A resignation
February 28, 2003 5:59 AM Subscribe
«The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests.» A US Diplomat’s Letter of Resignation. Yes, there are also people like this in Politics. From NYT. It requires registration, but it’s for free.
amberglow, sometimes resigning and going public with your opinions does a lot more good than just hanging in there. This is no anti-American blubber, this is a true American, a diplomat who found no other way to deal with it. I hope more people react this way.
posted by acrobat at 6:24 AM on February 28, 2003
posted by acrobat at 6:24 AM on February 28, 2003
What a very well-written letter. It's no wonder he was a diplomat.
posted by Espoo2 at 6:37 AM on February 28, 2003
posted by Espoo2 at 6:37 AM on February 28, 2003
I hereby resign my position as a defender of all things Duhbya in protest of the direction he is currently taking our country.
Protest and dissent to the Boy King is not tolerated. Do so and risk the wrath of the brown shirted mobs. Stand ready to be accused of Anti-Americanism, being told to "love it or leave it," be spat upon or worse. But it will be worth it to bear the abuse of the single minded lock stepped enforcers of Duhbyaism. I stand prepared for the onslaught. Who will join me?
posted by nofundy at 6:39 AM on February 28, 2003
Protest and dissent to the Boy King is not tolerated. Do so and risk the wrath of the brown shirted mobs. Stand ready to be accused of Anti-Americanism, being told to "love it or leave it," be spat upon or worse. But it will be worth it to bear the abuse of the single minded lock stepped enforcers of Duhbyaism. I stand prepared for the onslaught. Who will join me?
posted by nofundy at 6:39 AM on February 28, 2003
This is a wonderfully written letter, and I fully agree with the sentiment.
It does make me wonder, however, how often does this sort of resignation occur? Is this an unprecedented act, or is this simply the first time I've heard of an American diplomat resigning because he feels that the current agenda is against America's own interests, as well as the world's.
posted by mosch at 6:44 AM on February 28, 2003
It does make me wonder, however, how often does this sort of resignation occur? Is this an unprecedented act, or is this simply the first time I've heard of an American diplomat resigning because he feels that the current agenda is against America's own interests, as well as the world's.
posted by mosch at 6:44 AM on February 28, 2003
So do mentions of brown shirted mobs invoke Godwin on a thread?
It does make me wonder, however, how often does this sort of resignation occur?
Also from the NYT:
"From 1992 to 1994, five State Department officials quit out of frustration with the Clinton administration's Balkans policy."
posted by moonbiter at 6:49 AM on February 28, 2003
It does make me wonder, however, how often does this sort of resignation occur?
Also from the NYT:
"From 1992 to 1994, five State Department officials quit out of frustration with the Clinton administration's Balkans policy."
posted by moonbiter at 6:49 AM on February 28, 2003
Sometimes people do actually resign in protest. Former Bobby Kennedy aide Peter Edelman did it in 1996 because he couldn't support Clinton's welfare reform
From the Washington Post 1996 story:
Two high-ranking officials at the Department of Health and Human Services resigned yesterday in protest over President Clinton's decision to sign the welfare bill, an unusually public move that underscores the deep divisions within the administration over the legislation.
Peter Edelman, acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation, and Mary Jo Bane, assistant secretary for children and families, submitted their letters of resignation yesterday, both citing the welfare measure as the reason.
The resignations were notable not only because they represented open discontent with a president among his own appointees but because of the relative prominence of the two officials involved. Edelman and his wife, Children's Defense Fund head Marian Wright Edelman, have had a close personal friendship with Bill and Hillary Clinton. And Bane has long been one of the country's leading academics on welfare issues, as the author of books and research that have influenced thinking and policymaking on the subject.
posted by matteo at 6:52 AM on February 28, 2003
From the Washington Post 1996 story:
Two high-ranking officials at the Department of Health and Human Services resigned yesterday in protest over President Clinton's decision to sign the welfare bill, an unusually public move that underscores the deep divisions within the administration over the legislation.
Peter Edelman, acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation, and Mary Jo Bane, assistant secretary for children and families, submitted their letters of resignation yesterday, both citing the welfare measure as the reason.
