Living the Dream.





Friday, April 13, 2012

re: "Losing Our Senses"

Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna ("At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.We are in a new phase of a very old war.") noted the logical (and grammatical) fallacies.

Money quote(s):


"Those of us who follow the progress of Islamization on both sides of the Atlantic have observed in recent months the remarkable successes realized by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in achieving its agenda. By focusing on “Islamophobia”, the OIC has skillfully pushed all the available guilt buttons on government officials, academics, and the media. The fear of being seen as racist or intolerant trumps everything else. Getting with the OIC program is the path of least resistance — follow it, and you are guaranteed to feel good about yourself. Even better, you are less likely to be sued by CAIR."


Remember. A "phobia" is an irrational fear of something.


"The concept of “violent extremism” is the height of absurdity. Extreme what?" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


Extreme (we're-not-allowed-to-say), of course.


"Without a substantive to modify, the adjective “extreme” is worse than incoherent — it is without linguistic or semantic meaning. This is the depth to which our official policy-making has sunk."


To be fair, adding "-ism" (and dropping the silent "e") does transform the adjective "extreme" into the noun "extremism." It doesn't add any semantic content, mind you (as the good Baron helpfully pointed out), but it does make it a noun of some sort.


http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/08/losing-our-senses.html







8/27

Thursday, April 12, 2012

re: "Kandahar"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook") examined unintended longterm consequences.

Money quote(s):

"The average Army deployment is supposed to be one year, but the effective deployment period has been 15 months since 2007. That is a long time to be in a combat zone. In World War II once one was sent overseas it was generally for the duration, but there were some periods of relief from combat: not just R&R away from the front – there was, after all, a front – but in transport between operations. There were some secure zones in Italy and later in France, because by that time USAAF had established effective air superiority, and the civilian population wasn’t hostile. In Iraq and Afghanistan even our fortresses and enclaves are not really safe. Being in one of our enclaves is not quite the same as being in a trench in the Battle of the Sarne, but it is certainly more stressful than being in operations out on some lonely atoll during our Pacific war in 1943.

Stress and its results are among the costs of long wars fought with professional soldiers. Conscripts in a democracy generally can’t be kept deployed that long. Volunteer troops can be and are. Long term deployments in danger zones are stressful."

"But they volunteered!" is not an answer, nor does it cure the ills to which the flesh (and the mind) is vulnerable.

"I note that one of the answers given to Congressional inquiry on justifications for deployment of US troops without a formal declaration of war is international authorizations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5zNwOeyuG84 Of course this has been true since the Korean War.

The American way of war has been all-out effort after a war is declared. That view was reinforced after our experiments in the Philippines – a nation building effort that was partially successful, but at a very high cost. “Let him never dream that his bullet’s scream went wide of its island mark, Home to the heart of his darling land where she stumbled and sinned in the dark.” We returned to the American War (sic) of War after that, but the return was eroded after Korea under what was perceived as the new international condition. The Cold War continued, but when it ended we found ourselves in the Balkans, with the troops unable to know who were the good guys, who the bad, or what the devil we were doing over there, and why the United States. We widened the gap with Russia, but for what object we never knew.

President George H W Bush rightly understood the costs of a long term involvement on the ground in the Middle East. I thought the first Gulf War a mistake – better we should spend the money developing our resources and winning independence from the Middle East – but at least we got in and got out again.

Then came the second Gulf War and the occupation of Iraq, followed by victory in Afghanistan and following that quick victory a long expedition without clear objectives." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Go big or go home.

This has been CAA's concern about Afghanistan (and Iraq) since before the Second Gulf War began: that the U.S. would engage in a long-term "nation building" effort in either or both places for which it simply does not have the national or political attention span to see to a successful conclusion.

3/12

re: "Just Shut Up, Moron...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") didn't sugar-coat this much.

Money quote(s):


"This is wrong on so many levels that when I saw it, I had to wrap my head in duct tape to keep it from exploding.


Sure the formal liars in formal wear are important, and I know that to some extent, the circle jerking that goes on during these meetings and confabs and seminars is important on some level to ensuring that we maintain some sort of relations with a country that we liberated from a tyrant and asked for no tribute in return. I am disappointed, but not surprised, at the fact that the eggheads in this administration couldn't negotiate some sort of agreement on troop placement and further security arrangements."


Don't worry; the guy who headed up the unsuccessful negotiation team will now be the next U.S. ambassador there.


(I seem to remember something of Soviet military doctrine about reinforcing success. On the other hand, this may be the Peter Principle's revenge.)


"Are soldiers less important than diplomats? HE double toothpicks no. Diplomats can't do their work without the hard work completed by those on patrol, and the American Soldier is the quintessential diplomat."


This was an optical fail. It goes to unstated, even unconscious, assumptions (i.e., biases) about the military, military members, &tc.


(After all, if they'd been successful in life they wouldn't have had to join, &tc.)


And just to turn Deebow's point on its head, there are certainly those who would claim that without the work of diplomat's, there would be no work for soldiers (to clean up their mistakes).


"Even Bill Clinton didn't say things this galactically retarded. And I will echo the sentiments of others on this blog that have pointed out that Satan's Handmaidens in this administration have the thankless job of going out and defend these retraded (sic) statements from a guy who is out of his depth in a parking lot puddle. We need to put this guy on the rocket sled back to Chicago for his extended presidential retirement soonest."


As someone who has done volunteer work with retarded young people, I take serious exception to Deebow's use of the term, even misspelled, as a pejorative with which to label the president's statement. That's unfair and cruel to the cognitively-challenged. (No, I'm not kidding.)


12/14

re: "Perry Bills Feds for Illegal Immigration"

Patterico at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") seconded Gov. Perry's question.

Money quote(s):


"From California’a Prop. 187 to Arizona’s more recent laws, the federal government is forever fighting state laws that regulate illegal immigration, arguing that controlling immigration is a purely federal responsibility.


So when the federal government fails to discharge that responsibility, why should the financial consequences of that failure fall on the border states?"


CAA is just a poor (but honest) consular officer.


Like many in that line of work, considering the many hours of my life devoted to implementing the Department of State's side of the legal immigration (and non-immigration) equation, I find it absolutely maddening when read about how some on the other side of that equation just throw up their hands and simply fail to carry out their professional responsibilities with regards to immigration.


