Showing posts with label Quotes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quotes. Show all posts

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Wild, Wild Web Chat on 21st Century Statecraft - Disinfectant, Control Freaks and Please, No Shots in the Heads

You must know by now that the month of January has been designated as 21st Century Statecraft month at the State Department.  Of course, what is 21st Century Statecraft without the Secretary of State’s most Senior Advisor for Innovation?  On January 10, Alec Ross had a web chat with journalists and bloggers from around the world to discuss 21st Century Statecraft.  Below are some quips that made us take out our highlighter:

On the question, "How do you work with your diplomats who might not be social media savvy?", this is what Mr. Ross had to say:

MR. ROSS: Yeah. So social media intimidates a lot of people that just aren’t used to it. I’m 40 years old, which makes me 12, 15 years older than digital natives, than people who grew up with the internet. I didn’t send or receive a single email when I was at university. I didn’t own my first mobile phone until I was in my late 20s. So I’ve had to learn this just like everybody else has.

What I tell our diplomats is that you don’t have to be a social media expert, but if you are working at our embassies, and certainly if you’re an Ambassador and leading one of our embassies, you don’t have to do it yourself, but you better find somebody in your embassy or on your team who does understand it. And then part of what we’re trying to do as a practical matter is train our diplomats – everybody from the 22 year-olds who are new diplomats, who, to be honest with you, don’t need the training because I’ve yet to meet a 22 year old, at least in the United States, who doesn’t understand social media – to train everybody from our most junior diplomats to our ambassadors.

So I personally train everybody who is a rising Ambassador. We have this thing at the State Department called the Foreign Service Institute. And you literally take classes to be an Ambassador. You go through what’s called an Ambassadorial seminar. And when you are in your Ambassadorial seminar, you get a class from Alec Ross about how to use social media. And what I tell them is you don’t have to use it, but if you don’t, you need to empower somebody at your embassy who does.

And it’s not about talking. This isn’t about pushing out a message. What I tell our ambassadors is remember you only have one mouth, but two ears. So even if you aren’t using these tools to communicate out to people, at a bare minimum, you need to use them to listen to people, because this is how people are talking to you in the 21st century.
Want more? Okay, more from Mr. Ross:

"I believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and as our information networks become more universal and more powerful, there’s more of this sunlight to bring to light what’s happening all around the world."
"The difference in the United States versus other places is that we do this without sacrificing universal rights. So people have freedom of expression. They have the ability to exercise peaceful, political dissent. They have the ability to communicate however they see fit"

"[W]hat social media tends to do, is it redistributes power. It redistributes power from hierarchies to citizens, from large institutions and the nation-state to individuals and networks of individuals."
"The 21st century is a lousy time to be a control freak."
"We can try to control the space, but I’m very skeptical about the degree to which we can or should control the internet. I think that it’s a losing proposition. The far better thing to do is to understand that everybody’s going to have a voice, that good points of view and bad points of view are going to be conveyed there, and what we need to do is be aggressive in getting out there and pushing out the truth."
"What I will say, though, is if hundreds of people at – let’s say hundreds of people at the State Department – if hundreds of people are using social media and one person goes a little bit off message, I don’t think that person should be shot in the head. I think that they should be corrected. But part of the – part of getting people involved in using social media means that you’re giving up a little bit of control."

"The traditional way in which the State Department got its message out was standing behind a podium and our spokesperson communicating the policy of the United States Department of State. We still do that and it’s the right thing to do. But part of what Hillary Clinton has empowered our diplomats to do is to have literally hundreds of other people out there communicating and having conversations, and I think that this is a good thing. Of course we all have to operate and communicate within the parameters of U.S. policy, but one of the things that we know is because of the hyper-transparency that comes with all of this social media, if anybody steps out of it for a minute, we hear about it."
"I think that now that we’ve been doing this for three years, I think that what we can see is that, by and large, our diplomats get this right. By and large, they understand our policies. By and large, they represent us well on social media. So I think we should be doing more of this rather than less."
"At the United States Department of State, we, like the rest of the world, are learning and adapting to a world that’s becoming increasingly disrupted by social media. This disruption can be good, it can be bad, but we live in a world of constant change. And what we’re seeking to do, even though we are historically a pretty conservative organization, part of what our boss, Hillary Clinton, has said is that we’ve got to keep pace, we’ve got to listen, we’ve got to learn, we’ve got to experiment. And so even things like this session today, this LiveAtState session today, I think is very important and very positive. Part of what we want to do is take diplomats like myself sitting here in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood of Washington, D.C. and bring them to countries around the world where you might otherwise not be able to speak with us and ask questions of us."