The resignations were notable not only because they represented open discontent with a president among his own appointees but because of the relative prominence of the two officials involved. Edelman and his wife, Children's Defense Fund head Marian Wright Edelman, have had a close personal friendship with Bill and Hillary Clinton. And Bane has long been one of the country's leading academics on welfare issues, as the author of books and research that have influenced thinking and policymaking on the subject.
posted by matteo at 6:52 AM on February 28, 2003
The trouble is that far from a departure from American values, the administration's drive to war is in keeping with longstanding American foreign policy idealism.
How is standing up to dictators contrary to American values? How is supporting the UNSC's 17 resolutions on Iraqi disarmament contrary to America's traditions? How about pledging to deliver people from fascism, no matter the questions of short term stability, a violation of America's values and vision?
If one was to look for abdication of America's values, I would look to the late 1960s to early 1990s, not the current showdown with Iraq. Really, go and read the AEI speech. The core values expressed are consistent with those of every postwar US president. If you don't like Bush, fine, but claiming what he is doing is a radical change from US foreign policy idealism is bunk.
I would also note that ignoring French grandstanding has a rich history as well.
posted by ednopantz at 6:59 AM on February 28, 2003
How is standing up to dictators contrary to American values? How is supporting the UNSC's 17 resolutions on Iraqi disarmament contrary to America's traditions? How about pledging to deliver people from fascism, no matter the questions of short term stability, a violation of America's values and vision?
If one was to look for abdication of America's values, I would look to the late 1960s to early 1990s, not the current showdown with Iraq. Really, go and read the AEI speech. The core values expressed are consistent with those of every postwar US president. If you don't like Bush, fine, but claiming what he is doing is a radical change from US foreign policy idealism is bunk.
I would also note that ignoring French grandstanding has a rich history as well.
posted by ednopantz at 6:59 AM on February 28, 2003
The full text of this letter can also be found without registration here, about halfway down the page.
posted by Bletch at 7:01 AM on February 28, 2003
posted by Bletch at 7:01 AM on February 28, 2003
Thank you ednopantz. That was a well reasoned response, and much better than what I was composing in my head.
posted by pjgulliver at 7:05 AM on February 28, 2003
posted by pjgulliver at 7:05 AM on February 28, 2003
This letter highlights something I have noticed about this administration's tactics in dealing with both foreign and domestic issues. It's the cultivation of fear and the promotion of fear-based decision making in the aftermath of 9/11. Kiesling mentions fear of the US on the part of our allies, but this administration has done an impressive job using fear to sway domestic public opinion as well. It seems like the administration employs a philosophy of power that demands a kind of subservience of other nations and the American people to US government and its priorities.
I see this in the disrespect shown by administration officials to protesters and dissenting voices. I also see this in the "you are with us or you are with the enemy" stance of the administration. This position does not respect the fact that other nations have legitimate interests that may be different from our own, and presupposes that those nations should serve the interests of the US in preference to their own.
It's ironic that the administration frequently talks about the deteriorating credibility and relevancy of the UN and NATO, when the credibility of the United States is being eroded by the very behavior exhibited by such talk. I wish the administration would realize that disrespect and disregard whether of people or nations, simply fosters discontent and incites uncivilized resistance such as terrorism. I wish they would also look back at history and see that all regimes that have used fear as their tool for power have failed.
posted by blakewest at 7:14 AM on February 28, 2003
I see this in the disrespect shown by administration officials to protesters and dissenting voices. I also see this in the "you are with us or you are with the enemy" stance of the administration. This position does not respect the fact that other nations have legitimate interests that may be different from our own, and presupposes that those nations should serve the interests of the US in preference to their own.
It's ironic that the administration frequently talks about the deteriorating credibility and relevancy of the UN and NATO, when the credibility of the United States is being eroded by the very behavior exhibited by such talk. I wish the administration would realize that disrespect and disregard whether of people or nations, simply fosters discontent and incites uncivilized resistance such as terrorism. I wish they would also look back at history and see that all regimes that have used fear as their tool for power have failed.
posted by blakewest at 7:14 AM on February 28, 2003
deteriorating credibility and relevancy of the UN and NATO
Yeah but is America trashing these institutions?
the UNSC says that Saddam must "disarm or it is war" and when Iraq still hasn’t disarmed, 12 years later, France insists on more time while the US says “it is war.” Who is trashing the UNSC’s authority? The US is now asking for another resolution to declare Iraq in material breach of 17 UNSC resolutions. How much more defiance is the UNSC supposed to tolerate?
