Vanderleun at American Digest demonstrated by example what you should be reading.
7/14
Friday, December 23, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
re: "Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood Favoritism Will Lead to War in the Middle East"
Keith Davies at Big Peace attributes to malice what can adequately be explained by naïveté.
Money quote(s):
"Over the last year we have seen our government sell out Hosni Mubarak, the key leader who has brought relative peace and stability in the region. Instead, we have jumped on board with the “Arab Spring” which has led to Islamists taking power. My colleagues and I are not privy to CIA intelligence, but if we were able to predict such things based on common sense and our expertise in Middle East affairs, why could not our government see? Or maybe they can. It seems our government is infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and, along with political correctness from politicians who choose reelection over common sense, has allowed the Middle East to become a powder keg ready to explode."
Still and all: once is happenstance or accident; twice is coincidence (even if some folks don't believe in "coincidence"); but three times is enemy action.
12/3
re: "Fear and Envy"
Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") examines the "Occupy" movement.
Money quote(s):
"It’s been too easy, really. Too easy to pillory the paucity of real ideas emanating from the “leaderless” movement that wants, well: Something else. Too easy to point out the venality that re-occurs within every human movement of more than modest size. Too easy to point out the cranks who lie on societies fringes, waiting to latch on to the next procession and beat their bongo drums. Too easy tar the fresh-faced ingenues too easily preyed upon by those who have made their own modest way through life accurately identifying members of the victim classes. Far too easy to compare the kid gloves the “mostly white” Occupy set have been treated by the national media compared to rabid pillorying the “mostly white” tea party middle class received.
Still, something is going on here. Something troubling. I think it’s worth talking about, and for my own part, I believe the heart of it lies in fear, and that fear is turn fed by envy.
Our rising generation was told by their parents, their school teachers, the broader culture that the ticket to success in this country was to work hard in school and get a college degree. Do this, and this alone they were told in an era that preached self-actualization as the highest personal duty, and your success would be assured. Success, it was never quite said out of doors, being measured in various ways.
But with the dumbing down of portions of the academy, and broad access to what ended up being crippling loans, virtually anyone could get a college degree given five to six years. Whether that would be time and money well invested, well: I think we’re watching the result of that experiment play out."
Go back and read all that again.
Okay, now go and read the passages that followed, about hourglasses and inverted pyramids.
Discuss.
"The Occupy crowd doesn’t want to own and operate a gas station in Akron. They want a loft in Tribeca, and lacking any plausible means to buy it, they’d like to take yours. Or have the government give it to them. Envy, we used to be informed back in the old days, is a sin.
We don’t teach much about sin, anymore.
We are still a great nation, none greater, more wealthy, nor more powerful. Our janitors and farm hands use their smoke breaks to check the FaceBook pages on their iPhones. There is no hunger as the rest of the world understands the term, virtually no real material want outside of those toxic islands of dysfunction which the generous hand of well-intended government first created and now subsidizes. Ours is the land – uniquely, in human history – where the poor are fat.
The fact that the Occupy set are more intrenched at Wall Street than they are outside the White House leads us to the reluctant conclusion that their anger is misplaced, and indeed wrong-headed: They look for rescue to a government that lives in cheerful symbiosis with Wall Street to save them by re-distributing money from the “1%” to, well: Themselves. Which, regardless of who holds the political reins in Washington, will never happen. You don’t kill the golden goose, not if you want to be re-elected."
The facts about where Wall Street sends its campaign contributions are well known to those with the ability or inclination to read. Do the math.
"(B)big government makes for small citizens. They subsidized bad mortgage debt that drove the financial system nearly to destruction, and are in the process of subsidizing educational debt that has done little to improve our store of intellectual capital and global competitiveness but rather stands ready to enslave a generation."
Student loan debt is well on its way to re-introducing what effectively amounts to indentured servitude and, for the first time since Reconstruction, debt-peonage north of the Rio Grande.
re: "Rewarding Failure at the DoD Policy Board"
The Phibian at CDR Salamander ("Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.") reviewed the DoD Policy Board's composition.
Money quote(s):
"(N)one of the members who used to wear the uniform have any combat leadership experience in over a decade of war."
Perhaps that's not considered a drawback, whereas combat experience (i.e., skin in the game) would be.
10/5re: "Predictions, Predilictions UPDATED"
Dafydd at Big Lizards ("everything in this site is under construction, except for the blog") made some predictions that seem a lot less crazy than they would have even a year ago.
(DISCLAIMER: CAA is not any sort of economist by training, education, or inclination.)
Money quote(s):
"We all know that something is rotten in the state of the European Onion; but I'll be the boldest by staking out this prediction:
Within six years from today, by September 14th, 2017, the European Union as a political body will cease to exist except on paper. And the whole sorry farce of "United in Diversity" will be nothing more than a vivid and utopian opium dream."
Recall that there are/were a host of lesser-and-or-included international organizations still persisting in sort of a state of suspended relevence, such as the WEU and other various treaty-generated bodies.
The EU, which is only the latest phase of long string of existances which began as a steel and coal consortium, will likely continue some sort of legal existance, even if only as a collection of surviving components.
In a similar fashion, some portions of the former League of Nations survived to be incorporated into the U.N.
"The Euro will no longer be a semi-pan-European currency; each country will revert to its native currency -- lira, deutschmark, drachma, pound sterling (all right, all right, the last never actually disappeared) -- and the Euro will only be honored as trade-in on the local national currency."
Speculation on just how that would be implemented is already making the rounds of the blogosphere.
(I particularly like the notion of checking ones Euro currency and coinage and separating out the ones printed/minted in other EU countries, then exchanging them until you only have those from you own country. Although I kinda/sorta/really doubt that would make any practical difference in the end.)
Back in the real world, you can already see news reports of capital flight such as from Greece to the U.K.
"(T)he EU (pronounced eeew!) has never really existed except on paper in the first place. Nobody really believes that Greece, Portugal, France, Spain, Germany, Bulgaria, Latvia, and the UK (pronounced yuck!) are all contained within a single geopolitical unit. It's impossible and insane.
But I mean something stronger: Under my prediction, nearly all the political entities putatively absorbed into the EU, and all of those with functioning economies without exception, will have formally repudiated any supernational "sovereignty" of the European Union; if it exists at all, it will be only as a "free-trade zone." "
Oddly, the "free-trade zone" is the single most practical and useful part of the EU. I hope it survives.
"(I)it's already happening; and the trigger has been the looming debt defaults (often driven by bank failures) and proposed and actual bailouts of perpetual paupers Greece and Portugal; countries with serious deficit and debt problems, such as Italy, Ireland, and Spain; and even the very powerhouse economies that are called upon to bail out everyone else: Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. (Ireland and the UK are in trouble mostly because their banking systems are integrally tied into their federal budgets.)"
What goes unmentioned here is how much debt paper from the PIIGS is held by the major banks in the "powerhouse economies" (esp. France and Germany). The last thing those countries want is for the music to stop and for those "investments" to be written down (or off).
"Take Germany as one example; it doesn't want to bankrupt its relatively good economy with a succession of bailouts to the many countries in the EU that face imminent economic collapse. But on the other hand, I doubt Germany is anxious to be made into the scapegoat for the political implosion that might result from denying those bailout loans.
And there are likely legal consequences, too: By joining the EU, Germany and the other member states accepted the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. If the other strong economies (France, the UK, others) bought into the loan package, but Germany refused, the contributors might be able to go to the Court of Justice and try to force Germany to comply.
I have no idea whether the CoJ has either jurisdiction or authority to force a member state to join a bailout... but my guess is that neither does anyone else; I strongly suspect that the rules of that court are kept deliberately vague, allowing tremendous latitude for the court itself (and favored litigants), and tremendous risk for Germany, or any other member state thwarting the decisions reached at the upper reaches of the European Parliament. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some provision allowing Germany to be haled into the dock at Luxembourg and hit with fines and potentially political punishment.
Bottom line, I don't think it's feasible for Germany to refuse to lend the money, but still remain in the European Union. (Note that this same analysis applies to every other member state expected to pour its treasure into rescue packages for the basket cases.)"
How many divisions has the CoJ? Jurisdiction or authority notwithstanding, exactly how does Brussels expect to force Germany to do anything?
"In the end -- if not for this bailout, then for the next, or maybe the one after (that's why I gave my prediction a six-year time span) -- the rich states will not crucify themselves upon a cross of continentalization. Either the current government, or else the next, after that government falls, will run for election on the platform of withdrawing from the EU, notwithstanding the fact that there is no provision for unilateral withdrawal.
Once some nation, Germany or another, punches the first hole in the dike, the other EU member states who have a functioning economy will disassociate from the Union rapidly. If stable states are reluctant to bankrupt themselves propping up the perpetually collapsing states, think how much more reluctant they'll be when one of more of their fellows in stability opt out: "Why should we pay tens of billions to Greece and Portugal when Germany isn't paying a single deutschmark?", the next state will cry... and that argument is pretty unarguable." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
For the moment, I expect more deckchair shuffling, and perhaps the morphing of the Eurozone into a two-tier arrangement.
On the other hand, as a consular officer I believe it's incumbent in my duties to thing-the-unthinkable and do some worst-case-scenario crystal ball reading in order to anticipate some worst-case contingencies. In the event the Eurozone were to come unglued, what happens to the tens of thousands of American travelers and tourists passing through when their bank cards stop working (or worse).
re: "Rick Perry is in"
Michael at Supply Side Politics 2.0 declared a preference (if not an actual endorsement).
Money quote(s):
"Suffice it to say that I consider a Presidential candidate who holds a concealed carry permit to be a feature, not a bug."
Apparently, even in Texas, sometimes it's considered showy or impolite to open carry.
8/13
re: "Getting the word out"
Ol' Remus at Eternity Road defends against the vandalism of our language.
Money quote(s):
"How many are brave enough to use honest, ordinary words when accuracy is equated to malevolency?"
Granted that this was posted back in July, it assumes new power and relevence during the "holiday season."
"Consider also Qur'an, Qur’ān, al-Qur’ān, and perhaps soon: 'Q'u'r'ā'n', all transliterations of the entirely satisfactory Koran. Perhaps we're expected to make little tic marks in the air with our finger. Also notice Muslim—commonly delivered as moose-lum—formerly Moslem, which incidentally is the preferred version as a given name. Treacly affectations one and all. We're reminded of television news readers suddenly acquiring the local dialect when pronouncing names of foreign cities, except for Chinese cities of course, fear of outright comedy allows us this reprieve. Such excesses occur from time to time, there's nothing for it but to outlast them." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Too funny. Like those who say "Pock-i-stan."
