Fighting Terrorism in Trans Sahara Africa

Crossposted from our new home blog,They gave us a republic...
In 2004, the US Government realized that it needed to do something about the spread of terrorism in Trans-Saharan Africa:

U.S. Gen. Charles Wald, deputy commander of the European Central Command, has been warning Congress and the Pentagon for months that al Qaeda-affiliated groups are active in Mauritania, Mali, Chad and Niger. The trade in diamonds used by terrorist groups, begun under the protection of former Liberian strongman Charles Taylor, continues despite international efforts to curb it. "The terrorist activity in this area is not going to go away," Wald warned recently. "This could affect your kids and your grandchildren in a huge way. If we don't do something about it, we are going to have a real problem on our hands."

Unfortunately, the efforts since then have mostly failed, due to a lack of cooperation between the State Department and the Department of Defense.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report that shows that the US State Department, the Department of Defense, and the USAID Agency are having key issues with regards to stopping the spread of terrorism throughout Trans-Sahara Africa. The Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP)was set up to coordinate efforts to stop the spread of terrorism into the region.

First, the agencies lack a comprehensive, integrated strategy for their TSCTP activities, and the documents used in planning the activities do not prioritize proposed activities or identify milestones needed to measure progress or make improvements.

Second, disagreements about whether State should have authority over DOD personnel temporarily assigned to conduct TSCTP activities in partner countries have led to DOD's suspending some activities, for example, in Niger.

Third, fluctuation in State's and USAID's distribution of funds for TSCTP resulted in suspension of a peace-building program in Mali.

Fourth, although the agencies measure activities' outputs, such as the number of foreign military personnel trained, they do not measure their activities' outcomes in combating terrorism--for instance, any decrease in extremism in the targeted countries.

This region is familiar to anyone who understands that the spread of Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Trans-Sahara region is of great concern to our European allies.



Simply implementing programs and activities that would help these countries better fight the spread of terrorism has run into the usual challenges--State and DoD can't collaborate on anything, and this goes back to the way Don Rumsfeld operated, which, in most cases, was often in contradiction to the efforts of the State Department:

Several factors have hampered the key agencies’ ability to collaboratively implement TSCTP activities, in some cases limiting their ability to achieve or assess progress in combating terrorism and inhibiting the spread of extremist ideology.

First, no comprehensive, integrated strategy has been developed to guide the agencies’ activities, and documents used in planning program activities have not included some elements that we have identified as needed in an interagency counterterrorism program’s strategic plan.

Second, despite some collaboration at the headquarters level, disagreement between State and DOD about whether State should have authority over DOD personnel temporarily assigned to conduct TSCTP activities in the partner countries has contributed to the suspension of some of these activities.

Third, fluctuation in the distribution of obligations for TSCTP in Mali resulted in the suspension of some program activities.

Fourth, although the agencies have indicators to measure activities’ direct results, the agencies have not yet developed the capability to measure and report on overall progress toward program goals.

Take a close look at this distribution of funds:



These are relatively small amounts of assistance and aid, but of note should be the assistance given to Mauritania, which just underwent another coup that saw the President and the Prime Minister arrested. Instability in countries like Mauritania are one reason why terrorists might locate there and take advantage of the political situation.

Most of our assistance is going to Niger, in hopes of slowing the spread of terrorism there. Overall, though, it doesn't matter who gets what because the GAO has uncovered a decidedly common lack of focus on the part of the US State Department:

To enhance U.S. agencies’ ability to collaborate in strengthening country and regional counterterrorism capabilities and inhibiting the spread of extremist ideology in northwest Africa, we recommend that the Secretary of State work through the Director of Foreign Assistance, who serves concurrently as USAID Administrator, to develop a comprehensive strategy for the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership in conjunction with the Secretaries of Defense and the Treasury, the U.S. Attorney General, and the heads of any other partner agencies. The strategy should include clear goals, objectives, and milestones, including output and outcome indicators, and identify resources needed to achieve the program’s goals.

We also recommend that the Secretaries of State and Defense develop and issue joint guidance with regard to DOD personnel temporarily assigned to conduct TSCTP activities in the partner countries.