NATO: Turkey is likely to come under attack from Iraq. It needs help. The US proposes to send defensive aid to Turkey under the aegis of NATO. The French refuse since this could be construed as supportive of the foreign policy of NATO members the US and UK and refuse.
I mean really, you might hate Bush, but the man has played by all the rules of these organizations and has been rewarded with deceit and evasion. America’s past unilateralism is a figment of the imagination and America's future go it alone approach is the result of unilaterial, unprincipled opposition by its erstwhile allies.
Impressively mean-spirited but fun cartoon.
posted by ednopantz at 7:41 AM on February 28, 2003
Yeah but is America trashing these institutions?
the UNSC says that Saddam must "disarm or it is war" and when Iraq still hasn’t disarmed, 12 years later, France insists on more time while the US says “it is war.” Who is trashing the UNSC’s authority? The US is now asking for another resolution to declare Iraq in material breach of 17 UNSC resolutions. How much more defiance is the UNSC supposed to tolerate?
NATO: Turkey is likely to come under attack from Iraq. It needs help. The US proposes to send defensive aid to Turkey under the aegis of NATO. The French refuse since this could be construed as supportive of the foreign policy of NATO members the US and UK and refuse.
I mean really, you might hate Bush, but the man has played by all the rules of these organizations and has been rewarded with deceit and evasion. America’s past unilateralism is a figment of the imagination and America's future go it alone approach is the result of unilaterial, unprincipled opposition by its erstwhile allies.
Impressively mean-spirited but fun cartoon.
posted by ednopantz at 7:41 AM on February 28, 2003
What are you talking about, Endopantz? You say that during the past half-century (I'm being generous here and ignoring the isolationist period that preceded it) we've made it a policy to deliver people from facism no matter the short-term cost?
Where were we in the Middle East for 40 years before 1990? Where were we in Egypt? Where were we in Jordan? Where were we in Lebanon? Where were we in Iraq? Where were we in Iran? Where were we in Cambodia? Where were we in Saudi Arabia? Where were we in Turkey?
Oh yeah. We were busy supporting fascist governments in an attempt to "contain" the communist ones. Maybe you forgot?
This man started working at the State Department under the administration of your beloved Mr. R. He stayed on board under Mr.s B. and C. What does it tell you that someone comfortable under R., B., and C. feels that he must resign under B.II?
On preview:
Why wasn't it war on September 10th, 2001, Endopantz?
On second preview:
I don't mean this as a personal flame, but... well, I'm actually curious, and I feel like I don't understand what's going through your head. In all seriousness, how do you feel comfortable with what's going on?
posted by Ptrin at 7:51 AM on February 28, 2003
Where were we in the Middle East for 40 years before 1990? Where were we in Egypt? Where were we in Jordan? Where were we in Lebanon? Where were we in Iraq? Where were we in Iran? Where were we in Cambodia? Where were we in Saudi Arabia? Where were we in Turkey?
Oh yeah. We were busy supporting fascist governments in an attempt to "contain" the communist ones. Maybe you forgot?
This man started working at the State Department under the administration of your beloved Mr. R. He stayed on board under Mr.s B. and C. What does it tell you that someone comfortable under R., B., and C. feels that he must resign under B.II?
On preview:
Why wasn't it war on September 10th, 2001, Endopantz?
On second preview:
I don't mean this as a personal flame, but... well, I'm actually curious, and I feel like I don't understand what's going through your head. In all seriousness, how do you feel comfortable with what's going on?
posted by Ptrin at 7:51 AM on February 28, 2003
ednopantz: I think what surprises people about the Saddam-is-defying-the-UN argument is the way it’s being made by the kind of people who generally hate the UN. Surely Bush’s domestic supporters are often the kind of people who see it as an evil-world-government-in-waiting? Also, we don’t see the US rushing to enforce resolutions in, say, Israel, as you’ve probably had pointed out to you ad nauseam.
How [is] pledging to deliver people from fascism, no matter the questions of short term stability, a violation of America's values and vision? Well, that’s one way to put it. But the war is supposed to be about disarmament, not ‘pledging to deliver people from fascism’ – or so it’s being sold.
posted by Mocata at 7:58 AM on February 28, 2003
How [is] pledging to deliver people from fascism, no matter the questions of short term stability, a violation of America's values and vision? Well, that’s one way to put it. But the war is supposed to be about disarmament, not ‘pledging to deliver people from fascism’ – or so it’s being sold.
posted by Mocata at 7:58 AM on February 28, 2003
You say that during the past half-century...we've made it a policy to deliver people from facism no matter the short-term cost?