"Air quotes" are funny enough; "air diacritical marks" would accelerate beyond ludicrous speed.
"The purpose of these subterfuges is immediately clear. In rhetoric it's known as begging the question, where the argument is included in the premise. Adopting these smarmy terms suggests acceptance of the underlying agenda, absent a disclaimer at every mention. Whereas African American is ceremonial, akin to a trophy for participation, native American is both the most recent ersatz locution and the most aggressive. It dismisses all other native Americans, i.e., everybody else born here, as posers and interlopers, then shunts us to prepared ground, all in one motion. This may be the future of auto-confessional language.
Such misdirection is hardly new. A privately held, largely European banking cartel became the Federal Reserve in 1913 when in fact it's neither, the War Department became the Department of Defense in the late 1940s, to commit acts of defense one presumes, and total dependence on welfare was deemed assistance almost from the start, as if to assist the temporarily but unavoidably impecunious until payday down at the quarry. Clients, when they mean recipients, is older, dating from the New Deal of the '30s, as does relief, the marginally more honest term superseded by assistance, which in turn is giving way to entitlement." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
To be fair, the DoD consolidated the previous departments of war (i.e., the army) and the navy, together with the newly-born air force. So a more generic name was probably called for.
"The question was: how many are brave enough to use honest, ordinary words when accuracy is equated to malevolency? Probably not many, it's not an easy thing to do..... Plain talk, like all good guerilla acts, leaves them unsure who they're up against, the merely negligent or the purposely subversive. It's a thing of beauty. Noncompliance by way of honest and ordinary words, the words we own rather than rent, is an aggravation that lingers."
Merry Christmas!
7/13
Money quote(s):
"How many are brave enough to use honest, ordinary words when accuracy is equated to malevolency?"
Granted that this was posted back in July, it assumes new power and relevence during the "holiday season."
"Consider also Qur'an, Qur’ān, al-Qur’ān, and perhaps soon: 'Q'u'r'ā'n', all transliterations of the entirely satisfactory Koran. Perhaps we're expected to make little tic marks in the air with our finger. Also notice Muslim—commonly delivered as moose-lum—formerly Moslem, which incidentally is the preferred version as a given name. Treacly affectations one and all. We're reminded of television news readers suddenly acquiring the local dialect when pronouncing names of foreign cities, except for Chinese cities of course, fear of outright comedy allows us this reprieve. Such excesses occur from time to time, there's nothing for it but to outlast them." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Too funny. Like those who say "Pock-i-stan."
"Air quotes" are funny enough; "air diacritical marks" would accelerate beyond ludicrous speed.
"The purpose of these subterfuges is immediately clear. In rhetoric it's known as begging the question, where the argument is included in the premise. Adopting these smarmy terms suggests acceptance of the underlying agenda, absent a disclaimer at every mention. Whereas African American is ceremonial, akin to a trophy for participation, native American is both the most recent ersatz locution and the most aggressive. It dismisses all other native Americans, i.e., everybody else born here, as posers and interlopers, then shunts us to prepared ground, all in one motion. This may be the future of auto-confessional language.
Such misdirection is hardly new. A privately held, largely European banking cartel became the Federal Reserve in 1913 when in fact it's neither, the War Department became the Department of Defense in the late 1940s, to commit acts of defense one presumes, and total dependence on welfare was deemed assistance almost from the start, as if to assist the temporarily but unavoidably impecunious until payday down at the quarry. Clients, when they mean recipients, is older, dating from the New Deal of the '30s, as does relief, the marginally more honest term superseded by assistance, which in turn is giving way to entitlement." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
To be fair, the DoD consolidated the previous departments of war (i.e., the army) and the navy, together with the newly-born air force. So a more generic name was probably called for.
"The question was: how many are brave enough to use honest, ordinary words when accuracy is equated to malevolency? Probably not many, it's not an easy thing to do..... Plain talk, like all good guerilla acts, leaves them unsure who they're up against, the merely negligent or the purposely subversive. It's a thing of beauty. Noncompliance by way of honest and ordinary words, the words we own rather than rent, is an aggravation that lingers."
Merry Christmas!
7/13
Monday, December 19, 2011
re: "For God's sake Amb. Munter, don't Go Native on us now"
Pundita ("US foreign policy for the 21st Century") has some sharp criticism of the Department.
Money quote(s):
"In yet another sign that the U.S. Department of State should relocate to Brussels U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter advised White House officials that President Obama should deliver a "formal video statement," according to White House officials interviewed by the New York Times, regarding the NATO air strike inside Pakistan on November 26."
Amb. Munter is a career professional diplomat who gave, from his in-country vantage point, foreign policy advice tempered by knowledge of local politics, sentiment, and conditions.
That's kinda/sorta his job.
(Disclaimer: CAA met, briefly and in passing, the aforementioned ambassador a few years ago.)
He was notably one of the senior FSOs who, fairly early, volunteered for service in Iraq, where he lead the first PRT in Mosul in 2006; he also served at the Baghdad embassy in 2009-2010.
I recall him stating publicly (paraphrase follows) that if senior leadership was going to ask FSOs to volunteer for service in war zones it would behoove them to lead by example. Or word to that effect.
"As to how Munter's highly sensitive discussion with White House officials came to be made public, I'd say that the U.S. Department of State is the prime suspect."
Leaking to the press is simply outside of CAA's area of competency. I got nothing.
"As to how State arrived at the idea that any advice they could give on Pakistan would be helpful to the United States is beyond me. State's track record on Pakistan since the Afghan War heated up has been awful"
Frankly, the United States' track record on Pakistan is something that needs to be examined holistically, from top-down decisions down to our working level relationships. The State Dept. doesn't set policy. It implements it, it provides advice beforehand and feedback as implementation proceeds.
"Moving along, Munter's advice was given on the 28th, just two days after the NATO air strike, when the U.S. Department of Defense was still trying untangle how the strike came about and exactly what had happened during the strike. So it's almost beyond belief that a career diplomat of Munter's experience would ask the President of the United States for a formal apology before the strike had been properly investigated.
Yet when it comes to State not much is beyond belief anymore. State officials have come to think of themselves as 'policymakers' even though State is only supposed to advise the White House on policy."
See my comments above. That being said, at a certain level and above, senior officials are not only implementers and advice-givers, they are policy-makers. This is just as true at DoD, the CIA, and the DoJ as it is in Foggy Bottom.
"This is no way to run foreign policy; this is no way to conduct any kind of policy and certainly not the way to run a war. This is headless horseman thinking, which means there is no real thinking at all; there is just a bureaucracy's obsession with expanding its turf by attempting to please scores of competing factions."
Part of the problem is the pretense that Pakistan is not part of a.) the larger campaign in Afghanistan; and b.) the larger "war on terror."
That being said, while we do send our honorable diplomats abroad to lie for their country, they must always take care to tell only the truth when reporting back to Washington, whether that is to the Department or to the White House.
12/1
re: "The mysterious source: who’s most afraid of Cain?"
Neo-neocon ("slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon") speculated on the man (or woman) behind the curtain.
Money quote(s):
"Most of the speculation on the sources’ identities has so far centered on Cain’s Republican opponents. That makes a great deal of sense because they’re the ones who are seemingly most threatened by Cain. Cain himself appears to think one of them bears the blame; he’s been shooting from the hip and accusing Perry consultant Kurt Anderson of being the culprit, although he’s walked back a bit from that charge in recent days.
Or Cain may have other antagonists, perhaps even personal rather than political ones, who possessed the lawsuit information and would like to see him brought him down. As in a detective novel, there’s probably a plethora of possibilities there; a powerful and successful man is likely to make quite a few enemies."
This is likely something that won't be known with any certainty for years, if ever. Still, the Chicago-centric nature of some of the accusers and accusations suggests.....
"One possible source that’s hardly been pointed to is Obama or someone in his camp. But why would Obama bother at this point? In fact, Cain might be a weaker opponent than some of the others, and Obama might even welcome a Cain candidacy.
Then again, perhaps Obama fears it for special reasons of his own. If so, it could be the result of what I’d call the Bobby Rush phenomenon. You may recall that Rush was Obama’s opponent in the 2000 Democratic Congressional primary, and the only person in political life who has (so far) ever gotten the better of Obama.
Rush is a black man of roughly the same age as Cain, although the former is an extreme liberal and the latter a conservative."
Who benefits?
Newt Gingrich benefited most immediately, surging to viability from far back in the Republican pack, but that surge is already tapering off and candidates Romney, Perry, and even Ron Paul are looking viable just before the Iowa presidential caucus. Longer term, obviously the incumbent stands to benefit. Read the whole post.
11/5
re: "Foreign Service Blogging: Tigers Have Teeth, Rather Sharp ... Rawr!!!"
Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") blogged on the hazards of Foreign Service blogging.
Money quote(s):
"A while back someone else also wrote to inform me that he/she was "strongly reminded" that blogging can lead to at least pulling the security clearance, forced (involuntary) curtailment, followed by loss of job, arrest, detainment and prosecution. Understandably, that blog is not here or there, anymore.
The Tigers roared baring fangs, which means the threat of no food on the table, arrest, detainment, well, just about everything, really. Except they forgot to include non-promotion and career suicide. Of course, if you lose your job, there would be no point worrying about a promotion or a career." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
The "Tigers." Them's State Dept. powers-that-be (or as Dave Barry famously described them: "white men in blue suits"). A.k.a. "Black Dragons" or "mandarins."
The most famous, and fairly current example, of an FS blogger come acropper has to be We Meant Well ("How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts And Minds of the Iraqi People"). Of course, Van Buren, Esq., did a bit more than just blog, whatever you may think of the merits/demerits of how the Department has/is handled his situation.
CAA prefers to blog pseudonymously, for a number of good reasons. Frankly, it's just good operational security. On the other hand, CAA is not one of the scores of new officers who've joined the Foreign Service and were already longtime bloggers.
"In some places, the Foreign Service is now like a scene out of Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, only this time, the letter one wears in not "A" for Adultery but "B" for Blogger. You blog at your own risk under the Big House's 21st century statecraft jungle regardless of the nice things they say about freedom and the Internets.