Is the oath-of-office sworn by these federal employees in any way demonstrably different from the one FSOs swear?

8/27

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

re: "Disturbing"

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

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


2/9





re: "There's something I like about Newt Gingrich"

Ann Althouse at Althouse ("blogging since January 14, 2004") likes Newt for intellectual reasons.

Money quote(s):


"Most of the candidates will listen to a question and then answer some question they wish they'd been asked. This is a standard approach to answering questions on television. It's a way to avoid letting the questioner control you, and you create an opportunity to say what you want to say.That's not what Newt does. He listens to the precise question asked and examines it, then works out, before our eyes, what is wrong with that question and what the real issue is. He has a depth of understanding and flexibility of mind that allows him to do that, he cares about doing that accurately and well, and he has the style to want to perform reasoning for us."


I rather like this Gingrich quote myself:



"It is the rule of law. If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the
United States. You cannot go to court.
"


Also:



"There is a huge gap here that, frankly, far too many people get confused over. Civil defense, criminal defense is a function of being within the American law. Waging war on the United States is outside
criminal law. It is an act of war and should be dealt with as an act of war, and the correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are trying to kill you.
"


11/13

re: "Patrick Kennedy on the MEK: I am an Ashrafi"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") had recapped the big PMOI/MEK rally at Foggy Bottom last August.


Money quote(s):


"Hundreds of supporters of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) movement converged on the State Department on Friday to hear former U.S. congressmen and senior officials call for the U.S. government to take the MEK off its list of foreign terrorist organizations.


Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) emceed the rally in front of the State Department headquarters."


Just to be clear, this is not the same Pat Kennedy who looms so large at State Department.


That would have a lot bigger deal, frankly, in terms of getting the PMOI/MEK delisted.


"Kennedy advocated taking the MEK off the terrorist list, which it has been on since 1997, and accused the Iraqi government of committing war crimes by killing innocent members of the MEK at Camp Ashraf. 3,400 MEK members live in the desert camp in Iraq under restrictive conditions."


The facts presented don't have all that much to do with whether the PMOI/MEK belongs on the terrorist organization list or not. Not the length of time they've been on the list, not whether the Iraqi government killed some of their members (innocent or otherwise; and Iraq has grounds for a grudge against them, btw), nor the conditions under which they live at Camp Ashraf or anywhere else.


I do like the description of Camp Ashraf as being a "desert camp."


(I'll give you a "desert camp"....)


Conditions at Camp Ashraf, largely through the efforts of their own members and organization, are pretty nice compared to anything near to the camp. They bottle their own soda (we called them "mek cola," a term to which they objected), bake their own bread, and make their own ice cream.


"Next up was Rendell, who called on the international community to militarily intervene in Camp Ashraf, comparing it to Muammar al-Qaddafi's assault on Benghazi earlier this year."


What an awesomely bad idea, not to mention politically impossible in the U.S. context. Precisely what "international community" does he have in mind? Include us out.


"MEK leader Maryam Rajavi, who lives in Paris with her husband Massoud Rajavi (who hasn't been seen in public since 2003), is banned from traveling to the United States. But she spoke to the rally via a video message on a big screen, and accused the State Department of giving implicit permission to the Iranian and Iraqi governments to kill children."


The reason no ones seen Massoud is, probably, because he's dead. Not even mostly dead but really and truly dead.


"The Cable's informal headcount put the number of attendees at about 1,000 to 1,500, with long lines of young Iranian-Americans wearing shirts with photos of dead MEK members imprinted on them. Some attendees had photos of the Rajavis on their shirts. Add to that flags, confetti, and a full drum line." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)



8/26

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

re: "Afghan Meadows Massacre - or Haditha Redux?"

Dafydd at Big Lizards ("Please enjoy the blog while you wait with breathless breath and baited hook for the rest of this fershlugginer web site. It really will be coolsomeness personified, the very apex of intelligent web design, when it's done. I promise.") exhibited some honestly acquired media skepticism.


Money quote(s):


"An American staff sergeant has just been indicted, tried, convicted, and condemned for a horrific massacre in Afghanistan; the court was the mainstream media -- which also served as judge, jury, and sentencing panel....


The trouble is, we don't know what really happened there, because the investigation has barely begun." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


Still true. This is the point, one presumes, of an investigation and (subsequent) trial.


"(W)hile such staggering carnage was carried out -- evidently by a lone American soldier -- not a single resident could locate a weapon and shoot back at the man. Not one.


But in areas of Afghanistan like Panjwai, that are forever in a tug-of-war between Taliban and government forces, shouldn't we assume that every man would be armed, or nearly so? Shouldn't these three villages be awash with AK-47s, M-16s, and heavier weapons, and thick with Afghans boasting much recent experience using them?


Yet a single soldier can not only walk from house to house, trying doors and entering domiciles to butcher women and children at will, but even finds the time and leisure to pick up eleven dead bodies, convey them (presumably one at a time on his shoulders or tucked under his arms) from one place to another, and there burn them. A veritable Superman. (Didn't anybody think to fire upon him while his hands were thus occupied?)


I can't say it's impossible that such a massacre occured in the way that AP and its sock puppets described it... but boy howdy, what a series of unfortunate events must have occurred to prevent the local residents from doing anything, anything at all, to stop this one man death squad from devastating a village.


And what perfect timing! The alleged event occurs just as the Koran-burning riots are dying down. By a tragic coincidence, a lone American gunman goes nuts and commits a demonic act of mass human sacrifice just in time to reignite the rampage against Americans and NATO, just as withdrawal talks have finally resumed.


We don't know who actually reported what supposedly happened, but we sure know who benefits from those reports (true or false): the Taliban... in one of the home bases of the Taliban.


I'm sorry if I seem insufficiently convinced of the accuracy and veracity of this report; but I can't help remembering the "Haditha Massacre" in Iraq -- which turned out, after a lengthy investigation and multiple criminal trials, to be a complete fabrication in almost every particular reported in the first heady days of the story -- lurid "factoids" ginned up by the media, who have yet to apologize or even admit they were dead wrong." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


One question: how is that a single soldier was anywhere outside the wire? That just strikes me as odd from the outset. Nobody goes anywhere without a "battle buddy," after all.


Dafydd went on to describe two other deception operations which were, fairly successfully, targeted against us by someone.