Actually, no. I'm arguing that there was that rhetoric but it was only honored in the breach. See: "since the late 1960s" [I should have said 1940s.]
The "yeah but in 1953 the CIA..." argument is essentially:
In the past, the US made a bad bargain with authoritarianism. So therefore, it must not repudiate that bargain now or take steps to undo the damage.
That is just crazy. We can't afford these fascist thugs anymore, and they have to go. Iraq is the best first candiate.
posted by ednopantz at 7:59 AM on February 28, 2003
Actually, no. I'm arguing that there was that rhetoric but it was only honored in the breach. See: "since the late 1960s" [I should have said 1940s.]
The "yeah but in 1953 the CIA..." argument is essentially:
In the past, the US made a bad bargain with authoritarianism. So therefore, it must not repudiate that bargain now or take steps to undo the damage.
That is just crazy. We can't afford these fascist thugs anymore, and they have to go. Iraq is the best first candiate.
posted by ednopantz at 7:59 AM on February 28, 2003
Sorry to double post.
Also, we don’t see the US rushing to enforce resolutions in Israel
Read and compare UNSC 242 and UNSC 1441. Huge difference between them.
Clinton did his damnedest and he wasn't able to get I/P peace. Bush is betting that it just isn't possible over the short term (1 year), and I tend to agree. IJ, Hamas, and Iz al-Din all think they can liberate Palestine through violence, and they need to be given a chance to fail. As soon as they do, and give up on violent resistance, Sharon is toast with the voters. Then there will be a chance to negotiate peace. As long as the hotheads think they are being artificially constrained by a political process that is never going to deliver, violence will be attractive. Prove the inefficacy of violence and you take that away.
posted by ednopantz at 8:07 AM on February 28, 2003
Also, we don’t see the US rushing to enforce resolutions in Israel
Read and compare UNSC 242 and UNSC 1441. Huge difference between them.
Clinton did his damnedest and he wasn't able to get I/P peace. Bush is betting that it just isn't possible over the short term (1 year), and I tend to agree. IJ, Hamas, and Iz al-Din all think they can liberate Palestine through violence, and they need to be given a chance to fail. As soon as they do, and give up on violent resistance, Sharon is toast with the voters. Then there will be a chance to negotiate peace. As long as the hotheads think they are being artificially constrained by a political process that is never going to deliver, violence will be attractive. Prove the inefficacy of violence and you take that away.
posted by ednopantz at 8:07 AM on February 28, 2003
The problem is not necessarily the strategy of the Bush Administration. It is the tactics. As George Patton was famous for saying, "A grand strategy isn't worth crap if you don't have good tactics to get you to your goal." In this case, current Administration has chosen poorly when it comes to tactics and alliance building.
There's two salient points/analogies to make here. Ronald Reagan, Bush Senior, and yes, even Clinton were all unilateralists. However, they knew how to talk the multilateral talk and make allies feel welcome and to appreciate their input. The current Administration, however, is a group a unilateralists who want everyone to know that they are unilateralists.
It's like when you and your buddies go out for dinner. There's always the one guy who wants to go to HIS place, regardless the opinions of everyone else. Sure you'll end up going along, but after a while you start talking about him behind his back and get resentful. You can either have it your way and be happy that everyone goes your way; or you can discuss and persuade and sometimes bend, but keep everyone happy and strong.
The current administration has forgotten how to separate friends and enemies. Honey won't catch our friend Osama, but vinegar will surely sour our relations with our friends.
posted by tgrundke at 8:10 AM on February 28, 2003
There's two salient points/analogies to make here. Ronald Reagan, Bush Senior, and yes, even Clinton were all unilateralists. However, they knew how to talk the multilateral talk and make allies feel welcome and to appreciate their input. The current Administration, however, is a group a unilateralists who want everyone to know that they are unilateralists.
It's like when you and your buddies go out for dinner. There's always the one guy who wants to go to HIS place, regardless the opinions of everyone else. Sure you'll end up going along, but after a while you start talking about him behind his back and get resentful. You can either have it your way and be happy that everyone goes your way; or you can discuss and persuade and sometimes bend, but keep everyone happy and strong.