Oh, Alec, this is wild, just wild! 

Prior to Foggy Bottom, Mr. Ross worked on the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team and served as Convener for Obama for America's Technology, Media & Telecommunications Policy Committee.  He is not a career official.  He says that he personally trains rising ambassadors and the chiefs of mission seminar.  Which makes one wonder how far this flavor stick when the Obama Reelection Campaign comes calling.  Video here in case you need to show this to your boss who just slapped your hands with an imaginary bamboo stick for blogging, tweeting and touching those shiny but pesky 21st century statecraft tools.     

When the harassment and discouragement of State Department bloggers first manifested we had a chance to point out the problems to Mr. Ross. On January 2010 he told this blog, "If I'm given specific names of people doing the "discouraging" then I will take it up with those individuals (or their bosses or their boss' boss) directly."

Which is good to hear at first blush but not the best response or solution to this problem. See, Mr. Ross, whatever his actual employee category is not a career employee of the State Department. He may leave when Secretary Clinton term is up, or may sign up for another term if there is an Obama II. Or he could get recycled out if there is a new tenant in the WH.

So, let's pretend for a moment that I am a State employee with a blog that is getting some flack from my boss in say, the CA bureau. I give Mr. Ross my boss' name.  Mr. Ross may take up my issue with the top honcho of Consular Affairs. If that does not work, he may take it up with the boss of the CA boss, which would be, yes, the Under Secretary for Management, pretty high up the chain.  I imagine that those bosses, whether they agree or not would listen to Secretary Clinton's Senior Advisor for Innovation; that's a given.  So I'll happily blog along, problem solved. Until, of course, Mr. Ross moves on to his next adventure and exits Foggy Bottom.  I, presumably would still continue working for the bureaucracy.  My boss, and his/her boss' boss would  still continue working for the bureaucracy.  And they would remember me as the blogger somebody who rat on them to the 7th floor using the super fast elevator.  Under this scenario, Mr. Ross' solution to "take it up" directly with the bosses is like the career equivalent of taking rat poison.   


     






 
 
 
 

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Insider Quote: 'Getting off the X' in Iraq

"My security colleagues would call it 'getting off the X'. [...] We run. We go. We do not stand and fight. We will execute a high-speed J-turn and we will get as far away from the attackers as we possibly can."

Patrick Kennedy
Under Secretary of State for Management, U.S. Department of State
in As soldiers leave, U.S. diplomats face huge Iraq challenge


Thursday, December 22, 2011

Quote: Like the French Foreign Legion?

"When I tell people that I was in the Foreign Service, I get a lot of blank stares and awkward questions. Even well educated people often have no idea what the Foreign Service is.

"Is that like the French Foreign Legion?" a medical doctor and Ivy League graduate once asked me."


Dave Seminara, Former Foreign Service Officer
in A Traveler in the Foreign Service: Not much of a diplomat



Monday, December 12, 2011

Insider Quote: On Protecting Our Folks in Iraq

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, James Jeffrey, in a Wall Street Journal interview (In Iraq, U.S. Shifts to a Large, New Footprint):

"If we move out into the Iraqi economy, out into the Iraqi society in any significant way, it will be much harder to protect our people."







 
 
 

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Insider Quote: The Problems of Now, the Knee Jerk Variety Response


Having been assigned to high threat posts and deployments for over eight years, I have seen the strengths and weaknesses inherent with using contractors versus agents. However, as in the case of Iraq, I have also seen the problems with using agents/contractors versus military protection details. Mismanagment and a lack of clear goals, coupled with the fact that the short length of the tour, inhibits any institutional knowledge from being generated. I would also point out that I feel many of DS's reactions and "solutions" to the problems have been short sighted and of a "knee jerk" variety. Often, it would seem that DS is reactionary in their thinking versus being proactive. It would appear that the problems of "now" are receieving the majority of the Department's attention, when some time and planning should be focused on what issues are going to be faced in the future. Many of the individuals making the decisions are from a generation that never faced situations like those that are currently threatening our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, I think that the situation will get worse before it gets better. The nature of protection details are primarily reactionary but the planning that goes into managing these programs needs to be forward thinking.