He concluded:


"Maybe I'm jaded, but color me skeptical. It may well turn out to be every bit as horrific and shameful to America as the media gleefully report; accuracy is always a possibility, no matter how out of character that would be. But that's not how initial reports of similar incomprehensible, "American-caused" massacres have generally fared when exposed to the light of actual evidence dredged up by a thorough and complete investigation.


Let's sit tight and wait to see what the evidence actually shows before belly-flopping, yet again, upon the American military."


With the recent/pending/ongoing implosions of various media story-lines now occuring (e.g., Fluke, Trayvon, "war on women"), CAA is reminded that The First Report Is Always Wrong.


3/11

re: "Ten Things You Should Know About the State Department and USAID"

Thomas R. Nides, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, at DipNote ("U.S. Department of State Official Blog") had a good piece about things you likely don't know.

Money quote(s):

"Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates used to say that the Department of Defense has as many people in military bands as the State Department has in the Foreign Service."

The other sound bite factoid is that the DoD has more lawyers than the State Department has diplomats. I've never seen anyone even attempt to dispute either statement.

"2. We support American citizens abroad. In the past eight months, we provided emergency assistance to, or helped coordinate travel to safe locations for, American citizens in Japan, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Bahrain, and Cote d'Ivoire in the wake of natural disasters or civil unrest. Last year, we assisted in 11,000 international adoptions and worked on over 1,100 new child abduction cases -- resulting in the return of 485 American children."

I was going to follow this up with an excerpt from the State Department's "mission statement" that presents consular activities such as protecting-Americans-abroad as one of the core missions of the Department, but all I can currently find is some blather from the Bureau of Resource Management about "Shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere."

Huh? (Which is to say: OFFS! WTF?)

(Okay: where did the real mission statement go? I've seen it before.... )

At least CA still has a real mission statement:

"The mission of the Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) is to protect the lives and interests of American citizens abroad and to strengthen the security of United States borders through the vigilant adjudication of visas and passports. CA contributes significantly to the USG goal of promoting international exchange and understanding. Our vision is to help American citizens engage the world. The Bureau issues the travel documents that allow Americans to travel the globe and lawful immigrants and visitors to travel to America and provides essential cycle of life services to American citizens overseas."

D/S Nides continued:

"9. We help Americans see the world. In 2010, we issued 14 million passports for Americans to travel abroad. We facilitate the lawful travel of students, tourists and business people, including issuing more than 700,000 visas for foreign students to study in the U.S. last year. And, if a storm could disrupt your vacation plans or if you could get sick from drinking the water, we alert you through our travel warnings."

Yeah. Stuff like that. Facilitate legitimate travel. Provide accurate and timely travel information and cautions. Get some.

"10. We are the face of America overseas. Our diplomats, development experts, and the programs they implement are the source of American leadership around the world. They are the embodiments of our American values abroad. They are a force for good in the world."

Development experts.... Sadly, D/S Nides' statement continues the conflation and assimilation of State and USAID. CAA remains wholly unconvinced that this is all that great a good idea.

That being said, U.S. diplomats serving at our far-flung embassies, consulate, and other missions abroad are often the first, if not the only, representatives of either/both the U.S. government or the American people who most non-Americans abroad will ever encounter in person.

And our powers should only be used for good.

D/S Nides concluded:

"All of this (and more) costs the American taxpayer about one percent of the overall federal budget. That is a small investment that yields a large return by advancing our national security, promoting our economic interests, and reaffirming our country's exceptional role in the world."

It's a truism (or "truthism") that most American citizens have a vast overestimation of just how much of the federal budget goes to either diplomacy or to foreign aid. Even when you throw in what the DoD spends or military aid, it's still a drop in the eye dropper compared to the rest of the "discretionary spending" and "entitlements."

(Oh, and this presumes that there is a budget, something which has not been true for several years now.)

8/26

Monday, April 9, 2012

re: "Thank you, Consul"

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

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


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



2/9

re: "James Hogan Case: Wife of Missing Diplomat Charged with Witness Tampering, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("an obsessive compulsive observer, diplomatic watcher, and opinionator who monitors the goings on at ‘Foggy-Bottom’ (i.e. the State Department) and the “worldwide available” universe from Albania to Zimbabwe") had a major update to the case of the missing vice consul.

Money quote(s):

"James Hogan Case: Missing Diplomat’s Wife Pleads Guilty to Obstruction of Justice"

&

"We have been following this case since September 2009 when FSO James Hogan was first reported missing in the Netherlands Antilles.... Despite the obstruction of justice guilty plea here, we are nowhere closer to understanding what happened to Mr. Hogan over there."

From the old Diplopundit site (8/26/2011):


"James Hogan Case: Wife of Missing Diplomat Charged with Witness Tampering, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice

The spouse of James Hogan, the U.S. diplomat who disappeared in the Netherlands Antilles has been charged by DOJ in a multiple count indictment for her alleged role in the "obstruction of a multi-national investigation into the disappearance of her husband":
"

Clearly, this raises a set of some fairly obvious suspicions about whatever fate (or fates) befell our colleague V/C Hogan. And just as obviously I'm going to not air any unfounded speculation on that score in this venue. CAA has no inside scoop on this, and if I did I wouldn't discuss that here.

I will say that the police force(s) and investigator(s) on this case seem to be turning over pretty much exactly the rocks they should be overturning in their effort to discover what befell V/C Hogan. And it may be that, whatever guilt may actually attach to Mrs. Hogan, this is as much as can be proven in a court of law.

Read the whole update here.


8/26

Saturday, April 7, 2012

DIMEFILS

I put the "C" (for "Consular") in DIMEFILS.

Monday, April 2, 2012

Leave Donations Requested

As noted by Steve at Dead Men Walking, AFSA's (and our) own Daniel Hirsch put the arm out to the American diploblogosphere to rally the (figurative) troops around one-of-our-own who needs-our-help.

The ever-knowledgable Domani Spero at Diplopundit shared a video and a link to the story at the new-to-the-diploblogosphere (but already in the Washington Post) Jennifer Santiago.

(And a tip-o'-the-blog-hat to Ms. Santiago for making lemonade out of lemons on behalf of your classmate.)

