Posted on 06/24/2004 2:16:13 AM PDT by kattracks
Releasing a signed letter denouncing President Bush on the same day that the 9/11 Commission issued its much-publicized interim report last week, 26 former diplomats and retired military brass gained very little traction in their bid to knock the President.
What people missed is a bunch of disgruntled ex-diplomats who amply demonstrate the deeply ingrained biases of the Foreign Service—or more to the point, the people who comprise the vast majority of Bush’s current foreign policy team.
Common sense would dictate that the President of the United States would have the ability to shape his entire administration, including his foreign policy team.
But when it comes to the State Department, common sense doesn’t apply. Even most senior positions are filled by careerists, people who do not change from one administration to the next. And because of union rules that even Jimmy Hoffa never would have had the guts to demand, State’s career Foreign Service employees can’t be fired by the Secretary of State—even for a felony conviction.
Sounds crazy, yet it is sadly true. Clinton’s Secretary of State Warren Christopher ignored personnel policy and fired a woman who had plea-bargained to a felony count—of defrauding the State Department. She sued, she won, she got her job back, and got back pay. Why? Because, the court ruled, the Secretary of State can’t fire even a convicted felon.
To add one more level of institutionalized insanity, the Secretary of State does not even have any authority over personnel decisions, except for the small percent that are considered politically-appointable. All hiring, firing, transferring, and promoting is done by a panel of senior Foreign Service Officers (FSOs).
This presents very real political problems, especially when current FSOs harbor as much contempt for Bush as the 26 signers of the letter explicitly endorsing the defeat of the President come November.
On people’s desks and doors throughout the State Department are political cartoons mocking and pillorying the President. The openness of it suggests that lambasting their ultimate boss is not simply tolerated, but encouraged. Could you imagine a Fortune 500 company with that sort of flagrant insubordination?
Yet as tempting as it would be to point a partisan finger at the Foreign Service, many of the ones who loathe President Bush are, in fact, Republicans. What they all have in common, though, is a worldview entirely antithetical to that of the commander-in-chief.
State Department diplomats view the Holy Grail of foreign policy as “stability.” Stability is great for people living in free societies, such as the United States or the United Kingdom. But for those under the thumb of oppressive despots such as North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il or the Iranian mullahs, stability is simply a promise of continued tyranny.
Though stability may sound appealing from a security standpoint—the devil you know is not necessarily better, but it is more predictable, as the logic goes—it doesn’t work in the long-term. Today’s strongman ally can easily become tomorrow’s Taliban or Saddam Hussein.
President Bush fundamentally understands that the only true, reliable long-term allies are free societies. Yet on the same day he made his speech last spring presenting his ambitious goals for a free Middle East, State published—and conveniently leaked to the Los Angeles Times—a report called “Democracy Domino Theory: Not Credible.”
History does not support State’s belief in tyrants. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the State Department only pressed for closer relations with Saddam after he gassed and killed some 100,000 Kurds in August 1988.
It was in early 1989 that State wrote a then-top secret memo urging stronger ties with Saddam, arguing that he was a bastion of “stability.” Less than two years later, Saddam’s tanks rolled into Kuwait.
Not learning from its past mistakes, State adopted a tilted neutrality policy toward the Taliban—which effectively supported a regime recognized by only three governments around the world—despite clear evidence from the beginning of gross human rights abuses, including actions that could be described as war crimes in capturing the country.
Because of President Bush, neither former State Department ally is still in power. But if the former State Department officials—and their protégés still there—have their way, Bush won’t be for much longer, either.
Joel Mowbray (mail@joelmowbray.com) is author of Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America’s Security.
Bump. Good read.
Joel Mowbray, I believe, is a former FSO who makes a living today, in part, by criticizing the State Department and the Foreign Service.
I'm a current, serving, Foreign Service officer. And I'm here to tell you that Mowbray is ridiculously over the top in his descriptions and characterizations of the Foreign Service. In short, it just ain't the way he's telling it.