Diplomatic Security Agent #9

—p.104
Should the U.S. Department of State Continue to Use Private Security Contractors to Protect U.S. Diplomats?
June 2008 │140 pages PDF
By Special Agent Derek Dela-Cruz
(Master of Military Art and Science, Fort Leavenworth, KS)





Friday, April 22, 2011

Insider Quote: you’re not going to be able to depend on Washington for detailed advice....

Bruce A. Flatin—Kabul 1979 via US Diplomacy:
I’d like to say that it’s very important for young people entering the Foreign Service to realize that you’re not going to be able to depend on Washington for detailed advice.  If you look at the Foreign Service manual, you’ll see there’s absolutely nothing in it that will cover these situations.  And you’re expected by Washington to try and do the best you can, because they have no way of knowing what the on-the-scene operational needs are.

To begin with, to the degree that they can acquire an area of language training, and FSI offers the area training, they should take as much language training, even on their own, because that helps them.  When they get to the post, they should try their best to get to know people, especially people who are significant.  People like police officials and military officials.  That may be of use to you later. They should also know other diplomats.  My career was spent entirely in the Cold War against the Russians – as a soldier, as a soldier in Germany, followed as a diplomat in Germany and also in Kabul.  And I was the guy who always seemed to have face-to-face contact with the Soviets.  And there’s a certain way of dealing with your opponent.  You both have to deal with each other rather carefully, but it’s possible to do it.  The degree to which you get that kind of experience helps – as in negotiations with the Cubans, where this kind of experience helped.  They’re not nice guys, but you can do business with them, if you do it the right way.  The point is that the person should make themselves as prepared as possible for these types of very fast moving situations.  And if they can’t hack it, they have to be moved out.
Read in full here.










Wednesday, April 20, 2011

New Word of the Day: Greater Georgebushistan

Iraqi police officers undergoing firearms trai...Image via Wikipedia

"Meanwhile, in Greater Georgebushistan (Baghdad), public demonstrations have been banned, and the government has suppressed crowds with tear gas and water cannons. The Iraqi police drive HUMVEES and wear uniforms strikingly similar to our own. Which country could possibly be providing them with such tools of control? (Jeopardy Hint: What is Not Iran.)"

A new word to add to your danger post vocabulary of Ickystan, Carjakistan, Paranoidistan ....


Meanwhile, as the US military prepares to pull back and the State Department takes on the responsibility not just in GG but in the entire country, Mazin al-Nazeni, the militant leader in Basra, Iraq's second largest city, considers all Americans, soldiers, diplomats, oilmen to be Enemy No. 1. Read more here.







Wednesday, March 30, 2011

PJ Crowley: Why I called Bradley Manning's treatment 'stupid'

Excerpt Via the Guardian:

As a public diplomat and (until recently) spokesman of the department of state, I was responsible for explaining the national security policy of the United States to the American people and populations abroad. I am also a retired military officer who has long believed that our civilian power must balance our military power. Part of our strength comes from international recognition that the United States practises what we preach. Most of the time, we do. This strategic narrative has made us, broadly speaking, the most admired country in the world.
[...]
But I understood why the question was asked. Private Manning's family, joined by a number of human rights organisations, has questioned the extremely restrictive conditions he has experienced at the brig at Marine Corps base Quantico, Virginia. I focused on the fact that he was forced to sleep naked, which led to a circumstance where he stood naked for morning call.

Based on 30 years of government experience, if you have to explain why a guy is standing naked in the middle of a jail cell, you have a policy in need of urgent review. The Pentagon was quick to point out that no women were present when he did so, which is completely beside the point.

The issue is a loss of dignity, not modesty.

Our strategic narrative connects our policies to our interests, values and aspirations. While what we do, day in and day out, is broadly consistent with the universal principles we espouse, individual actions can become disconnected. Every once in a while, even a top-notch symphony strikes a discordant note. So it is in this instance.
[...]
The Pentagon has said that it is playing the Manning case by the book. The book tells us what actions we can take, but not always what we should do. Actions can be legal and still not smart. With the Manning case unfolding in a fishbowl-like environment, going strictly by the book is not good enough. Private Manning's overly restrictive and even petty treatment undermines what is otherwise a strong legal and ethical position.