See also Cupcake Diplomacy, one of my must-read FS family web logs. As she put it:

"I have a friend at work named Hannah. She is one of the most amazing people I’ve ever met and pretty much from day one I admired her ability to charm and disarm an entire room full of people without saying a word. She has an utterly infectious laugh, she is brilliant, and she is driven. She is also suffering from what is called a thymoma, a rare type
of tumor in her chest. In her case the tumor is rather large, which is
especially bad since she’s a pretty small person.


After 6 grueling weeks of chemotherapy, Hannah found out last week that the tumor did not respond to the chemo…it actually got bigger. In spite of the bad news from her doctor, she is still smiling, perky, and motivated to kick this thing to the curb.

Here’s where (some) of you folks come in. I know that a pretty large number of you are federal employees and luckily for Hannah, the federal government has a government-wide leave donation program. Today, I’m asking you all to please consider donating some leave to Hannah so she can get the surgery and treatment she needs without losing
pay. I know the summer holidays are coming up and many of you have plans for your leave, but I’m going to climb up on my soap box for a minute and appeal to your good conscience, your kindness, and your compassion. Please help my friend.
"


Her A-100 class, the 162nd, is digging deep into its Annual Leave pockets but, being junior officers, those pockets are pretty shallow so far.

Here's how to donate leave (swiped, without apologies, from Diplopundit):

State Department Employees:

Email, fax, or mail form DS-1862 (found via intranet) to the address found in the leave donation request announcement found here. [Note: you must be able to access DoS intranet for this link to work]

Employees of other federal agencies:

Fill out form OPM 630b and then have someone from your agency’s HR sign and date the bottom part of the form. You’ll need the name of the State Department contact in HR as well as some info about Hannah, but I’d rather not have that just floating around the internet so please email me at cupcakediplomacy AT gmail DOT com and I will get you the necessary info ASAP.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

April Milestones & the Blogging Life Cycle

CAA has seen them come, and seen them go.

From a bare handful of diplomatic bloggers like DiploMad (who's back), the diploblogosphere has swelled to dozens and even hundreds of blogs, ranging from travelogue-like FS family sites to more serious fare.

Sometimes the blogging just stops. Sometimes there's an explanation (too busy, got scared, &tc.) and sometimes the blog just disappears into an error message (as if you got it wrong).

CAA will be joining those ever-growing numbers of former bloggers this week. Do not attempt to adjust your set. The bad man didn't tell me to stop. But CAA is moving to "a position of trust and responsibility with the U.S. Government" and it's just time, at least for awhile.

Be well, be vigilent, be wise and purple and clairvoyant.

Friday, March 30, 2012

re: "Sticking It Out"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to Marcus_Traianus' comment of Thursday, February 9th at 1:29 PM EST(link).
Marcus said:
"I was only thinking they would eat MRE’s until they could get to Liberty for some Taco Bell or BK. Either that or to hold them over until the crudites dip was replenished in a week.
Realistically DoS is always a crap shoot. But I think he was hoping for Europe, Scandinavia or even Namibia (Ja, sie sprechen Deutsch). It’s like another guy I know who speaks fluent Spanish and ended up in Rome (where he became a chain smoker waiting for the constant PLO threatened attacks on the embassy).
Look, I don’t like whiners not matter where they live. There is always someone who has it a lot worse. Plus this Walmart-Embassy in Iraq was really not well thought out. That above all else is obvious."
My response:
"I hope your friend stuck it out and got a German-speaking post eventually. While not as widely useful as, say, French or Spanish, it’s certainly not a “boutique language” where you go to a lot of effort learning it and there’s only one place that speaks it (Slovenian, Estonian, that sort of language). With German, you’ve got utility in not only the (several, but not as many as there used to be) posts in Germany, but in Austria and Switzerland as well.
Italian isn’t bad for a Spanish speaker to learn, and Rome a lot nicer than some of the places Spanish speakers get assigned.
As a working level diplomat, I’m not really privy to the big policy-level decisions like “what’s our post-invasion plan for Iraq” or “how big should our embassy be in Iraq.” But those decisions were generally made outside of State or at its very highest levels; i.e., by political appointees."
2/9




re: "Unless You’re In The Military, The President Is Not Your Commander In Chief"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") expanded upon a pet-peeve.
Money quote(s):
"(S)ince the September 11th attacks, and probably before then although I can’t say I noticed it quite as much, there has been a tendency to refer to the President as “our” Commander in Chief, or for civilians to say that the President is their Commander in Chief. In reality, of course, the Constitution merely states that the President “shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” "
The president wears several "hats," as it were. He's indeed the commander in chief; he also embodies a number of "chief executive" roles, as well as some having legislative or judicial aspects. Oh, and chief diplomat as well.
"This idea of the President as “Commander in Chief of America” is at the center of what has been called the Imperial Presidency. As Gene Healy noted in his excellent book The Cult of the Presidency, the Presidency we know today bears almost no resemblance to the institution the Founding Fathers created when they drafted Article II of the Constitution. For roughly the first 100 years of the Republic, Presidents kept to the limited role that the Constitution gave them. There were exceptions, of course. Most notably revolving around military crises, wars, or similar circumstances. Abraham Lincoln greatly expanded the powers of his office during the Civil War but so did Presidents such as James Polk and Andrew Jackson. Even that great beacon of limited government Thomas Jefferson used the opportunity of the Louisiana Purchase to exceed the powers of his office. For the most part, though, America’s 19th Century Presidents held to the limited role that is set forth in Article II, which is probably why they aren’t remembered very well by history." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Nice historical recapitulation.
"Presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Woodrow Wilson to FDR went far beyond anything resembling Constitutional boundaries to achieve their goals, and they were aided and abetted in that effort by a compliant Supreme Court and a Congress that lacked the courage to stand up for it’s own Constitutional prerogatives. Then, when World War Two ended and the Cold War began, the powers of the Presidency began to grow exponentially.
Throughout this period, the one common theme regardless of who sat in the Oval Office was the manner in which the Presidency itself became more and more entangled with a military air. Where previous Presidents were open and available to the public, the President today goes from the White House to Marine One to Air Force One, all the while encased in the tightest security bubble of any person in the world."
Much of this is the inevitable result of the world wars and subsequent Cold War. Some of it has less to do with presidential egos (or showmanship) than with the egos of presidential staff.
"(T)here’s the question of whether it’s really appropriate for a President to return the salute of a military officer. Since he is a civilian, there’s a fairly good argument that it not only isn’t necessary for the President to return a salute, but that it’s inappropriate."
Recent changes of military courtesy as regards veterans not in uniform being allowed (it was never specifically forbidden, apparently) to render the hand salute for the U.S. flag or for the playing of the National Anthem make this less of a stretch, to my mind. At least in those instances where the person rendering the hand salute is himself (or herself) a veteran. Which is nice.
As for us Foreign Service folks, when abroad the only non-military/naval person at an embassy who should be saluted is an ambassador. Presumably, the ambassador would then return the salute. I've heard of presidents (and ambassadors) being criticized for not returning a salute, of the "what?-are-they-too-good-for-it?" variety. So it's not like you can win but for losing.
In some places, local embassy guard forces (Monrovia, I'm looking at you!) salute all American staff entering the embassy, which is, on the one hand, simply another form of "sniper check" and on the other hand a veritable cloud bank of disinformation. To a degree, having to return such a salute tickles the former-NCO side of CAA; what really made my day was how the local thugs, er, "special police" (these were the Charles Taylor days) would also snap to attention and salute us as well.
"In any case, along with the Imperial Presidency, is seems that we’ve also developed a Militaristic Presidency. The fact that such a view of a President’s proper role makes it easier for them to commit American forces to dubious missions raises the question of whether we’ve gone way too far in cloaking the Presidency with an air of authority (t)hat is wholly inappropriate.
There’s another danger in the idea that the President is “our Commander in Chief.” If the man, or woman, in the White House is just “the President,” then disagreeing with and criticizing them isn’t much different than disagreeing with any other politician. Accept the idea that they are your “Commander in Chief,” though, and all of a sudden the subtle idea that they are their to give all of us orders that must be obeyed gets introduced into the mix." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
And that's just wrong. For those of us who're just-plain-citizens, i.e., voters, the president works for us, not the other way around.
"(D)o we really want to start introducing into our political culture the idea that the relationship between citizen and President is in anyway similar than, say, the relationship between a Pfc. and their commanding officer?
So, let’s stop this nonsense that the President is our Commander in Chief, because unless you happen to be uniform at the moment he isn’t."
1/2