The current administration has forgotten how to separate friends and enemies. Honey won't catch our friend Osama, but vinegar will surely sour our relations with our friends.
posted by tgrundke at 8:10 AM on February 28, 2003
Oderint dum metuant: Let them hate so long as they fear. (A favorite saying of Caligura.)
posted by Mo Nickels at 8:17 AM on February 28, 2003
posted by Mo Nickels at 8:17 AM on February 28, 2003
Beautiful, honorable, restorative...and noble. Thank you, John. Hopefully your brave words will lend others the courage they need to at long last speak against this insanity.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:34 AM on February 28, 2003
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:34 AM on February 28, 2003
However, they knew how to talk the multilateral talk and make allies feel welcome and to appreciate their input.
Absolutely, this admin needs better spokesmen. However, there are other problems: nobody believes what they say anyway, because they have constructed a straw man cowboy image and anything that doesn't fit (going to the UN, etc.) is disregarded.
posted by ednopantz at 8:45 AM on February 28, 2003
Absolutely, this admin needs better spokesmen. However, there are other problems: nobody believes what they say anyway, because they have constructed a straw man cowboy image and anything that doesn't fit (going to the UN, etc.) is disregarded.
posted by ednopantz at 8:45 AM on February 28, 2003
This is a true profile in courage.
Forward this letter to every diplomat you know in every embassy and consulate.
Wouldn't it be great if the movement started to
snowball and diplomats started resigning en masse all
over the planet!
But, alas, I fear that only a few have the guts John Brady Kiesling has. He is a real American hero.
posted by rwkenyon at 8:51 AM on February 28, 2003
Forward this letter to every diplomat you know in every embassy and consulate.
Wouldn't it be great if the movement started to
snowball and diplomats started resigning en masse all
over the planet!
But, alas, I fear that only a few have the guts John Brady Kiesling has. He is a real American hero.
posted by rwkenyon at 8:51 AM on February 28, 2003
because they have constructed a straw man cowboy image
After re-reading this a few times, I'm still not sure who "they" refers to above.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:51 AM on February 28, 2003
After re-reading this a few times, I'm still not sure who "they" refers to above.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:51 AM on February 28, 2003
After re-reading this a few times, I'm still not sure who "they" refers to above.
Me neither. Let's try again.
Absolutely, this admin needs better spokesmen. However, there are other problems: nobody believes what they say anyway, because critics have constructed a straw man cowboy image and anything that doesn't fit (going to the UN, etc.) is disregarded.
posted by ednopantz at 8:53 AM on February 28, 2003
Me neither. Let's try again.
Absolutely, this admin needs better spokesmen. However, there are other problems: nobody believes what they say anyway, because critics have constructed a straw man cowboy image and anything that doesn't fit (going to the UN, etc.) is disregarded.
posted by ednopantz at 8:53 AM on February 28, 2003
nofundy, why do you act like a fundy?
posted by quonsar
Uh-ho you're on to me... How very perceptive of you, I was wondering if anyone would ever notice the "crucify me" tone. Very good quonsar, you get a gold star for your powers of observation. Often the paper a gift is wrapped in can be as important as the gift itself. ;-)
posted by nofundy at 9:04 AM on February 28, 2003
posted by quonsar
Uh-ho you're on to me... How very perceptive of you, I was wondering if anyone would ever notice the "crucify me" tone. Very good quonsar, you get a gold star for your powers of observation. Often the paper a gift is wrapped in can be as important as the gift itself. ;-)
posted by nofundy at 9:04 AM on February 28, 2003
Bush/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz et al clearly had no respect for the UN in the first place. Having been convinced by Powell to go that route, they now continually make snide comments about the UN being "irrelevant" if it doesn't go along with them.
They built their own cowboy image.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:06 AM on February 28, 2003
They built their own cowboy image.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:06 AM on February 28, 2003
Interesting book for everyone out there that follows this discussion - The Anarchical Society by Hedley Bull. He discusses the idea of stability in the international system, and how stability is the basic underlying goal of a hegemoic power. It's in the great powers' interest to keep things nice and easy and convenient for trade, etc.
But he makes a more important point: That the hegemon cannot act recklessly and the hegemon cannot do as it wishes. The system will function well if the hegemon respects and works with its allies and partners and is not seen by others as being overly power-hungry, illegitimate, and reckless. It's a bit of a quid-pro-quo: You can be the big guy on campus, but let us have a say and work with us, not around us. That's the deal.