When the United States leads by example, we are not trying to win a popularity contest. Rather, we are pursuing our long-term strategic interest. The United States cannot expect others to meet international standards if we are seen as falling short. Differences become strategic when magnified through the lens of today's relentless 24/7 global media environment.

So, when I was asked about the "elephant in the room," I said the treatment of Private Manning, while well-intentioned, was "ridiculous" and "counterproductive" and, yes, "stupid".

I stand by what I said
. The United States should set the global standard for treatment of its citizens – and then exceed it. It is what the world expects of us. It is what we should expect of ourselves.

Read in full here.











Friday, March 18, 2011

Insider Quote: "empowering the edge of the network"

Alec Ross (innovator)Image via Wikipedia

"We're not checking off what people tweet."

"We're empowering the edge of the network."

"A lot of the time, the intelligence in networks lives in the edge of the network." [...] "People who are in a foreign post may very well have better real-time optics into facts on the ground than people in an office in DC."

Senior Adviser on Innovation to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (since April 2009)


Hey! That's great to know!

Um ... did you see that recent review of social media use in embassies?  That's the one where the State Department's Office of the Inspector General recommended that the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (also known as "R") encourage embassies to develop post-specific guidelines about clearance requirements for social media site postings and responses to users' comments and questions.

If its not on yet, the 140-character diplomacy clearance requirement is coming soon to a desk near you. Expect a lag time between tweet drafting and posting 'cuz tweets must be punchy, witty and also informative. Of course, there will be Skillcraft editing for security reasons, style and may I just add, atmospherics? And just pray that your editor/clearance officer at post actually knows that tweets have nothing to do with those birds.  








Monday, February 21, 2011

the slow move east: hannah draper, yer famous

Istanbul, TurkeyImage via Wikipedia
Istanbul-based FSO, hannah draper and FS blogger at the slow move east made an appearance in the Sunday issue of the Washington Post. Check this out:

FED FACES:
Sunday, February 20, 2011; 9:14 PM


Hannah Draper
Department of State | Political Officer | Istanbul


Best known for
: As a 26-year-old foreign service officer on her second overseas assignment, Draper seeks to promote opportunities for Turkish women through U.S.-backed programs. These include a project to teach leadership and job skills to more than 2,550 girls in Istanbul and surrounding areas, and a program for Turkish journalism students and faculty at five universities to address gender issues in the media and ways to overcome gender-based violence.

Government service: After graduating from Washington University in St. Louis with degrees in Islamic studies, Draper joined the State Department and completed a year-long tour in Saudi Arabia as a consular officer. She then spent nine months in Turkish language training before becoming a political officer for the U.S. Consulate General in Istanbul.

Biggest challenge: Living overseas means spending large amounts of time away from family and friends in the United States and missing out on American pop culture and music. "When I returned from Saudi Arabia in 2009, my friends had to give me a crash course on the 'Saturday Night Live' skits I'd missed and everything about the 2008 election."

Quote: "You can't always point to one thing you did that changed the world. My job with the Foreign Service is my way of supporting American citizens and U.S. goals, both domestically and overseas, and it also happens to be an interesting, challenging and fun career."

Send your nominations for Federal Faces to fedfaces@washingtonpost.com


Via WaPo | From the Partnership for Public Service






Monday, February 14, 2011

Insider Quote: first to be exposed and last to be rescued ...

Aerial view of the US Embassy, Saigon, showing...Image via WikipediaJackie Bong Wright
—Saigon 1975

Locally Employed Staff,

US Embassy Vietnam


I served as a Vietnamese employee.  I think that we were the first to be exposed and the last to be rescued.  And we had to be there to face disaster or crisis.  And at that time many Americans already left and we were Vietnamese.  We were to stay and to be there to be open – to open our doors.  And I personally, because of my history, my husband, Nguyen Van Bong, was assassinated by the Communists in late 1971, and I was the chairman of the board of the Vietnamese American Association.  I felt that I was prone to be a target of the Communists, the Vietnamese Communists.  Therefore, I had to try to leave.  And the day I asked someone at the U.S. Embassy to help a lot of members of my family – cousins, aunts, uncles and everyone – came to my house and asked to be rescued.  And I said even myself, I didn’t know how.  And fortunately at the last minute, I was asked to go, and I had the opportunity to be so-called married to an American pilot.  But many, many Vietnamese were there.  They stayed and they were not lucky, and they were put in jail.  Many of my friends, my colleagues from the VAA, from USIS, from the U.S. embassy affiliated offices and also with the U.S. companies.  Quite a few of them, including my brother.  My brother who had spent six years in the U.S. came back in early April.  He was asked to register, and he went to a refugee camp.  The Communists said that because he was related to the U.S., and being in the U.S. for six years, he was certainly connected to be CIA.  So he went to a refugee camp, concentration camp, and prison.  And he died of bad treatment.  A lot of my friends, Vietnamese friends, suffered the same fate.