re: "MEK rally planned for Friday at State Department"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") posted a decent piece about the PMOI/MEK in advance of one of their rallies.
Money quote(s):
"Supporters of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) movement are planning their largest-ever gathering in Washington on Friday in front of the State Department."
CAA wasn't really around much that day so I couldn't say it was any bigger (or smaller) than the usual bunch of usual-suspects hanging around the Foggy Bottom metro station or across C Street.
"The State Department placed the MEK on its list of foreign terrorist organizations in 1999 for its involvement in bombings that killed six Americans, but is reviewing that status now.
The event is the latest and greatest example of the MEK's multi-million dollar effort to build support among Washington's political elite."
Every organization on the FTO list gets reviewed periodically; it's part of the process once you're on the list. Some organizations, presumably, graduate from the FTO list. There are established criteria in that regard and, should the PMOI/MEK ever manage to meet them, then they'll be taken off of the list.
As for their "involvement in bombings," that's accurate if you define "involvement" to include things like "planned" and "carried out."
"So what is the MEK? Well, that depends on who you ask. The group, which has an ideology based on the fusion of Islam and Marxism, was formed in Iran in 1965. It allied itself with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and fought against the Shah and his Western backers. After falling out of favor with Khomeini, the group was given shelter in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, who used them to conduct brutal cross-border raids during the Iraq-Iran war.
MEK leader Maryam Rajavi, who lives in Paris with her husband Massoud Rajavi, reportedlytold her followers in 1991, "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards."
After the fall of Saddam, the United States helped broker an agreement whereby 3,400 MEK members were confined to a complex in Iraq called Camp Ashraf, which was protected by the U.S. military but then handed over to the Iraqi government in 2009." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Not a bad three-paragraph history, but some (IMHO) high points it misses are these:
- The PMOI/MEK may very likely have been involved with the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and subsequent hostage-taking. They didn't have their big fallout with the mullahs until afterwards; and
- Nobody's seen husband Massoud since sometime in 2003. There's speculation in some informed circles that he may have been one of the PMOI/MEK members (including leadership) who were killed by Coalition (presumably U.S.) airstrikes on PMOI/MEK bases in Iraq during the U.S. invasion (and before the PMOI/MEK formally capitulated to U.S. special forces).
"The MEK says it renounced violence in 2001 and professes to be leading the resistance to the Iranian regime. That claim, in addition to lucrative payments to former officials in both parties, has bought it a lot of attention and friends in Washington."
Cash always will do that.

8/25

Thursday, March 29, 2012

re: "Are the MEK’s U.S. friends its worst enemies?"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") got some inside spin (or was used as a mouthpiece) on the ongoing PMOI/MEK relocation dustup.


Money quote(s):


"For years, a slew of advocates - many of whom have been paid for their services -- have flooded U.S. airwaves on behalf of the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK), a State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization opposed to the Iranian regime.


After months of difficult negotiations, the MEK has finally begun moving out of its secretive Iraqi home near the Iranian border, called Camp Ashraf. But the group's American advocates have now become a major obstacle in the international effort to move the MEK to a new home in Iraq and avoid a bloody clash with the Iraqi military, officials say.


U.N. special representative in Iraq Martin Kobler, with help from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq and the State Department, has organized efforts to relocate the MEK to Camp Liberty, a former U.S. military base near the Baghdad airport. The first convoy of about 400 MEK members arrived there last month. The second convoy of about 400 MEK members arrived Thursday at Camp Liberty, Reuters reported. " (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


Camp Ashraf is not, and deliberately so, particularly close to the Iranian border, at least in terms of how much of Iraq actually is.


"(R)etired U.S. officials and politicians -- many of whom admit to being paid by the MEK or one of its many affiliates -- have mounted a sophisticated media campaign accusing the U.N. and the U.S. government of forcing the group to live in subhuman conditions against its will at Camp Liberty, an accusation U.S. officials say is as inaccurate as it is unhelpful."


CAA can neither confirm nor deny whether current conditions at Camp Liberty are "subhuman" nor, if they are, whether that's due to looting or to, as Mr. Rogin relays, actions by the PMOI/MEK themselves.


