Diplomat Resigns

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

This is pretty well-written stuff.

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The State Department expressed regret Thursday over the decision of a veteran career diplomat to resign because of President Bush's "fervent pursuit of war with Iraq."

 

J. Brady Kiesling, political officer at the U.S. embassy in Athens, said in a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell that Bush's policies are "driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon" for the past century.

 

The letter was quoted by The New York Times. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher confirmed that Powell had received a letter from Kiesling.

 

"This is a place where people have all kinds of ways of expressing their views," Boucher said. "It's too bad the gentleman didn't feel he could continue in the Foreign Service, given his views. But these things happen."

 

A State Department official, speaking privately, said the views among department officials about Iraq tend to mirror the same divisions present in American society as a whole.

 

Kiesling has been a diplomat for about 20 years and had postings in the Middle East, Armenia and Greece.

 

In 1994, Kiesling received the William R. Rivkin Award "for constructive dissent" from the American Foreign Service Association, the professional organization of the U.S. Foreign Service.

 

The award recognizes midlevel officers "who have demonstrated the courage to challenge the system from within, no matter the issue or the consequences of their actions."

 

At the time of the Bosnian war a decade ago, several State Department official resigned because they felt the United States was not doing enough to prevent the Serb slaughter of Muslims in that conflict.

 

This is the text of his letter, from the NY Times:

 

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

 

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

 

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

 

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

 

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

 

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto?

 

I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

 

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.

 

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

[cawthon777 0]

No one likes a quitter.

 

Watch out, big bad Bush will get you with his imperialistic ideals. Here comes LBJ 2. (heavy on the sarcasm)

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

Wow. Impressive. Respectful and scathing at the same time. My hats off to Mr. Keisling.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

No one likes a quitter.

 

Watch out, big bad Bush will get you with his imperialistic ideals. Here comes LBJ 2. (heavy on the sarcasm)

He's quitting because he believes the current administration's policy is not only wrong, but hurting American interests. He does not wish to hurt America's interests, and thus is quitting.

[Guest LooseCannon]

I'm still in the process of evaluating how I feel about this war in Iraq thing. I find this letter very interesting and persuasive and I respect the opinion being expressed, though I'm still a bit on the fence. I do wonder about the motives behind the letter though and how it was leaked to the press.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

According to the Times, they received it from his friend. Colin Powell received it via fax.

[Guest LooseCannon]

I'm just wondering if there's not a little bit of grandstanding going on here. Is he going to become another media whore maybe?

[cawthon777 0]

According to the Times, they received it from his friend. Colin Powell received it via fax.

Find it interesting that it ended up in the Times' hands. They're pretty anti-Bush to begin with.

[cawthon777 0]

No one likes a quitter.

 

Watch out, big bad Bush will get you with his imperialistic ideals.  Here comes LBJ 2.  (heavy on the sarcasm)

He's quitting because he believes the current administration's policy is not only wrong, but hurting American interests. He does not wish to hurt America's interests, and thus is quitting.

I have no doubt that's his perspective. It's just ... well ... wrong.

 

I would think that American safety is a bit more important than whether or not we piss off the useless UN or anti-American countries like France or Germany.

[Guest NoCalMike]

It is a good read and am guessing it is a respected viewpoint. Whether it will sway anyone's opinion, well that stands to be seen.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

This guy could of written Colin Powell is letter of resignation and not had it leaked to the New York Times.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I have no doubt that's his perspective.  It's just ... well ... wrong.

 

I would think that American safety is a bit more important than whether or not we piss off the useless UN or anti-American countries like France or Germany.

Oh Jesus, the "COME DOWN FROM YOUR IVORY TOWER, PROFESSOR!" card has been drawn twice now. Appeal to popularity and ignorance all you want, we all know it's bullshit.

 

This man knows far more about the situation than you do. He's been involved in our government and in our relations with foreign nations since the Reagan administration, which makes him far more qualified than idiots working in 7-11s who are sure Saddam is a bad fella, but couldn't find Iraq on a map, and have a memory span of five years. A cry of "LOL YOU KNOW NOTHING" from someone's couch before switching to SmackDown means nothing.