Bull makes a strong argument and based on his work I see the administration's current policies as undermining stability greatly, instead of building it.
posted by tgrundke at 10:45 AM on February 28, 2003
But he makes a more important point: That the hegemon cannot act recklessly and the hegemon cannot do as it wishes. The system will function well if the hegemon respects and works with its allies and partners and is not seen by others as being overly power-hungry, illegitimate, and reckless. It's a bit of a quid-pro-quo: You can be the big guy on campus, but let us have a say and work with us, not around us. That's the deal.
Bull makes a strong argument and based on his work I see the administration's current policies as undermining stability greatly, instead of building it.
posted by tgrundke at 10:45 AM on February 28, 2003
More straw men.
Their case isn't that the UNSC is irrelevant. Their case is that the UNSC is in danger of becoming irrelevant if it permits Iraq to violate another order to disarm.
posted by ednopantz at 10:50 AM on February 28, 2003
Their case isn't that the UNSC is irrelevant. Their case is that the UNSC is in danger of becoming irrelevant if it permits Iraq to violate another order to disarm.
posted by ednopantz at 10:50 AM on February 28, 2003
How is standing up to dictators contrary to American values? How is supporting the UNSC's 17 resolutions on Iraqi disarmament contrary to America's traditions? How about pledging to deliver people from fascism, no matter the questions of short term stability, a violation of America's values and vision?
I think you meant to say "how is standing up/supporting/pledging blah blah blah selectively as long as it suits our own monetary/power lust against American values", right? Feel free to explain your take on China, Iran, South Africa, Latin American dictatorships, our current Middle East dictatorship buddies, and so forth.
However, there are other problems: nobody believes what they say anyway, because critics have constructed a straw man cowboy image and anything that doesn't fit (going to the UN, etc.) is disregarded.
Doublethink alert. Any "critics" of "this admin" are themselves merely constructors of "straw man cowboy images".
Your own little straw man (or hasty generalization) seems to have passed through the intestinal tract of a male bovine on its way in here. And then you went and stepped in it.
Prove the inefficacy of violence and you take that away.
~guffaw~
I recommend we prove that by using violence. Who's with me?
~too many fish in one barrel~
But the subject of the thread, Kiesling? Hero.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:02 PM on February 28, 2003
I think you meant to say "how is standing up/supporting/pledging blah blah blah selectively as long as it suits our own monetary/power lust against American values", right? Feel free to explain your take on China, Iran, South Africa, Latin American dictatorships, our current Middle East dictatorship buddies, and so forth.
However, there are other problems: nobody believes what they say anyway, because critics have constructed a straw man cowboy image and anything that doesn't fit (going to the UN, etc.) is disregarded.
Doublethink alert. Any "critics" of "this admin" are themselves merely constructors of "straw man cowboy images".
Your own little straw man (or hasty generalization) seems to have passed through the intestinal tract of a male bovine on its way in here. And then you went and stepped in it.
Prove the inefficacy of violence and you take that away.
~guffaw~
I recommend we prove that by using violence. Who's with me?
~too many fish in one barrel~
But the subject of the thread, Kiesling? Hero.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:02 PM on February 28, 2003
If the UN becomes irrelevant there will be only BushCo to blame, no one else. Same thing for NATO and every other treaty and agreement they have broken, violated and/or withdrawn from.
posted by nofundy at 12:03 PM on February 28, 2003
posted by nofundy at 12:03 PM on February 28, 2003
And it only took him a solid year of Bushy sabre-rattling to do it, while he waited for a large enough opposition to the war to coalesce. Please forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by the "heroics." Just a cycnic, I guess. I still prefer my heroes to be heroes despite public opinion, rather than only when vetted by it.
posted by UncleFes at 12:29 PM on February 28, 2003
posted by UncleFes at 12:29 PM on February 28, 2003
and fyi, a "cycnic" is like a "cynic" - only MORE so! Bwa!
posted by UncleFes at 12:31 PM on February 28, 2003
posted by UncleFes at 12:31 PM on February 28, 2003
moonbiter: "From 1992 to 1994, five State Department officials quit out of frustration with the Clinton administration's Balkans policy."
1992? Didn't Clinton's term of office begin in 1993?
Anyway, substantively: yes, the man's deserving of respect. And what nofundy said: it'll be the US that turns the international system of conflict resolution into an irrelevance, and those who wail about it the loudest will be those crocodiles on the right who never wanted it there in the first place.