Read the whole thing at US Diplomacy.







Monday, December 6, 2010

WikiLeaks Fallout: Canadian Ambassador William Crosbie in Kabul

Canadian Ambassador to Afghanistan William Cro...Image by Canada in Afghanistan / Canada en Afghanistan via FlickrCanadian Ambassador William Crosbie in Kabul was quoted in the Canadian press:

"If my own comments become the focus of attention . . . then consideration should be given to replacing me so that the bilateral relationship is not unduly affected," he wrote. "Needless to say I cannot retract my words (nor could I do so in good conscience)."

Read more here:






Monday, November 8, 2010

Insider Quote: Every bureau has its pets

Tales of the Riverbank...Image by law_keven via FlickrAnyone telling you otherwise is playing the spin master's game...

NDS of Muttering Behind the Hardline has an interesting bit on FS bidding where perplexed newbies may find some sunshine. Striking part excerpted below:

Every Bureau Has Its Pets
This is simply a reality.  There are always individuals who are highly regarded by bureau principals who are taken care of when it's time to hand out jobs.  Sometimes that status is based on merit; other times, it was just a matter of working for the right ambassador or DCM at the right time.  The only reason you might be chosen for a job on which a pet has also bid is that management has something even more grandiose in mind for the pet.

Like something high profile .... a stretch DCM assignment .... an acting chieftain or something with no immediate regular replacement in sight .... pet tales, don't be surprised if almost everybody has one.    

Continue reading, The Kafka-esque World of Bidding







Monday, October 25, 2010

Karzai Our Guy and Theirs Two-Ply Strategery Plays Out in Great Tackery

NYC Subway sculpture - MoneybagsImage by DogFromSPACE via FlickrVia AFP:

Afghan President Hamid Karzai admitted Monday that his chief of staff had received "bags of money" from Iran but insisted the payment was transparent and a form of aid from a friendly country.

Cash payments "are done by various friendly countries to help the president's office ... this is transparent," Karzai told a press conference as the White House warned over Iranian influence in Afghanistan.

The New York Times reported Saturday that Karzai's chief of staff, Umar Daudzai, received regular cash payments from Iran, a US foe and reportedly trying to expand its influence in the presidential palace in Kabul.

Karzai angrily rejected the reports that the payments were secret.

"This is nothing hidden. We are grateful for Iranian help in this regard. The United States is doing the same thing. They're providing cash to some of our offices," he said.

Asked if the money came in bags, as reported, he said: "It does give bags of money yes, yes it does ... it's all the same let's not make this an issue."







Sunday, October 10, 2010

All countries make mistakes [...] but countries compound their errors when they cannot learn from them ...

Day 222 (Or is this Day 1 now?) - Oops!Image by ktpupp via Flickr"All countries make mistakes, because leaders are fallible and no political system is immune from folly. But countries compound their errors when they cannot learn from them, and when they don't hold the people responsible for them accountable."

Stephen M. Walt

Foreign Policy | Whitewashing the failure in Iraq



In this country, we don't hold folks accountable.  Unlike the Internets, we actually believe in second chances in real life.  So folks get humongous book deals instead, and the public gets suckered 'xcuse me, bombarded with ads to buy 'em books and learn the "real" stories. Mistakes are never owned, only that "mistakes were made," how or by whom needs a flashlight, but batteries not included.  Sorry.

Some of the personalities who were associated with the Iraq War have written their stories.  Books in need of shelves, in no particular order ....


L. Paul Bremer | My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope

Tommy Franks |
American Soldier

Douglas Feith |
War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism

Richard Perle |
An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror

George Tenet |
At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA

Condi Rice |
Condoleezza Rice: A Memoir of My Extraordinary, Ordinary Family and Me

George W. Bush  |
Decision Points

Tony Blair |
A Journey: My Political Life

You may have to wait a bit longer-- Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Chenney have yet to contribute to the post-war Iraq memoir and non-memoir genre. 