[Guest LooseCannon]

This man knows far more about the situation than you do. He's been involved in our government and in our relations with foreign nations since the Reagan administration, which makes him far more qualified than idiots working in 7-11s who are sure Saddam is a bad fella, but couldn't find Iraq on a map, and have a memory span of five years. A cry of "LOL YOU KNOW NOTHING" from someone's couch before switching to SmackDown means nothing.

This is undoubtedly true. Yet at the same time, presumably the top members of the administration know more about everything involved than anyone, including this guy. And for me, as someone sitting on the fence, I wonder if with my inadequate knowledge I should trust those we've put in power to deal with situations like this. I'm not talking about blind faith or anything, but there seems to me that there's a certain amount of trust we should put in our leaders. A rebuttable presumption, if you will, that they are doing the right thing. I'm not sure that that presumption has been rebutted yet. But nevertheless, there are these nagging doubts that makes me wonder if this is the best course of action. This guy, so far, to me seems to have the most legitimacy by virtue of his position of all the people who have raised criticisms.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well I give the guy's opinion higher marks because at least he isn't trying to say all this mess started with the Bush administration. He says it has been going on for awhile, but not it is over the top.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

This guy could of written Colin Powell is letter of resignation and not had it leaked to the New York Times.

This man dedicated all of his professional life spreading the American gospel in foreign countries as a public servant. Quit measuring everyone with a Live Journal ruler. The sheer simplicity of your thought amazes me.

 

I don't understand why everyone is trying to see all this in terms of binary fact like thingies. BLACK or WHITE. RIGHT or WRONG. The guy's personal feelings and values are what is causing him to make the only stand he can, which is quitting and firing off a letter to the world. If he stayed in his job and wrote the letter, it would either be ignored or considered some form of insubordination. He's just a diplomat, not an effin' cabinet member or such.

 

This "Safety First!" stuff is complete and utter nonsense. The problem you have is equating american safety with blowing up some tinpot dictator. What you have yet to grasp is that terrorists benefit from this sort of action, they thrive on an alienated muslim and arab world, they thrive on an increase in underworld activity, and they will be able to handily capitalise on the impact of this move. Terrorism is a form of force that resists conventional assault. That is the whole reason it's a threat.

 

Furthemore, that assesment of 'america hating nations' is laughably ignorant. You're doing exactly what I posted about- you ignore these people, dismissing them, no matter what's going on. Then, later on when that dismissive arrogance comes around and bites you in the ass, you're all 'omg wtf u evil american haters!!' as if you didn't deserve it. Good relations with these countries, as this guy notes, hold FAR MORE OF A SAFETY BENEFIT THAN THE WAR IN IRAQ. Good inteligence, international pursuit of criminals, collective aid programms aimed at improving various regions, THESE are the things that end terrorism. Unfortunatly, not only has bush and co deeply offended these people, but they have made the type of moves that show them to be a genuine threat to these nations- who will likely end up bearing the burden of an inflamed middle east, far moreso than the united states.

 

I am staggered by the stupidity inherent in this argument. You honestly can't seem to grasp how constructed the threat of iraq is, how utterly laughable the notion of this war is, when one comes to consider the genuine threat of terrorism and the genuine steps that must be taken to combat it. You must have the mentality of a child if you honestly think that criticising an american government equates to hatred of america.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

This guy could of written Colin Powell is letter of resignation and not had it leaked to the New York Times.

This man dedicated all of his professional life spreading the American gospel in foreign countries as a public servant. Quit measuring everyone with a Live Journal ruler. The sheer simplicity of your thought amazes me.

 

I don't understand why everyone is trying to see all this in terms of binary fact like thingies. BLACK or WHITE. RIGHT or WRONG. The guy's personal feelings and values are what is causing him to make the only stand he can, which is quitting and firing off a letter to the world. If he stayed in his job and wrote the letter, it would either be ignored or considered some form of insubordination. He's just a diplomat, not an effin' cabinet member or such.