Here are a few things I'm kicking around the campfire concerning the various disappearances of Foreign Service bloggers through the years. A quick caveat: I am talking out loud there, so try not to misconstrue the following as an advice in any shape or form; they're not. Also please do not write and ask for "real" examples of "Tiger" blog take down. They are not my stories to tell and I respect the privacy of the bloggers who make no public explanation of their online death." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Lots of excellent FS bloggers have either taken down their posts, sanitized them, or simply discontinued posting. Sometimes that simply the press of business, of work-life balance, of being to busy being and doing to spend much time writing about it. Sometimes ones FS job involves so much writing that doing even a little bit more, even when its for yourself, is just too much effort.
"(I)t seems like "FS bloggers should never mention *anything* about work." Why? Probably because vague blogging isn't as vague as you think and you never know who's reading your blog? Even if Diplomatic Security sees no problem with your blog, your regional/functional bureau or post management may have issues with it. I don't think it has anything to do with what you write per se, it has everything to do with fear and the lack of control. Fear from management that your blog has a ready, captive audience and fear that you might write something out of turn. And there is the notion that you have a direct connection to an audience and your right to self expression has not undergone any sort of vetting by the higher-ups who luv their red pens!"
The Department has evolved some since its 18th century origins, but those origins, and the Dead White Males who populated them, have left a lasting imprint on our corporate culture. In some ways, these are good things.
Por ejemplo, diplomacy is still, rather widely, seen as more than just a job. Like the military, like the church, like academia, the profession of diplomacy (and of diplomats) is a legacy out of the Middle Ages and indeed Late Antiquity (and later Byzantium) itself. Like those cited examples, the profession of diplomacy remains more even than merely a career; it is a calling and a vocation.
On the other side of the ledger, the practice of modern U.S. diplomacy has evolved considerably, with parallels to the similar evolution of micromanagement in military command and control spawned by the technological revolution in worldwide communication.
Once upon a time "our man" on the spot had to be trusted and empowered to act on our behalf according to his latest (telegraphed) instructions, his detailed local knowledge, and his best judgment.
Nowadays, our "man" may be a woman and will never be too far separated from an email, a conference call, an "instant message," and their Blackberry. Upper management's capability for micromanagement produced the temptation, even the obligation, to do so.
So throwing social media into the mix, where even lesser sorts can write, and self-publish (for values of "publish") their unvarnished observations without the benefit of a traditional "clearance" process must truly be an upsetting experience for some folks in high places.
"(M)aybe folks should never blog anything that could be perceived as critical towards the Foggied Bottom, the Foreign Service, the host country, or ones clients (visa applicants, AmCits, official contacts, etc. etc.), even if you're only complaining about somebody sneezing or snoring loudly.
Concerned about all promotions going to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan hands regardless of actual performance? Okay, but that may not be the best subject to blog about, most especially if you're bidding.
Big House functionaries talking about internet freedom really hurts your ears now? Okay, but it won't do any good to talk about the cause of that ear ache in your blog.
You cannot/cannot blog about the smell you have to endure as you sit in your visa interview window because it's bad form to talk about body odors, period. You cannot/cannot blog and complain about seeing boobies with nursing mommies as you conduct visa interviews because breastfeeding is udderly not optional when you have a screaming infant. Trust me on this.
You cannot make snarky comments in your blog about your Amcit clients no matter how loony and unreasonable their demands might be (they are covered by the Privacy Act of 1974). You cannot complain in your blog that your host country has no sidewalks, it might upset the Tourism Bureau. You cannot complain in your blog about getting Montezuma's Revenge because it might upset the host country's Sanitation Bureau. And on and on ...you get the drift? Somewhere there's a fill in the blank form in the shared drive on what FSOs should not blog about, but don't look for that list in the FAM.
EFMs must not blog about how every transfer is like a reinvention of wheels at the Big House because it would make the HR Bureau look bad. Gawd lord! They should not blog that their spouse's HR Technician kept messing up their Travel Orders because it makes the HR staff look incompetent (and some of them are). They should blog zilch /nada about housing, because hey, it's free housing and the leaking roof should not be a big deal! They should not blog about the American school because isn't it enough that you are in a country with an American school? EFMs above all should not blog too loudly about the lack of embassy jobs; didn't ya know that 9.1% of Americans in the United States of America are out of work?! Somewhere there's a fill in the blank form about what EFMs should not blog about, but it's a secret until they call you or your spouse for that Talk. (I'm having a hard time locating my sarcasm off button, sorry!)"
This is just too much (and too good) not to take a point at a time.
a.) "never blog anything that could be perceived as critical towards the Foggied Bottom, the Foreign Service, the host country, or ones clients"
Easier said than done.
Like any institution larger than can be fit into a phone booth (remember them?), the State Dept. and the Foreign Service are vulnerable to brontosaurus syndrome.
That is, information can take so long to filter through its ponderous nervous system from tail to brain (and back) that those signals can be out-of-date, and even dangerous, before they arrive. It makes them vulnerable to "the stupids."
This is not a criticism for which the Service or the Department are uniquely qualified, to be sure.
Still and all, criticizing one's host nation online while attempting to diplomatically represent the U.S. in real life is kind of stupid too. Sort of defeats the purpose.
Host nations, and cultures, can be awfully touchy about things that may seem innocuous.
Some particularly touchy nations may even seize upon blogged "criticism" as an excuse for other actions. So it's wise not to give your opponents any extra ammunition. Not to put too fine a point on it, but some of the police states to which we have diplomatic representation are not really our friends, although in the interests of world peace we certainly try our best to change that reality.
b.) "all promotions going to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan hands regardless of actual performance"
Really? From reading Diplopundit, I've gotten the impression that, at least at the highest levels, the true path to promotion seems to run through assignment in the Human Resources bureau rather than through any particular set of hardship assignments.
That being said, I've seen officers with hardship assignments and those without get promoted. It's probably fairer to say that lots of the better or more desirable (i.e., Western Europe and other First World) assignments get tied up by Afghan, Iraq, and Pakistan "linked" assignments.
Some find it unfair that this should be so, arguing that their own unique circumstances (family and/or medical issues) prevent them from taking such assignments. It can also be argued that it's unfair that those lacking family and/or medical issues that would exempt them from hardship post assignments should have to shoulder that entire burden. And both camps would be entirely correct.
Life is not fair.
c.) "Big House functionaries talking about internet freedom really hurts your ears now"
There really is a world of difference between being a Chinese dissident liable to be arrested and have their organs harvested after a botched execution and someone be counseled to not publicly blog against their employer. The two simply aren't comparable other than as an example of how everything simply isn't co-equal.
d.) "smell you have to endure as you sit in your visa interview window.... body odors.... boobies.... nursing mommies.... breastfeeding.... screaming infant"
Any consular officer can confirm that the 15-minute forced entry/ballistic resistant (FE/BR) interview window, even with mandatory "overpressure" airflow, is not powerful enough to prevent exposure to the body odor of some applicants.
Simply. Not. Powerful. Enough. (No offense intended to Ross or Norshield.)
Yes, Americans have a well-known and justified terror of body odors. This can be best explained by the decades-long campaigns of television advertisers to convince us we smell bad so as to sell more soap. Ever wonder where the term "soap opera" comes from?
Still, even allowing for mad cultural variations, disparities in the availability of water for personal washing or laundry, and the like, some visa applicants (and even Amcit clients) simply and frankly reek. Some truly reek far more than their co-nationals. And not overdue-for-a-shower stinky; we're talking fell-int0-a-latrine reeky. Wishing that away doesn't make it so.
(Oddly, the stinkiest identifiable groups in my recollection has been men-of-the-cloth. Not every reverend, priest, or shamen, mind you, and certainly not as a group. But they're over-represented on the stinkiest extreme of the Bell curve. And I haven't a clue as to why.)
As for breastfeeding and nursing mothers versus screaming infants, that's a no-brainer. As a visa interviewer with at least half-vast experience, I learned very early in my consular career that the occasional glimpse of bare mammaries is greatly to be preferred over a waiting room full of screaming infants. Case closed. Grow up and get over it. And if mentioning it in an FS blog disturbs any Tigers, they need to grow up and get over it.
e.) "snarky comments in your blog about your Amcit clients "
Yes, the Privacy Act of 1974 prevents blogging about what I term "stupid American tricks" in sufficient detail that it's not even worth trying to sanitize the story for blog posting.
Some of your American clients have unrealistic expectations about what the embassy can do for them. Some of them have gotten themselves into such personally hazardous circumstances that you wish you could send the embassy marines (if you're lucky enough to have them at your post) out with the embassy softball team's equipment (i.e., bats) to sort things out for them. (The which you may not do.)
Others are, not to put too fine a point on it, crazy. Or criminals. And by criminals I mean well and truly wanted in the U.S. by lots of fine law enforcement folks.
As a consular officer, you can minimize, to a degree, some of the unrealistic expectations among your Amcit expatriats by means of an active consular outreach program, including holding local "town hall meetings" out and about within your consular district. (But that still won't fully eliminate the problem.)
f.) "complain in your blog that your host country "
See my answer to "a.)" above. This is something that FS bloggers have to gauge very carefully and finely, calibrating it precisely to your own particular host country.
i.) "blog about the American school"
See my last immediately above. Everything I said about spouses and housing goes double for anything related to FS kids and their education.
I've been at posts that did, and ones that did not, have an American school. Sure, the families at the one without would have loved to have had the luxury of dealing with the problems of the posts that do have them. Life, and blogging, is like that. You write about the experiences you have, not about the ones you don't have.
j.) "lack of embassy jobs".
This is a very big deal. The career, financial, professional, and employment dynamic of American families, of married couples, is vastly different than that of only a few decades ago.. The ability, or inability, of FS spouses to find (or be offered) gainful employment during their FS hubby or wifey's assignments abroad has a measurable and drastic impact on both their gross family income and their retirement benefits. That's a fact. It's also a fact that, due to job requirements (such as language fluency or lack thereof), not every embassy support staff job is suitable or available for an EFM to fill.
So of course it's going to get blogged about.
One of the little leadership laws that's passed down within the military is the adage that you should never give an order that you know will not be obeyed.
(How big a hint can I make this? Should I draw a picture?).
"I am convinced that some bloggers are "allowed" to blog by default because their bosses have no idea what a blog is. Seriously.
Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because maybe they are lucky enough to have adult bosses with no control issues who recognize that warts and all are part and parcel of real life, even in organizations. As long as your blog does not end up in NYT or Al Kamen's column, you're safe. Of course, their bosses may have blogs, too :-) and did not want to be outed!
Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because no one has yet complained about them, or the blog is obscure enough it does not register on anyone's radar screen.
Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because their bosses look the other way. These blogs are usually like mini-DipNotes. What's the harm in letting them PR blog for free? And if they write something nice about their bosses, then that is super great, too.
Finally, I think some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because the Big House has not yet found the right stick to scare them to death and make them stop. In almost all instances they eventually find the right stick, so the blog disappears. Unless ... the blog stays .... in which case ... well, that's another story down the road."
CAA has not (yet) been called upon the Tiger-y carpet. There's no accounting for that. A number of my colleagues know (more than I probably realize) who I am. At least one DS agent knows, because he made a fairly pointed, if friendly, crack to me one time about "an FSO's anti-Administration blog."
(Anti-administration? I've commented upon criticisms of not only this, but the previous administration. No matter.)
"I've lost count the number of FS blogs that have gone dark. A trend that is both disturbing and sad. In the end, I think every FS blogger must decide on his/her own comfort level and decide how much grief he/she is willing to put up with in order to blog, tweet or FB. As long as the Big House considers blogging a "dangerous" hobby or preoccupation even in its employees/family members private capacities, this is also a "livelihood" issue. When you butt head with city hall, you will get more than a headache."
Part of the solution to this issue will be FS bloggers learning to manage upwards. There's still a huge cadre of very senior folks within the Department for whom "leadership" is still something of a foreign concept, so I expect "social media" is going to take a little longer. So watch your blogging, watch out for each other, and try to train upper management to see blogging as a positive force.
Smart upper management is going to keep an eye on FS, particular FS spouse, blogging as a bellweather to spot problem areas early, well before they become the sujbect of an OIG investigation or congressional inquiry.
"Truth to tell, I have not seen or heard of Tigers actually yanking anybody's clearance due to an offending blog. I am aware of private sessions of discouragements, issues with onward assignments, and of course, threats of various colors and stripes among FS bloggers. And as far as I know, they have not technically kicked out anyone who blogs either -- unless you call the "push" to retirement a payback kick.
Fear as we all know is a great motivator. Sometimes, a Tiger's growl is just that, a growl and enough to do the job. Of course, it does not mean that the Tiger will not also eat you!"
9/14
Money quote(s):
"A while back someone else also wrote to inform me that he/she was "strongly reminded" that blogging can lead to at least pulling the security clearance, forced (involuntary) curtailment, followed by loss of job, arrest, detainment and prosecution. Understandably, that blog is not here or there, anymore.
The Tigers roared baring fangs, which means the threat of no food on the table, arrest, detainment, well, just about everything, really. Except they forgot to include non-promotion and career suicide. Of course, if you lose your job, there would be no point worrying about a promotion or a career." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
The "Tigers." Them's State Dept. powers-that-be (or as Dave Barry famously described them: "white men in blue suits"). A.k.a. "Black Dragons" or "mandarins."
The most famous, and fairly current example, of an FS blogger come acropper has to be We Meant Well ("How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts And Minds of the Iraqi People"). Of course, Van Buren, Esq., did a bit more than just blog, whatever you may think of the merits/demerits of how the Department has/is handled his situation.
CAA prefers to blog pseudonymously, for a number of good reasons. Frankly, it's just good operational security. On the other hand, CAA is not one of the scores of new officers who've joined the Foreign Service and were already longtime bloggers.
"In some places, the Foreign Service is now like a scene out of Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, only this time, the letter one wears in not "A" for Adultery but "B" for Blogger. You blog at your own risk under the Big House's 21st century statecraft jungle regardless of the nice things they say about freedom and the Internets.
Here are a few things I'm kicking around the campfire concerning the various disappearances of Foreign Service bloggers through the years. A quick caveat: I am talking out loud there, so try not to misconstrue the following as an advice in any shape or form; they're not. Also please do not write and ask for "real" examples of "Tiger" blog take down. They are not my stories to tell and I respect the privacy of the bloggers who make no public explanation of their online death." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Lots of excellent FS bloggers have either taken down their posts, sanitized them, or simply discontinued posting. Sometimes that simply the press of business, of work-life balance, of being to busy being and doing to spend much time writing about it. Sometimes ones FS job involves so much writing that doing even a little bit more, even when its for yourself, is just too much effort.
"(I)t seems like "FS bloggers should never mention *anything* about work." Why? Probably because vague blogging isn't as vague as you think and you never know who's reading your blog? Even if Diplomatic Security sees no problem with your blog, your regional/functional bureau or post management may have issues with it. I don't think it has anything to do with what you write per se, it has everything to do with fear and the lack of control. Fear from management that your blog has a ready, captive audience and fear that you might write something out of turn. And there is the notion that you have a direct connection to an audience and your right to self expression has not undergone any sort of vetting by the higher-ups who luv their red pens!"
The Department has evolved some since its 18th century origins, but those origins, and the Dead White Males who populated them, have left a lasting imprint on our corporate culture. In some ways, these are good things.
Por ejemplo, diplomacy is still, rather widely, seen as more than just a job. Like the military, like the church, like academia, the profession of diplomacy (and of diplomats) is a legacy out of the Middle Ages and indeed Late Antiquity (and later Byzantium) itself. Like those cited examples, the profession of diplomacy remains more even than merely a career; it is a calling and a vocation.
On the other side of the ledger, the practice of modern U.S. diplomacy has evolved considerably, with parallels to the similar evolution of micromanagement in military command and control spawned by the technological revolution in worldwide communication.
Once upon a time "our man" on the spot had to be trusted and empowered to act on our behalf according to his latest (telegraphed) instructions, his detailed local knowledge, and his best judgment.
Nowadays, our "man" may be a woman and will never be too far separated from an email, a conference call, an "instant message," and their Blackberry. Upper management's capability for micromanagement produced the temptation, even the obligation, to do so.
So throwing social media into the mix, where even lesser sorts can write, and self-publish (for values of "publish") their unvarnished observations without the benefit of a traditional "clearance" process must truly be an upsetting experience for some folks in high places.
"(M)aybe folks should never blog anything that could be perceived as critical towards the Foggied Bottom, the Foreign Service, the host country, or ones clients (visa applicants, AmCits, official contacts, etc. etc.), even if you're only complaining about somebody sneezing or snoring loudly.
Concerned about all promotions going to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan hands regardless of actual performance? Okay, but that may not be the best subject to blog about, most especially if you're bidding.
Big House functionaries talking about internet freedom really hurts your ears now? Okay, but it won't do any good to talk about the cause of that ear ache in your blog.
You cannot/cannot blog about the smell you have to endure as you sit in your visa interview window because it's bad form to talk about body odors, period. You cannot/cannot blog and complain about seeing boobies with nursing mommies as you conduct visa interviews because breastfeeding is udderly not optional when you have a screaming infant. Trust me on this.
You cannot make snarky comments in your blog about your Amcit clients no matter how loony and unreasonable their demands might be (they are covered by the Privacy Act of 1974). You cannot complain in your blog that your host country has no sidewalks, it might upset the Tourism Bureau. You cannot complain in your blog about getting Montezuma's Revenge because it might upset the host country's Sanitation Bureau. And on and on ...you get the drift? Somewhere there's a fill in the blank form in the shared drive on what FSOs should not blog about, but don't look for that list in the FAM.
EFMs must not blog about how every transfer is like a reinvention of wheels at the Big House because it would make the HR Bureau look bad. Gawd lord! They should not blog that their spouse's HR Technician kept messing up their Travel Orders because it makes the HR staff look incompetent (and some of them are). They should blog zilch /nada about housing, because hey, it's free housing and the leaking roof should not be a big deal! They should not blog about the American school because isn't it enough that you are in a country with an American school? EFMs above all should not blog too loudly about the lack of embassy jobs; didn't ya know that 9.1% of Americans in the United States of America are out of work?! Somewhere there's a fill in the blank form about what EFMs should not blog about, but it's a secret until they call you or your spouse for that Talk. (I'm having a hard time locating my sarcasm off button, sorry!)"
This is just too much (and too good) not to take a point at a time.
a.) "never blog anything that could be perceived as critical towards the Foggied Bottom, the Foreign Service, the host country, or ones clients"
Easier said than done.
Like any institution larger than can be fit into a phone booth (remember them?), the State Dept. and the Foreign Service are vulnerable to brontosaurus syndrome.
That is, information can take so long to filter through its ponderous nervous system from tail to brain (and back) that those signals can be out-of-date, and even dangerous, before they arrive. It makes them vulnerable to "the stupids."
This is not a criticism for which the Service or the Department are uniquely qualified, to be sure.
Still and all, criticizing one's host nation online while attempting to diplomatically represent the U.S. in real life is kind of stupid too. Sort of defeats the purpose.
Host nations, and cultures, can be awfully touchy about things that may seem innocuous.
Some particularly touchy nations may even seize upon blogged "criticism" as an excuse for other actions. So it's wise not to give your opponents any extra ammunition. Not to put too fine a point on it, but some of the police states to which we have diplomatic representation are not really our friends, although in the interests of world peace we certainly try our best to change that reality.
b.) "all promotions going to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan hands regardless of actual performance"
Really? From reading Diplopundit, I've gotten the impression that, at least at the highest levels, the true path to promotion seems to run through assignment in the Human Resources bureau rather than through any particular set of hardship assignments.
That being said, I've seen officers with hardship assignments and those without get promoted. It's probably fairer to say that lots of the better or more desirable (i.e., Western Europe and other First World) assignments get tied up by Afghan, Iraq, and Pakistan "linked" assignments.
Some find it unfair that this should be so, arguing that their own unique circumstances (family and/or medical issues) prevent them from taking such assignments. It can also be argued that it's unfair that those lacking family and/or medical issues that would exempt them from hardship post assignments should have to shoulder that entire burden. And both camps would be entirely correct.
