better relations with other countries concerned about Israel v. the Palestinians.
Now I am hardly a fan of the State Department, but that sure seems like their job. The military is sometimes used to increase our government to government relations, and my team went to Singapore when the Philippines announced they wanted to close our bases there specifically to do this. But I think it is a stretch, and one in the wrong direction, for a theater commander to be requesting a change to his AO that would reverse decades of US policy. If this happened as it is portrayed, then those within the State Department who have been complaining about mission creep from the military may have a point. As Clausewitz said, war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means, but we should not consider that to be an invitation to reverse the flow."
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
re: "Obama the Politics of Ambassadorial Appointments"
Charlie J. Brown at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of foreign policy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop culture") made a reasonable defense of the administration's ambassadorial appointments thus far.
Money quote(s):
"(S)ome of those appointed by the Obama Administration are foreign policy experts who have a long history of working on the countries and/or issues in question."
&
"The foreign service does an outstanding (and largely unheralded) job of representing U.S. interests overseas. Its members deserve not merely our respect but our admiration. That’s why the list of Obama ambassadorial picks includes a number of distinguished members of the foreign service.
The reality here is that AFSA, which represents the interests of the foreign service, is worried that the foreign service is not getting its traditional share of the pie. They said the same things eight years ago when Bush came to office and sixteen years ago when Clinton got elected. It’s a time-honored Washington ritual."
Money quote(s):
"(S)ome of those appointed by the Obama Administration are foreign policy experts who have a long history of working on the countries and/or issues in question."
&
"The foreign service does an outstanding (and largely unheralded) job of representing U.S. interests overseas. Its members deserve not merely our respect but our admiration. That’s why the list of Obama ambassadorial picks includes a number of distinguished members of the foreign service.
The reality here is that AFSA, which represents the interests of the foreign service, is worried that the foreign service is not getting its traditional share of the pie. They said the same things eight years ago when Bush came to office and sixteen years ago when Clinton got elected. It’s a time-honored Washington ritual."
Thursday, April 16, 2009
re: "Innocents abroad"
David at DavidWarrenOnline ("Essays On Our Times") shares a view from north of the border.
Money quote(s):
"The strategy behind the new Obama foreign policy, so far as any can be discerned, is to disavow everything the Bush administration did in eight years, and then harvest the resulting good will. And while the product of this strategy is zero, it has been charitably observed that his term in office has hardly begun.
A much bigger apology to the Muslim world is in the offing; and further apologies could be tailored to specific U.S. enemies."
Money quote(s):
"The strategy behind the new Obama foreign policy, so far as any can be discerned, is to disavow everything the Bush administration did in eight years, and then harvest the resulting good will. And while the product of this strategy is zero, it has been charitably observed that his term in office has hardly begun.
A much bigger apology to the Muslim world is in the offing; and further apologies could be tailored to specific U.S. enemies."
Sunday, April 5, 2009
re: "Obama's Foreign Policy: Nothing Personal"
Charlie at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of diplomacy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop-culture") pegs our new chief diplomat as a realist.
Money quote(s):
"The object is to defeat al Qaeda, not get bin Laden. Similarly, the Administration has made it clear (albeit informally) that it no longer will refer to the conflict with al Qaeda as the “Global War on Terror.”
So what do these stories and statements have in common? For Obama, foreign policy is not a frat party. Brown is not his “staunch friend.” Medvedev is neither a “soul” mate or “troublesome and unhelpful.” ; and Osama bin Laden is not an “evil-doer.”
Unlike his predecessor, who personalized everything, Obama is keeping his distance, regardless of whether he is dealing with a friend, competitor, or enemy. He is pursing a businesslike approach to foreign policy, focusing on country-to-country relations, not private relationships.
That is pretty much a textbook example of realism. He views relationships as a function of American interests, and acts accordingly. The downside of this approach is that some issues, such as human rights, are less likely to impress the President as priorities simple because it’s the right thing to do. He still may (or may not) champion human rights, but he’ll do so because it is in America’s best interest."
Money quote(s):
"The object is to defeat al Qaeda, not get bin Laden. Similarly, the Administration has made it clear (albeit informally) that it no longer will refer to the conflict with al Qaeda as the “Global War on Terror.”
So what do these stories and statements have in common? For Obama, foreign policy is not a frat party. Brown is not his “staunch friend.” Medvedev is neither a “soul” mate or “troublesome and unhelpful.” ; and Osama bin Laden is not an “evil-doer.”
Unlike his predecessor, who personalized everything, Obama is keeping his distance, regardless of whether he is dealing with a friend, competitor, or enemy. He is pursing a businesslike approach to foreign policy, focusing on country-to-country relations, not private relationships.
That is pretty much a textbook example of realism. He views relationships as a function of American interests, and acts accordingly. The downside of this approach is that some issues, such as human rights, are less likely to impress the President as priorities simple because it’s the right thing to do. He still may (or may not) champion human rights, but he’ll do so because it is in America’s best interest."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