 

This "Safety First!" stuff is complete and utter nonsense. The problem you have is equating american safety with blowing up some tinpot dictator. What you have yet to grasp is that terrorists benefit from this sort of action, they thrive on an alienated muslim and arab world, they thrive on an increase in underworld activity, and they will be able to handily capitalise on the impact of this move. Terrorism is a form of force that resists conventional assault. That is the whole reason it's a threat.

 

Furthemore, that assesment of 'america hating nations' is laughably ignorant. You're doing exactly what I posted about- you ignore these people, dismissing them, no matter what's going on. Then, later on when that dismissive arrogance comes around and bites you in the ass, you're all 'omg wtf u evil american haters!!' as if you didn't deserve it. Good relations with these countries, as this guy notes, hold FAR MORE OF A SAFETY BENEFIT THAN THE WAR IN IRAQ. Good inteligence, international pursuit of criminals, collective aid programms aimed at improving various regions, THESE are the things that end terrorism. Unfortunatly, not only has bush and co deeply offended these people, but they have made the type of moves that show them to be a genuine threat to these nations- who will likely end up bearing the burden of an inflamed middle east, far moreso than the united states.

 

I am staggered by the stupidity inherent in this argument. You honestly can't seem to grasp how constructed the threat of iraq is, how utterly laughable the notion of this war is, when one comes to consider the genuine threat of terrorism and the genuine steps that must be taken to combat it. You must have the mentality of a child if you honestly think that criticising an american government equates to hatred of america.

So it's out of the question to ask why the letter was leaked. You can go ahead and believe his only purpose is tell the World how frustrated he is and why he had to resign. I have a hard time believing that public figures don't have more than one purpose.

 

Hussein is a tinpot dictator. Guess gassing thousands of Kurds doesn't mean anything.

 

I'm curious to see if this guy is on TV. Did he consider what Germany, France, and Russia have to gain by keeping Hussein in power.

[cawthon777 0]

I have no doubt that's his perspective.  It's just ... well ... wrong.

 

I would think that American safety is a bit more important than whether or not we piss off the useless UN or anti-American countries like France or Germany.

Oh Jesus, the "COME DOWN FROM YOUR IVORY TOWER, PROFESSOR!" card has been drawn twice now. Appeal to popularity and ignorance all you want, we all know it's bullshit.

 

This man knows far more about the situation than you do. He's been involved in our government and in our relations with foreign nations since the Reagan administration, which makes him far more qualified than idiots working in 7-11s who are sure Saddam is a bad fella, but couldn't find Iraq on a map, and have a memory span of five years. A cry of "LOL YOU KNOW NOTHING" from someone's couch before switching to SmackDown means nothing.

You know, if you want to debate something - that's fine. There's no need for going all 10-year-old and coming up with the most random and moronic insults you can come up with to try to change my opinion.

 

Rumsfeld has been involved in our government well before Reagan came along. And, being the head of the Department of Defense, wouldn't you think he might know more than this random diplomat who spends most of his time overseas trying to appease anyone and everyone?

 

I'm well aware of where Iraq is, I'm too busy with college to work at 7-11, and I have a very vivid memory thank you very much.

 

How about you get off your own high horse?

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

Did he consider what Germany, France, and Russia have to gain by keeping Hussein in power.

I plead ignorance to this... what do they have to gain by keeping Hussein in power?

[Guest DrTom]

I plead ignorance to this... what do they have to gain by keeping Hussein in power?

Very favorable oil deals that they're unlikely to get from a new regime.

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

I thought Russia was producing/refining their own oil supply?

[Guest BDC]

Follow the money trail. If Russia sells their oil, they make profit. Take some of that profit and buy cheap oil then you've got a difference in terms of cash.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Rumsfeld has been involved in our government well before Reagan came along. And, being the head of the Department of Defense, wouldn't you think he might know more than this random diplomat who spends most of his time overseas trying to appease anyone and everyone?