Life is not fair.
c.) "Big House functionaries talking about internet freedom really hurts your ears now"
There really is a world of difference between being a Chinese dissident liable to be arrested and have their organs harvested after a botched execution and someone be counseled to not publicly blog against their employer. The two simply aren't comparable other than as an example of how everything simply isn't co-equal.
d.) "smell you have to endure as you sit in your visa interview window.... body odors.... boobies.... nursing mommies.... breastfeeding.... screaming infant"
Any consular officer can confirm that the 15-minute forced entry/ballistic resistant (FE/BR) interview window, even with mandatory "overpressure" airflow, is not powerful enough to prevent exposure to the body odor of some applicants.
Simply. Not. Powerful. Enough. (No offense intended to Ross or Norshield.)
Yes, Americans have a well-known and justified terror of body odors. This can be best explained by the decades-long campaigns of television advertisers to convince us we smell bad so as to sell more soap. Ever wonder where the term "soap opera" comes from?
Still, even allowing for mad cultural variations, disparities in the availability of water for personal washing or laundry, and the like, some visa applicants (and even Amcit clients) simply and frankly reek. Some truly reek far more than their co-nationals. And not overdue-for-a-shower stinky; we're talking fell-int0-a-latrine reeky. Wishing that away doesn't make it so.
(Oddly, the stinkiest identifiable groups in my recollection has been men-of-the-cloth. Not every reverend, priest, or shamen, mind you, and certainly not as a group. But they're over-represented on the stinkiest extreme of the Bell curve. And I haven't a clue as to why.)
As for breastfeeding and nursing mothers versus screaming infants, that's a no-brainer. As a visa interviewer with at least half-vast experience, I learned very early in my consular career that the occasional glimpse of bare mammaries is greatly to be preferred over a waiting room full of screaming infants. Case closed. Grow up and get over it. And if mentioning it in an FS blog disturbs any Tigers, they need to grow up and get over it.
e.) "snarky comments in your blog about your Amcit clients "
Yes, the Privacy Act of 1974 prevents blogging about what I term "stupid American tricks" in sufficient detail that it's not even worth trying to sanitize the story for blog posting.
Some of your American clients have unrealistic expectations about what the embassy can do for them. Some of them have gotten themselves into such personally hazardous circumstances that you wish you could send the embassy marines (if you're lucky enough to have them at your post) out with the embassy softball team's equipment (i.e., bats) to sort things out for them. (The which you may not do.)
Others are, not to put too fine a point on it, crazy. Or criminals. And by criminals I mean well and truly wanted in the U.S. by lots of fine law enforcement folks.
As a consular officer, you can minimize, to a degree, some of the unrealistic expectations among your Amcit expatriats by means of an active consular outreach program, including holding local "town hall meetings" out and about within your consular district. (But that still won't fully eliminate the problem.)
f.) "complain in your blog that your host country "
See my answer to "a.)" above. This is something that FS bloggers have to gauge very carefully and finely, calibrating it precisely to your own particular host country.
g.) "HR staff look incompetent"
CAA has generally had good luck with HR folks, at least the U.S.-based ones; and even abroad it's been fairly passable. Not everyone is so lucky.
h.) "Housing"
FS housing is one of those things that varies wildly from post to post. In my own career (incl. Western Europe, Third World, embassies, and a constituent post), I've lived on embassy-only compounds, on the economy, in apartments, and in houses. Plus I have the perspective on government-furnished housing that a prior, military, career can lend.
Nowhere is going to be just like home. Nowhere is going to be like your last place in D.C. Nowehere is even going to be like your last overseas post. I've seen FSOs (and their spouses) with frankly outragous and unrealistic expectations as to how they should housed and with what amenities.
(Dude, you passed the FS exam; you didn't win the lottery!).
That being said, in my own browses of FS and FS family blogs, I've seen far more posts which are complimentary of embassy housing maintenance and other support in dealing with the problems that unavoidably come up than I've seen princessly whining.
It does seem like blogs by FS spouses deal more with the problems, and problem-solving, of embassy housing than those by the officers (and specialists) themselves. But then, how could they not?
Military readers will be familiar with the phrase "Household" or "Kitchen" "Six." "Six" signifying the commander, and "Household" (or "Kitchen") signifying itself. CINCHOME: Commander-In-Chief, Home Front. Whatever you call it, the spouses are large and in charge at home, dealing with housing issues, while the FS hubby or wifey is about America's business abroad.
So it should surprise no one that they blog about their triumphs and travails on that front.
i.) "blog about the American school"
See my last immediately above. Everything I said about spouses and housing goes double for anything related to FS kids and their education.
I've been at posts that did, and ones that did not, have an American school. Sure, the families at the one without would have loved to have had the luxury of dealing with the problems of the posts that do have them. Life, and blogging, is like that. You write about the experiences you have, not about the ones you don't have.
j.) "lack of embassy jobs".
This is a very big deal. The career, financial, professional, and employment dynamic of American families, of married couples, is vastly different than that of only a few decades ago.. The ability, or inability, of FS spouses to find (or be offered) gainful employment during their FS hubby or wifey's assignments abroad has a measurable and drastic impact on both their gross family income and their retirement benefits. That's a fact. It's also a fact that, due to job requirements (such as language fluency or lack thereof), not every embassy support staff job is suitable or available for an EFM to fill.
So of course it's going to get blogged about.
One of the little leadership laws that's passed down within the military is the adage that you should never give an order that you know will not be obeyed.
(How big a hint can I make this? Should I draw a picture?).
"I am convinced that some bloggers are "allowed" to blog by default because their bosses have no idea what a blog is. Seriously.
Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because maybe they are lucky enough to have adult bosses with no control issues who recognize that warts and all are part and parcel of real life, even in organizations. As long as your blog does not end up in NYT or Al Kamen's column, you're safe. Of course, their bosses may have blogs, too :-) and did not want to be outed!
Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because no one has yet complained about them, or the blog is obscure enough it does not register on anyone's radar screen.
Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because their bosses look the other way. These blogs are usually like mini-DipNotes. What's the harm in letting them PR blog for free? And if they write something nice about their bosses, then that is super great, too.
Finally, I think some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because the Big House has not yet found the right stick to scare them to death and make them stop. In almost all instances they eventually find the right stick, so the blog disappears. Unless ... the blog stays .... in which case ... well, that's another story down the road."
CAA has not (yet) been called upon the Tiger-y carpet. There's no accounting for that. A number of my colleagues know (more than I probably realize) who I am. At least one DS agent knows, because he made a fairly pointed, if friendly, crack to me one time about "an FSO's anti-Administration blog."
(Anti-administration? I've commented upon criticisms of not only this, but the previous administration. No matter.)
"I've lost count the number of FS blogs that have gone dark. A trend that is both disturbing and sad. In the end, I think every FS blogger must decide on his/her own comfort level and decide how much grief he/she is willing to put up with in order to blog, tweet or FB. As long as the Big House considers blogging a "dangerous" hobby or preoccupation even in its employees/family members private capacities, this is also a "livelihood" issue. When you butt head with city hall, you will get more than a headache."
Part of the solution to this issue will be FS bloggers learning to manage upwards. There's still a huge cadre of very senior folks within the Department for whom "leadership" is still something of a foreign concept, so I expect "social media" is going to take a little longer. So watch your blogging, watch out for each other, and try to train upper management to see blogging as a positive force.
Smart upper management is going to keep an eye on FS, particular FS spouse, blogging as a bellweather to spot problem areas early, well before they become the sujbect of an OIG investigation or congressional inquiry.
"Truth to tell, I have not seen or heard of Tigers actually yanking anybody's clearance due to an offending blog. I am aware of private sessions of discouragements, issues with onward assignments, and of course, threats of various colors and stripes among FS bloggers. And as far as I know, they have not technically kicked out anyone who blogs either -- unless you call the "push" to retirement a payback kick.
Fear as we all know is a great motivator. Sometimes, a Tiger's growl is just that, a growl and enough to do the job. Of course, it does not mean that the Tiger will not also eat you!"
9/14
WP - In Afghanistan’s Garmser district, praise for a U.S. official’s tireless work
Please see Rajiv Chandrasekaran's Washington Post article.
Money quote(s):
"Carter Malkasian, who had been the State Department’s representative in Garmser until last month, is perhaps the only foreign official in the country to have been so widely embraced as a sahib, an Urdu salutation once used to address British colonial officials that Afghans now employ as a term of honor and respect.
The adoration stems from his unfailing politeness (he greeted people in the traditional Pashtun way, holding their hands for several minutes as a series of welcomes and praises to God were delivered), his willingness to take risks (he often traveled around in a police pickup instead of in an American armored vehicle with a squad of Marines), and his command of Pashto, the language of southern Afghanistan (he conversed fluently, engaging in rapid-fire exchanges with gray-bearded elders).
Afghan officials and U.S. commanders credit Malkasian with playing a critical role in the transformation of Garmser from one of the country’s most violent, Taliban-infested districts to a place so quiet that some Marines wish they had more chances to fire their weapons.
He was dispatched to this farming community in southern Afghanistan to provide political advice to U.S. troops, mentor the fledgling Afghan government and supervise reconstruction projects, all of which military leaders deem essential to their efforts to stabilize the country. The rail-thin 36-year-old was uncommonly effective, in large part because he was willing to forge his own job description, even if it meant bucking the State Department’s rules.
Seeing his role more as a proconsul than adviser, he single-handedly cajoled influential tribal leaders and mullahs to return to the district, correctly betting that it would lead others to follow. He won the trust of skeptical residents through countless meetings and roadside conversations, persuading them to reject the insurgency and support their government. And he provided vital institutional memory in a mission that has generally forced Afghans to build fresh relationships with new waves of Americans each year.
He also shaped the Marine campaign here in a way no civilian has in other parts of the country. He served as a counselor to each of the battalion commanders, influencing decisions about when to use force, and helping them calibrate it with a political engagement strategy. He built such credibility with the Marines — the result of spending so much time in Garmser — that if he urged a different course of action, they almost always complied."
Carter Sahib was different (see below) from the average State PRT or other embedded advisor in that he'd already had significant experience working these issues in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He didn't just pop out of a box; he was both educated, developed, and (essentially) groomed into this role. Which takes none of the credit away from his accomplishments; it merely points the way for how to get more of this.
"Malkasian was among a surge of civilians sent to increase the State Department’s presence in Afghanistan, which now stands at about 1,150 people. Many of them, including Malkasian, are temporary hires, not career diplomats.