That being said:


a.) CAA's recollection of how Iraqi military bases were looted by Iraqis themselves following the Iraqi military's defeat by U.S. forces make it entirely believable that a similarly thorough and systematic looting of Camp Liberty occured subsequent to the U.S. withdrawal last year; and


b.) CAA's familiarity with the PMOI/MEK's history of playing-the-West-like-a-fiddle also make it eminently believable that they would themselves degrade conditions at Camp Liberty for propaganda purposes.


(That's just how they roll.)


"(A)ccording to an Obama administration official who works on the issue, it's actually the MEK that is trashing Camp Liberty -- literally. According to this official, the U.N. has reported that MEK members at Camp Liberty have been sabotaging the camp, littering garbage and manipulating the utilities to make things look worse than they really are. While there are some legitimate problems at the camp, the official admitted, the U.N. has been monitoring Camp Liberty's water, sewage, and food systems on a daily basis and the conditions are better than the MEK is portraying."


Sadly, CAA's trust of the U.N. is a degraded as conditions at Camp Liberty are reported, by some, to be. Like arms control, I'd like some U.S. inspectors to backstop reports of "better than the MEK is portraying."


Don't we have an embassy somewhere near there? Isn't the point of moving the PMOI/MEK to Baghdad so that it's easier for the American embassy, as well as the U.N., to monitor conditions?


".... a years-long, multi-million dollar campaign by the MEK and its supporters to enlist famous U.S. politicians and policymakers in their efforts to get the group removed from the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations and resist Iraqi attempts to close Camp Ashraf, which the new government sees as a militarized cult compound on its sovereign territory."


The PMOI/MEK is a somewhat larger organization, or set of organizations, than the purely military, uniformed arm which was resident in Iraq and, subsequent to their capitulation to U.S. forces, consolidated at Camp Ashraf.


They're definitely cult-like, as we understand the term. But they've been essentially disarmed, at least in terms of heavy weaponry.


"The administration official told The Cable that, as delicate negotiations between the U.N., the United States, the Iraqis, and the MEK continue, the role of these often paid advocates is becoming even more unhelpful and potentially dangerous."


These "advocates," paid or otherwise, include some very big name folks, at least some of whom had high enough security clearance access to know better (in terms of who the PMOI/MEK are).


"The relationship between the American advocates and the MEK leadership, led by the Paris-based Maryam Rajavi, has led both to pursue strategies that neglect the dire risks of sabotaging the move from Camp Liberty to Camp Ashraf, the official said. Rajavi is said to have created a cult of personality around herself and to rule the MEK as a unchallenged monarch."


Madam Rajavi, it should be noted, has been at Camp Ashraf, or even in Iraq, since before the U.S. invasion. Her compatriots there are, essentially, pawns in a larger game and hostages to fortune.


"Another example of the American advisors' unhelpfulness was the MEK's recent public call to be relocated en masse to Jordan, an idea the U.S. official said came from the group's American friends. There was just one problem: Nobody had asked the Jordanians."


Given the Jordanian's history with a certain other exile "resistance group," it'll be cold day on the equator before they agree to host the PMOI/MEK.


"The arrival at Camp Liberty Thursday of the second convoy may signal that the MEK is coming around to the realization that the Iraqi government will never allow it to stay at Camp Ashraf. But the U.S. official warned that the group may have more tricks up its sleeve."

3/8

re: "Your Dumb Government at Work"

Andrew Exum at Abu Muquwama discussed another military absurdity.


Money quote(s):


"(H)e had cancelled a presentation he was scheduled to give at the British International Studies Association conference in Edinburgh, Scotland because EUCOM regulations stipulate he must first ... wait for it ... go through SERE training before traveling to western Europe."


CAA has been to Edinburgh himself, after much personal preparation.


Said preparation did not include any survival, evasion, resistance, or escape components.


"Although the SERE training in question is not the hellish full two-week course but rather the one-day course, this is absurd nonetheless. Just yesterday, I met with a collection of junior U.S. Army officers, and we all agreed that U.S. military personnel -- and officers in particular, because they are often de facto ambassadors for the United States -- were better at their jobs if they had traveled widely or, even better, had lived abroad. But it can be a nightmare for U.S. military personnel to travel internationally, such have we elevated force protection to ridiculous importance."


The purpose, in any organization, of a manager or higher executive functionary is to:


a.) Set policy; and


b.) Make exceptions to policy as needed.


Someone is failing at one, or both, of these functions.


"(I)f we are willing to send young men and women to fight and die in Helmand Province, we should go out of our way to be accomodating when U.S. military personnel want to broaden their experiences by traveling to countries with which we are not at war." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


12/13

re: "Army Linguists: Too Few and Poorly Utilized"

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") examined a report of how the Army mis-utilizes its linguists.


Money quote(s):


"Big Army, which is essentially the entire force minus special ops types, is a very strange bureaucracy with little understanding of how to use unique assets. No private should be treated differently than another and it would cause resentment if Specialist Rosenthal, the only guy in the unit who spoke Arabic, were spared the guard duty, KP, and shit details (in the case of deployments to desert environments, quite literally) the other lower enlisted soldiers pulled. Naturally, too, he needs to partake of all the same common task training and Infantry skills as the rest of the boys. Keeping his Arabic skills up to speed, well, that’s something he should do on his own time."


CAA is not utterly unfamiliar with this phenomenon. An old and dear friend, now a highly-paid and respected linguist "at a government agency in the Baltimore-Washington corridor" told me about being a young French linguist freshly graduated from the Defense Language Institute and arriving at Fort Hood, Texas, where he spent the remainder of his active duty enlistment washing trucks.


As a military intelligence soldier deployed to Iraq, CAA was in a unit well-stocked with language-designated (and qualified) soldiers, none of whom knew much Arabic, Kurdish, or Farsi (the three languages which would have been useful to us). We were, however, fully competent in our non-language related skill-sets so, once we were sufficiently augmented with linguists (both uniformed and contractor) we successfully carried out our missions.


I suspect that the young soldier whose account Mr. Joyner excerpts was one of those sorts of usefully-languaged soldiers sent to augment a unit whose other, Korean language-qualified, soldiers were more useful in that organizations more usual mission roles. That is, they were probably in a unit which either deployed to Iraq from their bases in Korea or from bases where there unit had a significant "reinforce Korea" mission, such as in Hawaii.