Rummie is a fucking joke. Don't come on this forum expecting rummie-luv to be taken serously.

 

Hussein is a tinpot dictator. Guess gassing thousands of Kurds doesn't mean anything.

 

Neither does a claim with no genuine evidence to back it up. And even if he had gassed SOME kurds at one, finite point in time, it's nothing on the scale of destruction that an invasion will likely bring.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well just the fact that when the gassing actually took place we didn't seem to care, but now it is convienent to bring it up as a reason to go to war. I don't see how the "he gassed the kurds" argument is sufficient

[Guest B-X]

Just as a point of reference, The Defense Department has ordered 15,000 body bags for the upcoming war. They have some 34,000 in stock right now.

 

Also, they have ordered some 9,000 Purple Hearts to be manufactered in "Dont Mess With" Texas.

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

Very favorable oil deals that they're unlikely to get from a new regime.

And what of the deals we'll get from the regime that WE handpick to replace Saddam? There goes that "This war isn't about oil" farce...

[Guest B-X]

I think the content of Toms msg was that France and Germany were opposed to the war because Iraq currently favors these nations as far as oil prices and distribution are concerned.

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

Right. Just like the "future Iraq" that Bush/Blair puts in place will likely repay them with favorable oil prices.

[Guest DrTom]

And what of the deals we'll get from the regime that WE handpick to replace Saddam? There goes that "This war isn't about oil" farce...

If the war were about oil, don't you think we would have gone over there and done something before now? Hell, with the Venezuelan situation pushing the price of crude thru the roof, we've had a perfect window to pillage Iraq and take its oil. And yet... we haven't.

 

The leader of the largest opposition faction (like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan) has said that, if his group replaces the Saddam regime, all existing oil deals will be torn up. This would include ours. While it's possible we may get a beneficial deal from them, there's no guarantee they're going to give us one, and there's really nothing we can do if they don't. Unless, perhaps you think we'll keep propping up and tearing down regimes until one of them gives us a good oil deal?

 

While it's naive to think that oil isn't on anyone's mind when they talk about war, it's infinitely more naive to presume that's our sole or predominant reason for going over there. In addition to oil, Iraq also has large amounts of sand. Best check your head before it becomes buried.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

The leader of the largest opposition faction (like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan) has said that, if his group replaces the Saddam regime, all existing oil deals will be torn up. This would include ours. While it's possible we may get a beneficial deal from them, there's no guarantee they're going to give us one, and there's really nothing we can do if they don't.

Except that:

 

A) The U.S. plans on running Iraq for a few years before giving it up

-and-

B) Do you really think they're going to cut us out of the oil plans? I mean, really. "Gee, Mr. Bush, you've restarted our country and given us plenty of money and protection. How can we ever repay you?"

 

 

I'm not saying this war is for oil but to say that the U.S. will not consider exploiting the oil in this situation is rather foolish.

[cawthon777 0]

Rumsfeld has been involved in our government well before Reagan came along.  And, being the head of the Department of Defense, wouldn't you think he might know more than this random diplomat who spends most of his time overseas trying to appease anyone and everyone?

Rummie is a fucking joke. Don't come on this forum expecting rummie-luv to be taken serously.

 

Hussein is a tinpot dictator. Guess gassing thousands of Kurds doesn't mean anything.

 

Neither does a claim with no genuine evidence to back it up. And even if he had gassed SOME kurds at one, finite point in time, it's nothing on the scale of destruction that an invasion will likely bring.

So basically what you just said was "I don't like you being able to back up your claims, so I'm going to discredit what you said cause I'm right and you're wrong."

 

Bottom line, has anyone here heard of this random diplomat before now? No. So why should we kiss his feet for speaking his mind and leaking it to the press to aid the anti-war movement PR battle? It's not a big loss.

 

Fact: Saddam has slaughtered hundereds of thousands of his people since coming into power in 1979. I repeat, fact. A good number of those were Kurds. That's how he tests his chemical weapons.