But he was not like most others selected by State and the U.S. Agency for International Development — and that was a big reason he was regarded as so effective by the military and the Afghans. He asked to work in the field, not stay at the comfortable embassy compound in Kabul, which features a bar, a swimming pool and two-bedroom apartments with kitchens. He lived in a trailer on a dusty forward operating base, and his meals consisted of whatever fare was being served to the grunts, if he wasn’t eating goat with Afghans.
Because he was not vying for a cushy embassy posting in Europe as a reward for the privations of the gravel-strewn base, he did not feel compelled to toe the State Department’s line on war policy, which further endeared him to the Marines.."
People working "at the comfortable embassy compound in Kabul" have jobs in that embassy or that require they be based in or around Kabul. Of course, if you're going to do PRT or other field work outside of Kabul, then that's where you'll actually be most effectively based.
"What really set him apart, however, was his willingness to stay at the district level for two consecutive years — very few State personnel have done that — and his tendency to flout the department’s strict security rules, which mandate a near-zero tolerance for risk, as opposed to the military acceptance of some danger in pursuit of a mission’s objectives. Malkasian regularly ventured around the district with the police chief, placing his security in the hands of rifle-toting Afghans — a potential firing offense if his bosses in Kabul ever knew."
This (tour length) is a personnel/manning issue. In order to get a reliable supply of volunteers for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, the Department uses (among other incentives) a guaranteed "linked onward assignment." So if you were to decide, sometime during your twelve month assignment in country, that you'd really rather stay another year, for whatever reason, then someone else would have to be found to fill that (presumably desirable) next job, which would then become unobtainable to you for another three years.
Bear in mind that even the military tries to keep its combat zone assignments at (usually) no more than a year (sometimes extending them to 18 months).
"(H)e joined the Center for Naval Analysis, a military-affiliated think tank in Alexandria that offered the opportunity to visit U.S. forces in the field. That led to an assignment in Kuwait as the Iraq war was commencing, and then a year-long posting with the Marines in Anbar province starting in 2004. The job involved conducting research projects for Marine commanders into the performance of the Iraqi army and the outcome of various U.S. battalion-level operations.
He returned to Iraq for another tour in 2006, and the following year, he spent five months on a provincial reconstruction team in eastern Afghanistan’s Kunar province. That assignment was about not research, but action. He got to engage directly with Afghans and work with fellow Americans in solving problems. He resolved to return.
The opportunity arose in 2009 as more U.S. troops were deployed to southern Afghanistan."
As I noted above, Carter Sahib didn't just pop up out of a box. He had conflict-related postgraduate education, prior combat zone experience, and prior Afghanistan experience. Outside the military and/or intelligence community, is anybody growing professionals like this?
8/13
h/t Dave Carson (FB)
Money quote(s):
"Carter Malkasian, who had been the State Department’s representative in Garmser until last month, is perhaps the only foreign official in the country to have been so widely embraced as a sahib, an Urdu salutation once used to address British colonial officials that Afghans now employ as a term of honor and respect.
The adoration stems from his unfailing politeness (he greeted people in the traditional Pashtun way, holding their hands for several minutes as a series of welcomes and praises to God were delivered), his willingness to take risks (he often traveled around in a police pickup instead of in an American armored vehicle with a squad of Marines), and his command of Pashto, the language of southern Afghanistan (he conversed fluently, engaging in rapid-fire exchanges with gray-bearded elders).
Afghan officials and U.S. commanders credit Malkasian with playing a critical role in the transformation of Garmser from one of the country’s most violent, Taliban-infested districts to a place so quiet that some Marines wish they had more chances to fire their weapons.
He was dispatched to this farming community in southern Afghanistan to provide political advice to U.S. troops, mentor the fledgling Afghan government and supervise reconstruction projects, all of which military leaders deem essential to their efforts to stabilize the country. The rail-thin 36-year-old was uncommonly effective, in large part because he was willing to forge his own job description, even if it meant bucking the State Department’s rules.
Seeing his role more as a proconsul than adviser, he single-handedly cajoled influential tribal leaders and mullahs to return to the district, correctly betting that it would lead others to follow. He won the trust of skeptical residents through countless meetings and roadside conversations, persuading them to reject the insurgency and support their government. And he provided vital institutional memory in a mission that has generally forced Afghans to build fresh relationships with new waves of Americans each year.
He also shaped the Marine campaign here in a way no civilian has in other parts of the country. He served as a counselor to each of the battalion commanders, influencing decisions about when to use force, and helping them calibrate it with a political engagement strategy. He built such credibility with the Marines — the result of spending so much time in Garmser — that if he urged a different course of action, they almost always complied."
Carter Sahib was different (see below) from the average State PRT or other embedded advisor in that he'd already had significant experience working these issues in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He didn't just pop out of a box; he was both educated, developed, and (essentially) groomed into this role. Which takes none of the credit away from his accomplishments; it merely points the way for how to get more of this.
"Malkasian was among a surge of civilians sent to increase the State Department’s presence in Afghanistan, which now stands at about 1,150 people. Many of them, including Malkasian, are temporary hires, not career diplomats.
But he was not like most others selected by State and the U.S. Agency for International Development — and that was a big reason he was regarded as so effective by the military and the Afghans. He asked to work in the field, not stay at the comfortable embassy compound in Kabul, which features a bar, a swimming pool and two-bedroom apartments with kitchens. He lived in a trailer on a dusty forward operating base, and his meals consisted of whatever fare was being served to the grunts, if he wasn’t eating goat with Afghans.
Because he was not vying for a cushy embassy posting in Europe as a reward for the privations of the gravel-strewn base, he did not feel compelled to toe the State Department’s line on war policy, which further endeared him to the Marines.."
People working "at the comfortable embassy compound in Kabul" have jobs in that embassy or that require they be based in or around Kabul. Of course, if you're going to do PRT or other field work outside of Kabul, then that's where you'll actually be most effectively based.
"What really set him apart, however, was his willingness to stay at the district level for two consecutive years — very few State personnel have done that — and his tendency to flout the department’s strict security rules, which mandate a near-zero tolerance for risk, as opposed to the military acceptance of some danger in pursuit of a mission’s objectives. Malkasian regularly ventured around the district with the police chief, placing his security in the hands of rifle-toting Afghans — a potential firing offense if his bosses in Kabul ever knew."
This (tour length) is a personnel/manning issue. In order to get a reliable supply of volunteers for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, the Department uses (among other incentives) a guaranteed "linked onward assignment." So if you were to decide, sometime during your twelve month assignment in country, that you'd really rather stay another year, for whatever reason, then someone else would have to be found to fill that (presumably desirable) next job, which would then become unobtainable to you for another three years.
Bear in mind that even the military tries to keep its combat zone assignments at (usually) no more than a year (sometimes extending them to 18 months).
"(H)e joined the Center for Naval Analysis, a military-affiliated think tank in Alexandria that offered the opportunity to visit U.S. forces in the field. That led to an assignment in Kuwait as the Iraq war was commencing, and then a year-long posting with the Marines in Anbar province starting in 2004. The job involved conducting research projects for Marine commanders into the performance of the Iraqi army and the outcome of various U.S. battalion-level operations.
He returned to Iraq for another tour in 2006, and the following year, he spent five months on a provincial reconstruction team in eastern Afghanistan’s Kunar province. That assignment was about not research, but action. He got to engage directly with Afghans and work with fellow Americans in solving problems. He resolved to return.
The opportunity arose in 2009 as more U.S. troops were deployed to southern Afghanistan."
As I noted above, Carter Sahib didn't just pop up out of a box. He had conflict-related postgraduate education, prior combat zone experience, and prior Afghanistan experience. Outside the military and/or intelligence community, is anybody growing professionals like this?
8/13
h/t Dave Carson (FB)
re: "Retired Navy Adm. James A. Lyons: Disarmed by Shariah"
Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs ("Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction.") relayed a blast from a crusty (in the finest sense of the word) old salt.
7/13
Friday, December 16, 2011
re: "Bad Bosses - Army National Guard Style"
Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") highlights a stellar example of a toxic leader.
(For values of the word "leader.")
12/1
re: "Why the FS Should Be More Like the Army -- Esprit de Corps, Taking Care of Troops ... Hey, That Includes EFMs, Right?"
Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") reviewed Jon P. Dorschner's "valedictory address."
Why the FS Should Be More Like the Army -- Esprit de Corps, Taking Care of Troops ... Hey, That Includes EFMs, Right?
The November 2011 issue of the Foreign Service Journal includes a Speaking Out column by Jon P. Dorschner on Why the Foreign Service Should Be More Like the Army. Don't worry, it's not about pumping more testosterone on the Service that's already "deployed" as "boots
Money quote(s):
"There are several fissures in the Foreign Service whether you want to acknowledge them or not. Just a sampling:
Foreign Service vs. the Civil Service. If you doubt that, read the rants here.
FS officers with their conal designations vs. the FS specialists and their specializations
Political cone officers vs. all other cone-officers
Consular Officers vs. "Just EFM" Consular Associates
Eligible Family Members vs. Foreign Service Nationals
Not surprisingly, esprit de corps is not found anywhere in the Promotion Precepts that will be in effect for the 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 rating cycles. These precepts are the core precepts which provide the guidelines by which Selection Boards determine the tenure and promotability of U.S. Foreign Service employees."
"Fissures" is such a harsh word.
There is indeed a sort of caste system, several of them actually, at work within the State Department and within the Foreign Service(s). And let's not even go to a discussion of our "tenant agencies."
CAA has inhabited several various niches in within that ecosystem during his meandering course of what he laughingly refers to as his "career path." So I can certify that some of these "fissures" do indeed exist. And, at times and places, they are exacerbated by poor leadership.
"Most jobs for spouses and partners in the Foreign Service are located in consular sections. It must be said that some consular managers do know what it means to take care of their troops, not just their FSOs, but also their EFMS and FSNs. But others have no effing clue. Unfortunately, those who have no idea how to take care of the troops as well, are also given leadership and managerial gigs they try hard to fail."
The Bureau of Consular Affairs actually tries hard, as an organization, to model and encourage good (and improving) leadership. There's even a set of precepts for "Consular Leadership."
That being said, the Department as a whole only got behind the notion that leadership can be taught (as opposed, I suppose, from being something that going to the right schools and summering with the right people simplies imbues one).
"In some consular sections, EFMs get their performance reviews late or never, get awards or never. Because hey, they're "just EFMs" -- no matter how great they are, how hard they work, they can't get promoted, anyway. So why waste time writing up their EERs or bother with awards?"