But I think he's right on target in criticizing the 26 former diplomats and generals who blasted Bush recently. I simply want to report to my fellow Freepers that not all FSOs feel the way Mowbray claims. In fact, a lot of us -- many, many -- fully support the President, the invasion of Iraq, and the way the Administration is prosecuting the war on terrorism. I know that doesn't fit with the image of the Foreign Service as the public understands it, but it's the truth.
Regards to all.
Anyone know who is behind this effort?
Andrew Killgore did pretty much the same thing about a month ago, but the press coverage died out when it came to the fore that he was an anti-semite on the Saudi payroll.
Easy response: This is what we got as a result of trying to end the spoils system.
Come up with a better way of keeping politicians from firing the professionals and putting in the cronies who helped get them into office.
I certainly can't defend the current system but the alternative of constantly having unqualified polticial lackeys who change evefy 4 to 8 years representing the US outside of its borders is probably worse than having to deal with the few bad apples and the otherwise left leaning diplomatic core.
Think about it, conservatives who are smart and capable go into private business. Only lefties want a career in government.
"State Department diplomats view the Holy Grail of foreign policy as 'stability.'"
Creating certain instabilities is now and will for some time be necessary to defend our nation.
If the SECSTATE had any manhood at all, he would begin reprimanding those with the disrespectful posters in their offices. Start firing a few and watch it change.
The President should appoint Rumsfeld to Sec. of State and Wolfwicz to Sec. of Defense.
Why is it that the Dems manage to rule whether they are in or out?
Thanks for the counter-perspective. But is it really true that the Sec. of State couldn't fire a convicted felon and has no authority over hiring and firing decisions?
Thanks for that information!
With the parasitic media dogs on the job, they make those 26 - or whatever number they come up with - look like a majority, as is their intention.
"...Yet as tempting as it would be to point a partisan finger at the Foreign Service, many of the ones who loathe President Bush are, in fact, Republicans. What they all have in common, though, is a worldview entirely antithetical to that of the commander-in-chief..."
Not true. In our office of 60, we have 1 die-hard clintonista and the rest solid republicans, hoping that Bush is re-elected.
Your dotted lines might eventually have higly paid, senior GS/SES being responsible for the coffee shop and entirely out of the loop, but that is the point.
Find your comrades and wire them into leadership of projects you designate them to.
Having lived overseas and met some of those on the List of 26 (Newsome in Libya when I was in high school, Davidow in Zimbabwe) it is perplexing to me that such intelligent people can be so far off the mark in understanding the strategic shift that our President is undertaking in the world.
If regular ole freeper gals like me can get it, why can't they ?
They are retired and are entitled to their own opinions. I just think they used poor judgment in cloaking themselves in the mantel of the Foreign Service. This doesn't reflect well on the current FSO's who need to be perceived as apolitical in carrying out the Administration's policies. Association with a group advocating the removal of GWB is not helpful. They would be better off advocating constructive solutions and staying away from partisan politics.
it is perplexing to me that such intelligent people can be so far off the mark in understanding the strategic shift that our President is undertaking in the world. If regular ole freeper gals like me can get it, why can't they ?
Most of them do not have regional expertise in the Middle East. Many have been involved in shaping the old policies so there is a pride of authorship. Several are bitter about not getting specific ambassadorships.
Generally, the US has not come up with any grand vision for the post Cold War world ala Acheson after WWII. The specter of the US being the lone superpower exercising its power and will to shape the global polity bothers many senior diplomats who have spent their careers creating alliances and operating through multilateral institutions. It is hard for them to accept the US using its power unilaterally to advance our national interests. Personally, I have no problem with a Pax Americana. We have a window of opportunity to create a better world, which may not be open long. Better us than someone else.
Thanks for your insights. Seems like its typical "organization" stuff. I would be happy to go it alone for a Pax Americana too.
We have the only Big Idea that's worth advancing.
Read Later bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.