Fortunately, we are poor and do not have money to splurge on any of the books above, but we'll forgo weeks of coffee and promised to buy the next hardcover with any of the following titles -- "True Confession: How I Broke Iraq," "My Journey Through a Mushroom Cloud and Out of Iraq," "The Folly of Turning Iraq Into Our Own Image (I Should Have Thunk This Through)."  

Sunday, September 12, 2010

JFK: I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute ...

50 years ago today and given the recent events in our national history, perhaps even more relevant in our lives now than in the past.  This is the America I still believe in ---




Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
Rice Hotel, Houston, Texas
September 12, 1960

from the JFK Library


     Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.
    
     While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

     These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

     But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

     I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

     I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

     For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

     Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

     That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

     I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.

     I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

     This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

     And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.

     I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition--to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress--on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)--instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

     I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts--why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France--and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

     But let me stress again that these are my views--for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.

     Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

     But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

     But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

     If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

     But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution . . . so help me God.


* * *


Related items:
Is This America? Nicholas D. Kristof |NYT
A Harsh Thing I Should Have Said (Martin Peretz Dept) Updated | James Fallows






Friday, August 27, 2010

FS Blog: The Mantra ... "When we're fully staffed ...."

Short HandsImage by CharlesLam via FlickrThis one from Brian of Hick/Hitchhiker/...Diplomat (!?) Two paths diverged in a wood, and I--I left the paths and climbed a mountain:

"When we're fully staffed..."

Everyone is repeating this phrase. When people curtail (leave for another post early) and quit (as in, quit the FS) it leaves posts short-handed. It also offers great opportunities for newbies to step up to the plate. Not to hit a figurative home run, but to take a couple swings and do their best or maybe get a bunt.
[...]
Back to present day. There is no time for playing with ant mounds and I can't even fathom wanting to quit this career. Not only that, but I currently have three of the five "cones" present in my job description. It is one benefit of serving in a small, under-staffed post from which people have curtailed and quit. I'm busy and being challenged.

So, your take-away lessons: People quit the FS. New people are presented with some very cool challenges. Having a positive attitude can be difficult but is crucial.

Continue reading The Mantra here.









Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Insider Quote: How size and speed disparity works in Afghanistan....

AgFair tasting Tomato Paste May 20, 09Image by USAID Afghanistan via Flickr
Before the McChrystal flap unfolded, the U.S. Ambassador to Kabul, Karl W. Eikenberry gave a speech at the Command and General Staff College Graduation Ceremony in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas on June 11. Below is an excerpt:
Like our soldiers, our diplomats are focused first on preventing wars, but when we must, we fight the same war as you do, but we use different tools, and fight on a different scale.

As for size, you've probably heard Secretary Gates' comment that the military has more uniformed band members than the State Department has Foreign Service Officers.  The entire Department of State numbers under 40,000.  The number of Foreign Service Officers - our line personnel, if you will - is only 8,000.   With those 8,000, State staffs not only our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, but hundreds of embassies and consulates around the world.

Here's an illustration of how that size and speed disparity works in Afghanistan.  When ISAF wants to work on developing an approach to a complicated policy or operational issue - to take a real world example, finding a way to ban the ammonium nitrate-based fertilizer used in the vast majority of IEDs in Afghanistan - ISAF can easily mobilize 50 staff officers to form an Operational Planning Team.

I am fortunate to be Ambassador at the only U.S. Embassy in the world with a full-time staff of State Department planners.  I have, on a good day, five of them - plus an Army SAMS planner, a graduate of this fine institution whom General McChrystal assigned to me in one more instance of close civ-mil cooperation.  I could afford to deploy one or two Embassy planners to that counter-IED OPT. 

Read the whole thing here.


Related Link:


Blog | Michael Hastings at Rolling Stone


Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Quickie: The Runaway General's PR, Bombs

,President Barack Obama meets with Army Lt. Gen...Image via Wikipedia
Michael Hastings' article is doing the rounds inside the beltway right now. In case you've missed it, that's the one in Rolling Stone entitled, The Runaway General ...."Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."