CAA suffers the advantage of coming from a military background; and the U.S. military has was can euphemistically be described as "a mature awards and recognition system." Suffice it to say that I did not find any of the time I spent either writing award nominations or sitting in post awards committee meetings to have been time wasted.
Good and exceptional work should be promoted and encouraged. If you promote and encourage something, you get more of it.
(Why is this so difficult to understand?)
Why the FS Should Be More Like the Army -- Esprit de Corps, Taking Care of Troops ... Hey, That Includes EFMs, Right?
The November 2011 issue of the Foreign Service Journal includes a Speaking Out column by Jon P. Dorschner on Why the Foreign Service Should Be More Like the Army. Don't worry, it's not about pumping more testosterone on the Service that's already "deployed" as "boots
re: "The GOP and Immigration"
Hugh Hewitt at Hewitt Blog summed up what he believes was the 2006 Republican consensus on immigration.
Money quote(s):
"The fence is the "outward expression of an inner conviction" to control immigration. It is hugely important, and the failure to get it built year after year undermines confidence in both parties as both parties promise border security."
A nation which does not control its own borders is not fully sovereign. Loss of border control leads to loss of territorial control and it gets worse from there.
"(A)s there is no reason to prefer illegal aliens over U.S. citizens, there is no reason to prefer foreign students traveling her for the first day of college over those who went to high school here."
10/4
re: "In Praise of NYC's Muscular Counterterrorism"
Daniel Pipes at DanielPipes.Org ("Opine briefly on diverse topics, mostly within his areas of specialization") recognized excellent counterterrorism at work.
Money quote(s):
"U.S. law enforcement agencies have generally responded to 9/11 with a pretend counterterrorism policy. They still insist that naming the enemy as Islamism causes terrorism, that Islamist violence poses no more threat than that of neo-Nazis, racial supremacists, et al., and that counterterrorism primarily involves feel-good measures such as improving civil rights, passing anti-discrimination laws, and displaying goodwill to Islamists.
And then there is the New York Police Department, an institution uniquely spurred by 9/11 to abandon its former laxity and get serious. The force that had mishandled prior terrorist incidents (e.g., the assassination of Meir Kahane) quickly transformed itself into an outstanding counterterrorist agency under the remarkable leadership of Raymond Kelly. (Andrew McCarthy calls him a "godsend"). Unlike other law enforcement institutions, NYPD names the enemy, acknowledges the predominant threat of Islamist violence, and built a robust intelligence operation."
Counterterrorism means countering terrorists. If "improving civil rights, passing anti-discrimination (?) laws, and displaying goodwill" will get you there, more power to you. But catering to Islamists surely won't.
"(T)he department dispatched officers to Pakistani neighborhoods and "instructed them to look for reasons to stop cars: speeding, broken tail lights, running stop signs, whatever. The traffic stop gave police an opportunity to search for outstanding warrants or look for suspicious behavior. An arrest could be the leverage the police needed to persuade someone to become an informant." NYPD established the Terrorist Interdiction Unit to handle these informants, including "mosque crawlers," "café crawlers," shopkeepers, and nosy neighbors."
Enforce the laws on the books. Novel concept. Target extra attention on the neighborhoods most likely to be harboring terrorists and their sympathizers (i.e., their support infrastructure).
This obviously doesn't mean that terrorists can't base themselves elsewhere, false-flag themselves, or even recruit from other neighborhoods and national groups, but it's just silly to ignore the obvious (and thereby create a sanctuary).
"It established the Special Services Unit to handle operations outside of New York City, where NYPD lacks jurisdiction, including several American states and eleven foreign countries. The effort has its share of successes; for example, a Muslim NYPD officer working undercover in New Jersey had a major role in Operation Arabian Knight, the June 2010 arrest of two New Jersey Muslims who pleaded guilty of planning to join the Somali terrorist group al-Shabab and then kill American troops.
It also established the Demographics Unit to "map ethnic residential communities within the Tri-State area [New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York State]" and to send undercover police officers, or rakers, to monitor Muslims. Made up of 16 officers speaking among them Arabic, Bengali, Hindi, Punjabi, and Urdu, the unit lists 29 "ancestries of interest," all of them predominantly Muslim, including one described as "American Black Muslim." In all, NYPD identified 263 of what it calls "ethnic hot spots" in the city, plus 53 "mosques of concern." "
All in all, a chronicle of solid intelligence/counterintelligence work on the domestic front. This is what the FBI should be doing (and hopefully, quietly, is doing) rather than playing snuggle-bunnies with CAIR and other unindicted co-conspirators.
9/13
re: "How To Get Out Of Debt And Cut Defense…Without Hurting Security? Build More Nukes!"
Niccolo Machiavelli at Big Peace took us back to an old idea (whose time had passed during the Eisenhower administration).
8/13
Money quote(s):
"Adam Lowther, a research professor at the Air Force Research Institute, thinks he knows how we can get the federal budget under control and dramatically cut defense spending–without compromising our security. His solution? Look to the past, namely President Eisenhower’s New Look Policy which moved America away from relying on conventional military power and instead focused on nuclear weapons as the source of our security. In Lowther’s words, ”the nuclear weapons complex is a bargain” compared to conventional forces. Of course, Lowther is exactly right. He points out that nuclear weapons account for fewer than 1 in 10 defense dollars we spend. When it comes to bang for the buck, its hard to do better than nukes. Lowther recognizes that this will also mean dramatically less involvement in regional wars, or conflicts is places such as Iraq."
In terms of national security strategy, this is the if-your-only-tool-is-a-hammer-all-your-problems-look-like nails fallacy writ large. It's like a car with only two gears: park and 100 mph. Either you "go big" (i.e., nuclear) or let it slide.
"(T)this strategy strikes me as totally unrealistic. I mean, really, which US President is going to initiate the use of nuclear weapons to protect us from a conventional threat? Are we going to nuke a terrorist sponsoring state? Ike’s strategy fell down for the same reason. It was just not credible by the end of his term in office, if not before."
It's one thing to not take the nuclear option off the table. It's quite another to have no other options on the table.
8/13
re: "COIN and FM 3-24"
SWJ Editors at the Small Wars Journal blog ("facilitates the exchange of information among practitioners, thought leaders, and students of Small Wars, in order to advance knowledge and capabilities in the field") shared some COIN inside baseball.
7/13
Money quote(s):
"Be Honest: Who Actually Read FM 3-24?"
7/13
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
re: "The AEGIS Standard Towards Strategic Balance"
Galrahn at Information Dissemination ("The Intersection of Maritime Strategy and Strategic Communication") examined what's really behind the curtain.
Money quote(s):
"(T)here was one 3 hour meeting I attended where those gathered discussed the shift in the late 70s away from the gold standard towards the global economy today, and over time I have come to accept their argument as a quiet truth understood by those on the global side of big money: The Gold Standard was replaced by the proverbial F-16 Standard in 1979 to save the world during a global energy crisis. It was at that time America's debt economy was born.
Because of overwhelming US military power and because the US was willing to use force when necessary to protect interests, it was believed that no competitor to the US dollar would ever emerge until a competitor to the proverbial F-16 emerged first. Keep in mind, these are bankers and strategy consists mostly of risk management in their world. The only safe bet in the emerging global economic order that included many new players participating as resource contributors was the raw power of the United States to back the US currency by force.
After watching the banking crisis of the last few years and the war of the last decade, I frequently wonder if the proverbial F-16 standard even exists in the minds of global bankers anymore."
I've occasionally suggested that U.S. currency ought to be backed by precious metals such as Uranium or Plutonium, but apparently I lack the sublety exhibited by bankers back in the 70s.
"Kaplan says "Armies respond to unexpected contingencies, but it is navies and air forces that project power." This is similar to something I believe to be a constant of 21st century national security policy; which is that armies project force, but it is navies and air forces that project power."
Harking back to my International Relations 101 course taken oh-so-many moons ago, I recall that "power is the ability to influence the course of events" (whereas my Basic Engineering 101 course taught me that "force equals mass times acceleration," but that's not the kind of "force" being discussed here).
Power, in terms of national security policy, is projected by things that can influence the course of events beyond our national borders. In terms of hard power, that means things like ICBMs, carrier battle groups, strategic bombers, and expeditionary ground forces. The ground forces come last on that little list because, a.) they take longer to get where they can "influence the course of events," and, b.) the distance at which they can influence events is much less.
"Does a world where China becomes the worlds largest economy strike me as a strategic concern? Honestly, by itself; nope. China is the most important trading partner to the United States today, and I see that achievement for China in alignment with US economic advancement in the 21st century, and economic advancement by the US has historically also driven social and technological advancement for the United States as well. With that said, the brilliant and creative Stan Lee was right - with great power comes great responsibility.
What concerns me much more is if China fails to mature within the liberal global order over the next few decades and simultaneously attempts to achieve primacy of the global oceans through naval power."
What does Galrahn mean by "mature" in that last sentence? Does it mean China morphing into a liberal democracy operating more-or-less peacefully within the existing global economic and Westphalian nation-state system?
"(T)the proverbial F-16 standard - once the replacement for the Gold Standard that placed the US dollar at the center of the global energy currency market - is itself slowly being replaced by the proverbial AEGIS Standard that protects the global trade lines-of-communication towards insuring global currencies can exchange in the spirit of commerce in the 21st century market."
11/30
re: "Crawford @Telegraph (Again): Non-MTS"
Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not.") shared some of his other writing.
Money quote(s):
"From good if over-optimistic or even naive intentions you can end up in a hopeless place, where no good move is available. This is why the eurozone problem is so difficult for our top policy-makers."
Bonus quote:
"(A) Scary Thought about FCO consular work: what would HMG do if Greece's money system crashed during peak holiday season, leaving a million Brits stranded there with cash machines not working?
The FCO mind boggles."
CAA earnestly hopes someone or several someones back in the (U.S.) Bureau of Consular Affairs (i.e., the CA "mother ship") is "thinking the unthinkable" about the Eurozone and doing a little bit of contingency planning.
11/4
re: "Cut The Defense Budget..And Get Others To Do More"
Christopher A. Preble at Big Peace questioned some basic strategic assumptions.
Money quote(s):
"The debt crisis is likely to force a reckoning between these two diametrically opposed positions. How it is resolved remains an open question.