No one could reasonably expect Secretary Rice to be fired before the end of the Bush Administration, but this is one more issue that will land in the lap of the next Secretary of State, thanks to the neglect and the lack of interest in fighting the actual spread of terrorism in the world. The US military now has a command dedicated to Africa--AFRICOM--but will it focus on stopping terrorism or on keeping the flow of oil moving out of Nigeria?

Remember to update your blogrolls and bookmarks with our new domain name, They gave us a republic...

Rice Bars US Embassies From Helping Candidates--AFTER McCain Got Help From US Embassy in Colombia

Someone on Capitol Hill needs to bring the Secretary of State before their committee and start asking some very pointed questions--as in, "are you going to use the State Department to influence the Presidential election?"

The night before presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) left for Afghanistan, Iraq and Western Europe for a tour of US bases overseas, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a cable to US missions forbidding them from holding events for presidential candidates or arrange meetings for them.

Rice issued no such cable prior to foreign excursions by presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

In a cable sent late Thursday, according to a copy leaked to the Washington Times, Rice enjoined American diplomats to treat the candidates as "members of Congress visiting in personal or semi-personal capacities," but "with additional restrictions based on rules related to political activity."

That's right--she didn't instruct officials at the US Embassy in Colombia to treat John McCain like this. In fact, US Embassy officials went with him on his ridiculous boat ride junket:

McCain and his wife, Cindy, were briefed on interdiction efforts then toured the bay in a fast boat, named “Midnight Express 39,” with U.S. Embassy officials, Colombian military and government officials and the Secret Service. The boat is part of a 12-boat drug interdiction fleet that the Colombian navy bought from the United States with funds from Plan Colombia – the 10-year, $5-billion-dollar U.S. program.

McCain, dressed in khakis, a blue-and-white button-down shirt and a Navy baseball cap, arrived with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).

Coincidentally, Obama has Senators Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed with him--one Republican and one Democrat. McCain couldn't even be bothered to take a Democrat with him.

This is an outrageous abuse of power. The Hatch Act has never meant anything to these people, nor has restraint or common decency. Every time someone criticizes the left wing blogosphere for using obscenities or expressing outrage needs to understand something--the Republicans in this country abuse their power on a daily basis in ways no one ever thought possible without regret or remorse.

If the full weight of the Executive Branch is now going to align itself with the McCain campaign, then the US Congress better step in and stop it by any means necessary.

--WS

There is no Secret Plan that Changes the Presidential Line of Succession

I'm not buying the argument that Ronald Reagan made some dastardly change to the order of Presidential succession. I'm not saying he didn't--it's possible. But amending a document for "speed and clarity" does not equate to amending the document to change the order of Presidential succession.

New Yorker writer Jane Mayer's new book, The Dark Side, opens with a shocker. Apparently sometime in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan issued a "secret executive order" that in the event of the death of the president and the vice president "established a means of re-creating the executive branch." Reagan's order violated the express terms of the Constitution and governing statutes.

Does a similar order exist today? We aren't told. But we do know that Dick Cheney participated in the secret "doomsday" exercises under the Reagan order, and given his central role at present, it is imperative for Congress to find out.

Right away, I can tell you that is that were the case, Republicans who served in the Reagan and Bush administrations would have never allowed that to continue during eight years of the Clinton Presidency. They would have spoken up if that were the case. The insecurity and pride of Newt Gingrich is proof enough that whatever changes were made did not stand between him and Executive power.

I think that's barking up the wrong tree. The Dick Cheney of the 1980s was a vastly different public figure than the one so caricatured today. This is a man who, as of the mid 1990s, was still sane as far as whether we should have deposed Saddam Hussein when he indicated that overthrowing Saddam's regime wasn't worth American lives. His importance during the Reagan administration is overblown--he was a frequent critic of the Reagan administration. (They weren't conservative enough for him, and that's why he was more of a threat to school lunches than subverting the ascension of the Speaker of the House to the Presidency.)