You can understand why this would be an interesting and perhaps even painful read in civilian and military circles.  SFRC's John Kerry has spoken and has thrown his public support to General M. urging that folks stay cool and calm and think about the mission.

Quick excerpts below:

On being sharper and ballsier than anyone else:
"The general prides himself on being sharper and ballsier than anyone else, but his brashness comes with a price: Although McChrystal has been in charge of the war for only a year, in that short time he has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict. Last fall, during the question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in London, McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile."
About Joe:
"Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner."

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

About the General's Team America:

"The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs. There's a former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts. They jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority."

About HRC and AfPak's Holbrooke:
"Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle. "Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an adviser. "She said, 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.' "

"McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just have someone yanking on shit."
"At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance."

"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail."

About US Embassy Kabul's Ambassador Eikenberry:

"The relationship was further strained in January, when a classified cable that Eikenberry wrote was leaked to The New York Times. The cable was as scathing as it was prescient. The ambassador offered a brutal critique of McChrystal's strategy, dismissed President Hamid Karzai as "not an adequate strategic partner," and cast doubt on whether the counterinsurgency plan would be "sufficient" to deal with Al Qaeda. "We will become more deeply engaged here with no way to extricate ourselves," Eikenberry warned, "short of allowing the country to descend again into lawlessness and chaos."

McChrystal and his team were blindsided by the cable. "I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before," says McChrystal, who adds that he felt "betrayed" by the leak. "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.' "

On the usurpation of diplomatic policy and shoring up
Karzai's credibility:
"The most striking example of McChrystal's usurpation of diplomatic policy is his handling of Karzai. It is McChrystal, not diplomats like Eikenberry or Holbrooke, who enjoys the best relationship with the man America is relying on to lead Afghanistan. The doctrine of counterinsurgency requires a credible government, and since Karzai is not considered credible by his own people, McChrystal has worked hard to make him so. Over the past few months, he has accompanied the president on more than 10 trips around the country, standing beside him at political meetings, or shuras, in Kandahar. In February, the day before the doomed offensive in Marja, McChrystal even drove over to the president's palace to get him to sign off on what would be the largest military operation of the year. Karzai's staff, however, insisted that the president was sleeping off a cold and could not be disturbed. After several hours of haggling, McChrystal finally enlisted the aid of Afghanistan's defense minister, who persuaded Karzai's people to wake the president from his nap."

What if Eikenberry not McChrystal is right?

"This is one of the central flaws with McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy: The need to build a credible government puts us at the mercy of whatever tin-pot leader we've backed – a danger that Eikenberry explicitly warned about in his cable. Even Team McChrystal privately acknowledges that Karzai is a less-than-ideal partner. "He's been locked up in his palace the past year," laments one of the general's top advisers. At times, Karzai himself has actively undermined McChrystal's desire to put him in charge. During a recent visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Karzai met three U.S. soldiers who had been wounded in Uruzgan province. "General," he called out to McChrystal, "I didn't even know we were fighting in Uruzgan!"

Quotable Quotes:


McChrystal steps away from the circle, observing his team. "All these men," he tells me. "I'd die for them. And they'd die for me."

"The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.

"It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win," says Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, who serves as chief of operations for McChrystal. "This is going to end in an argument."


Hastings end word:

"So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word "victory" when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge."

Read the whole article The Runaway General ....Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House.

As you might imagine -- Secretary Gates over at the Pentagon is not happy. General McChrystal's PR man has now resigned. The General has also reportedly apologized for his WH criticisms and WaPo is asking if Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal is someone the president can afford to fire? With the U.S. war in Afghanistan in its ninth year and with U.S. forces scheduled to draw down in July 2011, the president may be stuck with General Stan and our tin-pot leader in Kabul.

But I do think this is a firing offense. Our top general in a war cannot be seen as publicly showing disrespect to our civilian authorities.  If President Obama fires General McChrystal, he would not be the first brilliant general fired in the middle of a war.  Of course, there is the mission to think about, as Senator Kerry has urged. But then again, we've been pouring money into Afghanistan, with the Taliban presumably funding their side with our money. Not just from cuts in a 2.2 billion haulage contract reported recently, but also from protection rackets in which Afghan subcontractors are paying protection money to local Taliban leaders to prevent their projects and employees from being targeted.

As General Mayville said in the article, "This is going to end in an argument." I'd rather that this Afghan argument end sooner than later.