8/25

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

re: "Numbers"

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


Jack Savage said:


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


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


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


Spare me."


My response:


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


2/9

re: "The News Behind the News"

Victor Davis Hanson at Private Papers discussed several topics of interest, including illegal immigration.


Money quote(s):


"“Illegal immigration” is not about illegal immigration. I would have thought the issue was only about poverty, until realizing that $40-50 billion a year leave the US in remittances to Latin America, in many cases from those who use American subsidies to free up cash to send home. It is not quite about moral justice, given that the US is in near recession with millions of citizens out of work and whose earning power in the Southwest was eroded by cheaper workers here illegally. Nor is Mexico innocent, but by design seeks to export its own impoverished to win remittances, ease the burden of paying for social services, and build an expatriate community more sympathetic to Mexico the longer and farther it is away from it."


&.


"(T)here is some sort of notion that past history or present ethnic solidarity privileges a distortion of the immigration law to such an extent as to render it ineffective. In other words, advocacy for blanket amnesty and open borders hinges on no one else taking up such an offer except those from Mexico and Latin America: there can be only so much controlled chaos before things get uncontrollably chaotic.


If one were to say that we need to resume mass immigration from Europe, one would be seen as a tribalist, racist even — on the grounds that one’s ethnic profile matched the ethnic profile of those who should be given preference in immigration. Yet imagine if an offer of fast-track citizenship were to be extended to any in a now crumbling EU — or for that matter, anyone at all — with a bachelor’s degree, mastery of English, and $20,000 in capital? I think a million skilled workers would arrive within 12 months, along with billions in capital. So let us be frank. Those accused of racism for wishing immigration law enforced can make the argument that they are racially blind and wish it applied without regard to specific individuals; those accusing others of racism wish to render immigration law null and void, only because of the shared race or ethnic background of those who break it." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)



11/12

re: "Remind Me Again, We're at War in Afghanistan Because . . . ? [CORRECTED]"

Andrew C. McCarthy at The Corner ("The one and only.") took issue with the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.


Money quote(s):


"(T)he Taliban is not included in State’s listing of Foreign Terrorist Organizations — not the Taliban whose terrorism and safe haven for al Qaeda are the justification for continuing to have our troops fight and die in Afghanistan"


&


"I’ve argued before (most recently here) that Congress should amend the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force — the legal foundation for conducting U.S. combat operations in the War on Terror — so that the Taliban organizations (among others) are expressly specified as the enemy. But what’s the chance that we will be clear about who the enemy is if the administration can’t even bring itself to say the Taliban is a terrorist organization?" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


Recollecting from the dim recesses of memory, but we went to war in the territory of the Taliban-controlled government of Afghanistan in order to get at Al-Qaeda, the Taliban having declined to give them up to us when we asked nicely.


That approach having lacked much in the way of positive results, a U.S./NATO-led coalition went to war with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan since the two seemed unwilling or unable to extricate themselves from one another.


"(I)f the Obama administration were encouraging negotiations with the Taliban (it is) and even anticipating a settlement in which the Taliban were brought into the Afghan government (ditto), the State Department wouldn’t want to complicate that by naming the Taliban as a terrorist organization, right? So we are putting our forces in harm’s way in the War on Terror order to fight an outfit that we won’t call “terrorists” and that we actually see as part of the future Afghan government we are building."


8/25

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

re: "MEK Location Called “Concentration Camp” "

Peter Van Buren at We Meant Well ("How I Helped Lose the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People") has been following the PMOI/MEK relocation issue (and delivers some snark).


Money quote(s):


"(R)esettling the MEK into the former Camp Liberty became a State Department task, and the World’s Largest Embassy was assigned to commit “robust observation” of the facility to ensure proper treatment. State apparently did not robustly observe anything, as the Camp Liberty site is a dump, without water or sewage."


&


"During the war, Camp Liberty was a paradise, home to Iraq’s largest PX and all the amenities. As the Occupation ended, the Camp was abandoned by the US, and the Iraqis promptly and efficiently looted it into its present state.


The MEK-Camp Liberty dilemma is yet another example of US desires hitting reality head on in Iraq. After hoping the MEK issue would just go away for the nine years of Occupation, the State Department threw together an expedient policy, appointed an Ambassador to give it all gravitas and then made false promises of oversight."


CAA personally observed the results of the post-invasion looting of Iraqi military bases by Iraqis themselves and has no reason to doubt Brother Van Buren's statement that Camp Liberty was thoroughly looted into inhabitability following the U.S. withdrawal.


3/5

re: "Iranian bomb plot blows up deterrence theory"

Robert Haddick 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") examined the problem of applying deterrence to Iran.


Money quote(s):


"U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder revealed an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States by bombing a restaurant in Washington. Holder’s description of the plot – which allegedly involved a bungled attempt by Mansour Arbabsiar, a dual citizen, to recruit the notorious Zeta cartel from Mexico – appeared simultaneously brazen and inept. What should worry policymakers the most is how this incident undermines the theory of deterrence, which some hope to use against Iran after it acquires nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles. If Iranian policy cannot be checked with Cold War-style deterrence, the prospect of an inevitable shooting war against Iran will go up."


Cold warriors like CAA will recall deterrence theories such as MAD and the like; the bottom line was that while it's unclear just how much of which theories actually worked, clearly something worked and the world did not end in nuclear fire, despite decades of bipolar international standoff.


"(T)he operation may have been authorized by the highest level of the Iranian government. This would indicate that top-level Iranian officials are not concerned with the possible retaliatory consequences of a mass casualty attack in downtown Washington, DC. Iran’s leaders would come to that conclusion either because they perceive the U.S. government to be self-constrained or because they perceive the maximum likely U.S. retaliation against Iran to be inconsequential to their interests. Either way, U.S. retaliation against Iran lacks credibility, something the U.S. government will have to fix if it is to usefully employ deterrence theory in the future."


U.S. retaliation against Iran has, ever since the 1979 revolution, amounted to sanction regimes of varying strictness. Why would the Iranian regime ever consider that a U.S. response to provocation would ever amount to anything more than that?