I still prefer my heroes to be heroes despite public opinion, rather than only when vetted by it.
The problem being that those who decide to take the mantle of a hero in the face of public opposition are more likely to be exposed as fools than recognised as heroes. Thinking that you can cultivate a Churchillian contrarianism and, so doing, emulate Churchill is even more dangerous than thinking you can drink a bottle of brandy a day and, so doing, emulate Churchill.
posted by riviera at 12:35 PM on February 28, 2003
1992? Didn't Clinton's term of office begin in 1993?
Anyway, substantively: yes, the man's deserving of respect. And what nofundy said: it'll be the US that turns the international system of conflict resolution into an irrelevance, and those who wail about it the loudest will be those crocodiles on the right who never wanted it there in the first place.
I still prefer my heroes to be heroes despite public opinion, rather than only when vetted by it.
The problem being that those who decide to take the mantle of a hero in the face of public opposition are more likely to be exposed as fools than recognised as heroes. Thinking that you can cultivate a Churchillian contrarianism and, so doing, emulate Churchill is even more dangerous than thinking you can drink a bottle of brandy a day and, so doing, emulate Churchill.
posted by riviera at 12:35 PM on February 28, 2003
Prove the inefficacy of violence and you take that away.
~guffaw~
I recommend we prove that by using violence.
Absolutely. The strong use violence because it works. When the weak try to do it they bring only misery. This needs to be demonstrated to them.
About four years ago, Israeli/Palestinian violence killed about 10 Palestinians for every Israeli. For the last two years, at maximum Palestinian violence, no holds barred, full out Intifada a go go, the ratio was 3/1. Palestinians considered this a great victory.
Since this summer, the IDF has targeted the Hamas leadership, operated deep in Gaza, arrested and got information from thousands of people, etc. and has brought the ratio back to 10/1.
So now that Hamas/IJ/ISQB are operating at full capacity, and finially getting the violent confrontation that they claimed was the only way to liberate Palestine, they are getting their asses kicked. The IDF is winning. Violence has failed the Palestinian nationalist cause. Nobody can claim that they were holding back their most effective weapon (violence) because they have tried it and it has backfired. Mainstream Palestinian nationalist leaders, the men who supported Barghuti's stones plus guns approach now realize their mistake.
Rule 1 of peacemaking, both sides must recognize they don't have a military option against the other. Most Israeli voters actually support Labor's withdraw and separate plan but won't back it until the Palestinians finally give up on violence as the solution to their problems. As soon as they do, there can be progress.
Violence of the strong is ugly, violence of the weak is just plain stupid.
posted by ednopantz at 12:36 PM on February 28, 2003
~guffaw~
I recommend we prove that by using violence.
Absolutely. The strong use violence because it works. When the weak try to do it they bring only misery. This needs to be demonstrated to them.
About four years ago, Israeli/Palestinian violence killed about 10 Palestinians for every Israeli. For the last two years, at maximum Palestinian violence, no holds barred, full out Intifada a go go, the ratio was 3/1. Palestinians considered this a great victory.
Since this summer, the IDF has targeted the Hamas leadership, operated deep in Gaza, arrested and got information from thousands of people, etc. and has brought the ratio back to 10/1.
So now that Hamas/IJ/ISQB are operating at full capacity, and finially getting the violent confrontation that they claimed was the only way to liberate Palestine, they are getting their asses kicked. The IDF is winning. Violence has failed the Palestinian nationalist cause. Nobody can claim that they were holding back their most effective weapon (violence) because they have tried it and it has backfired. Mainstream Palestinian nationalist leaders, the men who supported Barghuti's stones plus guns approach now realize their mistake.
Rule 1 of peacemaking, both sides must recognize they don't have a military option against the other. Most Israeli voters actually support Labor's withdraw and separate plan but won't back it until the Palestinians finally give up on violence as the solution to their problems. As soon as they do, there can be progress.