Cutting military spending without changing our foreign policies will put additional burdens on a force strained by a decade of war. Sticking with the status quo will translate into heavier burdens on U.S. taxpayers. If the powers-that-be inside the Beltway decide that we should continue to discourage wealthy allies from defending themselves, then they should explain that to the American people.
So far, they have been unwilling to do that. Politicians claim that U.S. security requires us to act as the linchpin of the international order, that U.S. global economic interests require the U.S. military to be deployed to the four corners of the globe. Some believe that Americans are obligated to spread the blessings of liberty to others denied basic human rights.
These are ambitious goals. Achieving them costs a lot of money. The average American spends two and a half times more than the British or the French on national security, five times more than Germans, and seven and a half times as much as the average Japanese." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
CAA happens to agree heartily with the bold portion of the passage quoted above.
America is not only a continental power, it is also a maritime power whose prosperity depends greatly upon open sealanes and international trade.
"(M)many Americans ask why they should accept cuts in domestic spending, and be saddled with more military spending, so that our allies can continue to spend on their domestic priorities, and, in many cases, cut defense spending."
Some of our allies are rather grudging about our overseas basing, other less so; except, of course, when they need their Libyan sources of petroleum and natural gas secured for them.
"(M)most Americans are fed up with building other people’s countries and fighting other people’s wars. Americans want security, but they doubt that we have to pay for everyone else’s to achieve our own.
Those who simply assume that others would not do more to defend themselves and their interests often ignore the extent to which U.S. actions have discouraged them from doing so. Just as some welfare recipients are often disinclined to look for work, foreign countries on the generous American security dole do not see a need to obtain military power. Our great power, and our willingness to use it, even when our own interests are not at stake, has allowed others to ignore possible threats, always confident that the United States will be there to rescue them."
CAA harbors grave doubts about our more outlandish ambitions with regards to some of our current nation-building assumptions. What is, for instance, the end state desired for all our development aid in Afghanistan? Do we expect Switzerland to come out of all this?
Similarly, CAA has noted with approval certain writers who've inserted the "free-rider" issue into their works of popular fiction.
"The National Security Strategy, published in May 2010, declares “There should be no doubt: the United States of America will continue to underwrite global security.” Taking their cue, U.S. allies have proved understandably disinterested in military spending.
If we are serious about sharing the burdens of global security with other countries, we must change course. Washington should be more reticent to send our troops into harm’s way when our own vital interests are not at stake. And we should shape our military to reflect the fact that we expect to be less involved militarily over the next two decades than we have been in the last two. A leaner, more focused U.S. military can no longer be in the business of defending other countries that can and should defend themselves." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
The U.S. should not be sending our troops into harm's way unless our own vital interests are at stake.
Clearly and realistically identifying those vital interests is what a "National Security Strategy" is supposed to be doing. Instead we get open-ended twaddle like:
"There should be no doubt: the United States of America will continue to underwrite global security."
10/4
re: "Civilizational War 10 Years After 9-11: Can the West Recover?"
Glen Tschirgi at Captain's Journal ("dedicated to the dissemination of conservative views, based on a solidly and consistently conservative world view, on matters political and military") put things into historical context.
(Not enough of this going around, IMHO.)
Money quote(s):
"I would differ with Rubin that Al Qaeda did not succeed in becoming the leader in worldwide jihad. Clearly, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, Al Qaeda was easily the most visible terror group and most heralded in the Islamist world. The fact that Al Qaeda has suffered a disproportionate number of decapitation operations by the U.S. does not mean that it did not accomplish its goal of jihadi leadership. In fact, it could be argued that Al Qaeda has succeeded brilliantly in this regard to the extent that the U.S. has been distracted from fighting other no-less dangerous groups which share the wider goals of Islamist domination of the West." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
In some cases, not only do we not fight them, we actively negotiate with and reward them. Smart diplomacy? Mebbe; but more like lack of clarity with the whole aims/goals part of Grand Strategy.
(Oh, and an inability to talk about or name ones self-proclaimed enemies.)
"While it is true that Al Qaeda carried out the attacks of September 11, 2001, those attacks were merely a manifestation of what has been a perpetual civilizational conflict between Islam and the West since the militant spread of Islam after 632 A.D. The militant strain of Islam has always sought to expand and dominate non-muslim peoples and it always will."
It's not a bug (in the Koran and in Sharia), it's a feature. The whole expansionist scheme constitutes an interlocking and reinforcing web of a reality-tunnel.
"We seem to be making a fundamental mistake in the West when we fail to see the broader context of the struggle. September 11, 2001 was not a “tragedy” but an act of war. A tactical strike by militant Islam at the financial, military and (it was hoped) political heart of the West. And it was not the first such strike. Militant Islam has been on the march in modern times since at least 1979 with the founding of the theocratic state of Iran."
The Iranian Revolution marked definitively the turning point from a century or so of Islamist decline; I suppose you could mark that as having, definitively, begun with Napoleon invading Egypt, but both those points are semi-arbitrary.
"(T)he muslim world is quickly turning (or, more exactly, re-turning) to militant Islam as a means of forcing an expansion of power, in the Middle East in the short term and in Europe and even North America in the long term. This is not some new phenomenon to any student of history but a continuation of a struggle between two civilizations: one based upon Greek and Roman thoughts of law and liberty with Christian overlays (Western democracy) and one based upon the all-encompassing rule of the Koran which sublimates the individual in every aspect of life. The two cultures are thoroughly incompatible and the history of the world has shown that peace has only, ever reigned between the two when Islam was too weak to force its will upon the West.
This, then, should be the take-away from 9-11: we are in a desperate struggle for civilizational survival that is being fought on the battlefield, certainly, but also in the courtroom, in the media, in politically correct driven government policy and think tanks, and in the very essence of our culture— how we view our basic freedoms and the means we are willing to employ to cherish and defend them."
Fortunately, our civilization's strategic thinkers do have an understanding that national power, and warfare, is multidimensional, even if our media and our politicians often do not. Do you suppose there's some way to get these people to talk to one another?
"It is too frightening. The risk of being called xenophobic, or Islamophobic or chauvinistic is too intimidating. So we will fight where we find it convenient to fight. Drone attacks that take out an Al Qaeda leader but leave in peace Iranian leaders who have killed far more Americans than Al Qaeda or the Taliban. We will look for the first opportunity to declare victory, as when Osama Bin Laden was killed, but ignore the mortal threats to peace and economic security posed by a nuclear Iran or a growing Hezbollah or Hamas. We will sacrifice precious blood and treasure gaining great victories in Iraq and Afghanistan only to throw it away in hasty withdrawals under the smokescreen of “transition.” "
Fighting where it's convenient isn't always a bad thing. Picking your battles is often a good thing. Still, declarations that victory has been won should be as quickly ridiculed as those which declared "Mission Accomplished!"
(Not enough of this going around, IMHO.)
Money quote(s):
"I would differ with Rubin that Al Qaeda did not succeed in becoming the leader in worldwide jihad. Clearly, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, Al Qaeda was easily the most visible terror group and most heralded in the Islamist world. The fact that Al Qaeda has suffered a disproportionate number of decapitation operations by the U.S. does not mean that it did not accomplish its goal of jihadi leadership. In fact, it could be argued that Al Qaeda has succeeded brilliantly in this regard to the extent that the U.S. has been distracted from fighting other no-less dangerous groups which share the wider goals of Islamist domination of the West." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
In some cases, not only do we not fight them, we actively negotiate with and reward them. Smart diplomacy? Mebbe; but more like lack of clarity with the whole aims/goals part of Grand Strategy.
(Oh, and an inability to talk about or name ones self-proclaimed enemies.)
"While it is true that Al Qaeda carried out the attacks of September 11, 2001, those attacks were merely a manifestation of what has been a perpetual civilizational conflict between Islam and the West since the militant spread of Islam after 632 A.D. The militant strain of Islam has always sought to expand and dominate non-muslim peoples and it always will."
It's not a bug (in the Koran and in Sharia), it's a feature. The whole expansionist scheme constitutes an interlocking and reinforcing web of a reality-tunnel.
"We seem to be making a fundamental mistake in the West when we fail to see the broader context of the struggle. September 11, 2001 was not a “tragedy” but an act of war. A tactical strike by militant Islam at the financial, military and (it was hoped) political heart of the West. And it was not the first such strike. Militant Islam has been on the march in modern times since at least 1979 with the founding of the theocratic state of Iran."
The Iranian Revolution marked definitively the turning point from a century or so of Islamist decline; I suppose you could mark that as having, definitively, begun with Napoleon invading Egypt, but both those points are semi-arbitrary.
"(T)he muslim world is quickly turning (or, more exactly, re-turning) to militant Islam as a means of forcing an expansion of power, in the Middle East in the short term and in Europe and even North America in the long term. This is not some new phenomenon to any student of history but a continuation of a struggle between two civilizations: one based upon Greek and Roman thoughts of law and liberty with Christian overlays (Western democracy) and one based upon the all-encompassing rule of the Koran which sublimates the individual in every aspect of life. The two cultures are thoroughly incompatible and the history of the world has shown that peace has only, ever reigned between the two when Islam was too weak to force its will upon the West.
This, then, should be the take-away from 9-11: we are in a desperate struggle for civilizational survival that is being fought on the battlefield, certainly, but also in the courtroom, in the media, in politically correct driven government policy and think tanks, and in the very essence of our culture— how we view our basic freedoms and the means we are willing to employ to cherish and defend them."
Fortunately, our civilization's strategic thinkers do have an understanding that national power, and warfare, is multidimensional, even if our media and our politicians often do not. Do you suppose there's some way to get these people to talk to one another?
"It is too frightening. The risk of being called xenophobic, or Islamophobic or chauvinistic is too intimidating. So we will fight where we find it convenient to fight. Drone attacks that take out an Al Qaeda leader but leave in peace Iranian leaders who have killed far more Americans than Al Qaeda or the Taliban. We will look for the first opportunity to declare victory, as when Osama Bin Laden was killed, but ignore the mortal threats to peace and economic security posed by a nuclear Iran or a growing Hezbollah or Hamas. We will sacrifice precious blood and treasure gaining great victories in Iraq and Afghanistan only to throw it away in hasty withdrawals under the smokescreen of “transition.” "
Fighting where it's convenient isn't always a bad thing. Picking your battles is often a good thing. Still, declarations that victory has been won should be as quickly ridiculed as those which declared "Mission Accomplished!"
9/11
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