"(I)ntermediate-level Quds Force officers may have initiated the operation without authority from top-level decision-makers. If so, this too would undermine deterrence theory. Deterrence is not useful if those to be deterred don’t have complete control over their weapons, an assumption U.S. and Soviet leaders both correctly made during the Cold War. Alternatively, the organizational culture inside the Quds Force may reward mid-level officers who “freelance” their own operations. Once again, not a comforting conclusion for deterrence theory." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)


The theory of deterrence requires a target of that deterrence. If the target (i.e., top Iranian leadership) doesn't actually have full control over their WMD, then the situation is drastically destabilized.


"(I)t is hard to believe that there is some attainable level of financial and travel sanctions, even with the best possible international cooperation, that will change the behavior of either top-level Iranian leaders or officers inside the Quds Force. The U.S. is thus left with a deterrent strategy against Iran that lacks credibility and in any case may be unsuitable for the situation.


Washington should expect more provocations and thus more pressure to eventually display a retaliatory response that will impress Iranian leaders. What kind of display would impress Iranian leaders is a subject many in Washington would prefer to avoid."


Unlike, for instance, the kleptocratic leadership class of various south-of-the-border countries, attempting to put a crimp into the Miami/New York/Paris-bound shopping trips of the mullahs just doesn't register on the viable-threat-o-meter.


10/12

re: "Consular Diplomacy"

Japansen at White Waters & Black ("Adventures in Diplomacy aka Life in the Foreign Service") shared some reflections on consular work as diplomacy.


Money quote(s):


"Working in the consular section isn’t the stereotypical image of diplomacy. Many times the work is characterized as drudgery, stamping 100s of visas in a mill in some backwater. Truth is, it’s pretty interesting work, or at least it can be depending on the post."


Much of Foreign Service life hinges upon just this phrase: "depending on the post." It's an awfully big world out there; working and living conditions may vary hugely from one diplomatic assignment to the next.


Japansen correctly labels the "stamplng 100s of visas in a mill in some backwater" image of consular work as stereotypical. To beat this drum just-one-more-time, if all you're doing is "stamping" then you're doing it wrong.



"You have to stay on your toes and think on your feet as you only have a few minutes to figure out if someone is a legitimate candidate, qualified for the visa, or if they aren’t.



But beyond the basic work of adjudicating visas, it is easy to overlook the real diplomatic work that goes on at the window. For a lot of people in the host country, the consular officer is the only American they’ve ever met and their first real interaction with our country. It is important to treat people with dignity, especially when they don’t qualify for a visa."



Japensen is correct, but leaves out an important factor. While each visa applicant must legitimately qualify for a particular category or type of visa, that same applicant must have no visa ineligibilities. This is not a mistake on Japansen's part, more just an angle of perspective; one can certainly think of "has no visa ineligibilities" as being one of the qualifications of a legitimate visa candidate.



That being said, simple politeness and courtesy can go a long way in consular diplomacy. In many places, the average person is simply un-used to interactions with government officials who are polite, courteous, and efficient. That by itself makes a powerful first impression for someone who has never met an American government official before.



"While I see between 40 and 60 people a day, they only see one American and its important that they leave with a good impression that they had my full attention, concern, and consideration."



Forty to sixty non-immigrant visa applicants is a moderately light workload and certainly not in the "visa mill" range of 100+.



This allows a bit more time and consideration per each applicant, which can cut to either their advantage or disadvantage.



"Some countries are part of the visa waiver program and they don’t have to apply for simple visitors visas; they get one automatically at the border when they enter. Japan is like this, for example. You can just show up and get in for 90 days (and the same goes for the Japanese coming to America. But there’s only a handful of countries in this program and it only applies for basic tourist visas; everyone else has to come to the embassy and apply."



Travelers from visa waiver countries have to complete an online form called ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorization) in advance of their travel. And while this used to be fee-less, it's now seen as a cash cow for the travel advertising industry.



(I kid you not. Visa waiver travelers are being fleeced in order to pay for advertisements to encourage tourism to the U.S.)



"I take a lot of pride in being able to professionally and politely explain to people who don’t qualify for for visas why they have been denied. It’s important that they feel that they were treated fairly and with respect. It’s common sense and common courtesy, really, and I don’t mean to make it out to be more than it is."



This is an important skill. Saying "no" in a firm manner which does not insult or inflame the visa applicant while making it clear that the decision is final.



Explaining how to do this always reminds me of the definition of "Irish Diplomacy;" to wit:



"the ability to tell a man to go to hell so that he looks forward to making the trip."


"It might be my only time working in a consular section (every new Foreign Service officer does it for one of their first two tours; Consular officers do it as their mainstay) and I’m getting the most out of it. I get to meet a lot of people, get to grant a lot of joy and happiness, and have to be considerate when that joy and happiness isn’t forthcoming. You hear a lot of stories too, some of which are pretty amusing. And fundamentally, it’s important work."



8/24

Monday, March 26, 2012

re: "Working On That Baghdad Footprint"

TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("From deep inside the foundations of our Republic's capital city") examined remarks related to AmEmb Baghdad by DepSec Nides.


Money quote(s):


"Downsizing the U.S. Mission in Baghdad isn't really about rationing chicken wings in the embassy's dining hall after all, despite yesterday's New York Times story.


Instead, it's all about the reducing the footprint, according to remarks by Thomas Nides, Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, at a press teleconference today. He said "footprint" seven times."


The chicken wing (and arugula) story was never really more than just another big-media club with which to pummel Americans serving their country in a warzone, uniformed or not.


"(I)f we replace enough third-country security contractors with Iraqis, buy our groceries in the local market, and always, always, always re-think our engagement (Deputy Secretary Nides also said "engagement" seven times) we will eventually fit into a more nearly normal shoe."


Thinking is good. Right-sizing an embassy is a useful activity, particular when it's a out- (notice I don't say "over-") sized as our diplomatic/reconstruction/development/democratication establishment in Iraq.


That being said, placing too much of our embassy security in the hands of essentially un-vettable Iraqis, to say nothing of surrendering our food security, is a recipe for disaster.


"(M)ost of this footprint reduction will come about by hiring fewer foreign (i.e., non-Iraqi) security contractors and replacing them with local hires. That will help in at least two ways. First, it will eliminate a leading source of aggravation for the Iraqis. Second, the mission will not have to house and logistically support so many contractors, since our local hires will go home after their shifts are over, just like a normal local guard force does at a normal mission."



2/8