Violence of the strong is ugly, violence of the weak is just plain stupid.
posted by ednopantz at 12:36 PM on February 28, 2003
I salute John Kiesling for his integrity and eloquence. His actions are indeed heroic.
posted by azazello at 3:57 PM on February 28, 2003
posted by azazello at 3:57 PM on February 28, 2003
Since this is the diplomat thread, here is an interview with Joseph Wilson, the last senior American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. He was the acting ambassador at the US Embassy in Iraq 12 years ago during Desert Shield, the lead-up to the first Gulf War.
posted by homunculus at 5:53 PM on February 28, 2003
posted by homunculus at 5:53 PM on February 28, 2003
Yay! I wonder what more it will take for people to become mobilized before Bush & Co become unstoppable. Do you think they already are?
posted by techgirl at 10:45 PM on February 28, 2003
posted by techgirl at 10:45 PM on February 28, 2003
they are getting their asses kicked
well, it's highly debatable: Palestinians are being slaughtered with media reports on a daily basis and a high ratio of civilian casualties -- it's a huge propaganda _victory_ in the Arab and also Muslim world, the part of the world the terrorists really care about (they know the US will never be on their side). They've gained sympathy among the Israel-haters and demonstrated Israelis "ruthlessness" and made public relations hay of the all-but-destroyed Palestianian Authority and the increasingly terrible conditions of day-to-day life in the West Bank. They can safely tell a billion muslims (extremists and not) that the Great Israel is a reality and the Occupied Territories are lost forever. As we discuss this topic here, the propaganda in the Arab world can happily turn the War on Iraq into the "War of the Jews against the Muslims" (run by proxy by their American supporters, of course)
They're not getting their asses kicked, au contraire: they've made sure there will be no peace process in the foreseeable future, they've polarized the Israeli public opinion losing all the Israeli moderates and progressives, thus ensuring that a Palestinian State will never happen. This way, the Osamas of the world will be able to inveigh against the Jews and their American ally, and recruit terrorists, and receive funding, and plot new deaths
won't back it until the Palestinians finally give up on violence as the solution to their problems. As soon as they do, there can be progress.
Thus effectively giving the keys to peace process in the terrorist's hands -- they're the ones who never want a Palestinian State and peace, they want violence and unrest because their goal is to kick the Jews out of the region entirely. Sharon has been all too happy to oblige. I suppose Rabin (and even Baraq) had other ideas, but anyway
posted by matteo at 4:19 AM on March 1, 2003
well, it's highly debatable: Palestinians are being slaughtered with media reports on a daily basis and a high ratio of civilian casualties -- it's a huge propaganda _victory_ in the Arab and also Muslim world, the part of the world the terrorists really care about (they know the US will never be on their side). They've gained sympathy among the Israel-haters and demonstrated Israelis "ruthlessness" and made public relations hay of the all-but-destroyed Palestianian Authority and the increasingly terrible conditions of day-to-day life in the West Bank. They can safely tell a billion muslims (extremists and not) that the Great Israel is a reality and the Occupied Territories are lost forever. As we discuss this topic here, the propaganda in the Arab world can happily turn the War on Iraq into the "War of the Jews against the Muslims" (run by proxy by their American supporters, of course)
They're not getting their asses kicked, au contraire: they've made sure there will be no peace process in the foreseeable future, they've polarized the Israeli public opinion losing all the Israeli moderates and progressives, thus ensuring that a Palestinian State will never happen. This way, the Osamas of the world will be able to inveigh against the Jews and their American ally, and recruit terrorists, and receive funding, and plot new deaths
won't back it until the Palestinians finally give up on violence as the solution to their problems. As soon as they do, there can be progress.
Thus effectively giving the keys to peace process in the terrorist's hands -- they're the ones who never want a Palestinian State and peace, they want violence and unrest because their goal is to kick the Jews out of the region entirely. Sharon has been all too happy to oblige. I suppose Rabin (and even Baraq) had other ideas, but anyway
posted by matteo at 4:19 AM on March 1, 2003
The strong use violence because it works. When the weak try to do it they bring only misery. This needs to be demonstrated to them
Spoken like a true Stalinist.
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:24 PM on March 1, 2003
Spoken like a true Stalinist.
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:24 PM on March 1, 2003
Joseph Wilson, the last US diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein, has written this article on what he thinks is behind the upcoming war.
posted by homunculus at 10:35 AM on March 2, 2003
posted by homunculus at 10:35 AM on March 2, 2003
is his opinion supposed to count more because he's a diplomat? aren't a lot of spies diplomats?
posted by techgnollogic at 2:43 PM on March 2, 2003
posted by techgnollogic at 2:43 PM on March 2, 2003
« Older What am I thinking? | White House Briefing Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I'm glad he had the courage of his convictions, but it means one less good person in government service, at a time when we need many more of them.
posted by amberglow at 6:16 AM on February 28, 2003