Without knowing what Reagan did, it's not easy to judge the severity of the changes. From a strictly by-the-book interpretation of our laws, you could produce list after list of examples where the law wasn't followed to the letter by each and every administration and where nothing was done about it.

Any "doomsday" planning in that era would have centered around nuclear holocaust--not terrorism. Terrorists in the 1980s hijacked planes and gathered in small cells to kidnap people. They did not bring down nation-states and threaten to wipe out elected governments.

I wouldn't spend much time worrying about the Presidential line of succession. It's already pretty quirky as it is--and we need to clarify the standing of cabinet secretaries and make it a practice to confirm at least one or two BEFORE the inauguration of the President (and ensure they are NOT at the inaugural itself) in order to ensure proper succession.

"President Michael Armacost" is a phrase with a familiar ring to it in the nation's capital, for Armacost served ably as Brookings' fifth president from 1995-2002. But Armacost might have become president not of Brookings, but of the United States. Had that happened, he would have needed all the leadership skills he had honed at the highest levels of U.S. foreign service—and perhaps more. For an Armacost presidency would have come about because of a catastrophic terrorist attack, combined with potentially disabling quirks in the U.S. presidential succession system.

The story begins on January 20, 1989, at the inauguration of the 41st president, George H. W. Bush. At noon on that day, President Ronald Reagan's term expired, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist administered the oath of office to Bush. What if, during that ceremony, terrorists had flown a plane into the West front of the Capitol, where the inauguration ceremony was taking place, or set off a powerful bomb? The result would have been chaos. Any attack against U.S. political leadership is a threat to national security, but the inauguration is the most vulnerable time for the government, when the mechanisms for providing an orderly transfer of power to a presidential successor threaten to break down.

President Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle were, of course, present at the ceremony. Next in line of succession were Speaker of the House Jim Wright and Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd, both of whom attended the inauguration. A devastating terrorist attack would have killed all of them along with many members of Congress and several Supreme Court justices, including the chief justice.

So who would have been president? Next in line after the speaker and the president pro tem are the cabinet officers in the chronological order of the creation of their departments. But which cabinet? Because the attack came on Inauguration Day, George Bush had not yet nominated his cabinet. A several-hour interval always ensues between a new president's taking office at noon and Senate confirmation of the cabinet.

So in the case of a calamitous attack at an inauguration, the new president would have no cabinet, and the presidency would pass to the cabinet members of the previous administration. A presidential term has a beginning and end defined by the Constitution. At noon on January 20, 1989, the terms of President Reagan and Vice President Bush ended. But the terms of cabinet members are not constitutionally limited. Cabinet members stay in office until they resign, die, are impeached and convicted, or are removed by a president. So any of Reagan's cabinet members who had not resigned at noon would have remained in the line of succession. And in 1989, several additional wrinkles would have complicated still further the transfer of power from Reagan to Bush—highlighting yet again the difficulties in our presidential succession system. Three of Reagan's cabinet members—Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, and Education Secretary Lauro Cavazos—stayed on after his term ended, as Bush had asked them to serve in his new administration. Reagan's other cabinet secretaries resigned at noon, leaving their departments in the hands of acting secretaries.

According to the Presidential Succession Act, an acting secretary of a department is in the line of succession as long as he or she has been confirmed by the Senate for some position. On January 20, 1989, at noon, Reagan's secretary of state, George Shultz, had resigned, as had the number-two person in the State Department, John Whitehead. The number-three person at State, the undersecretary for political affairs, who became acting secretary of state, was Michael Armacost. As the secretary of state is first among the cabinet in the line of succession, Armacost would have become president of the United States.

Good stuff. More akin to a Clancy or Le Carre novel, but good stuff nonetheless.

We're a long way from normalcy, aren't we?

Gates Makes His Case to Stay on at Defense

While we're not huge fans of some of his earlier work, we bear a grudging respect for what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been doing--and saying--as of late. It's too bad the Republicans went out and found a Secretary of Defense who, essentially, rips the guts out of every argument John McCain and his surrogates have been making this year.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned yesterday against the risk of a "creeping militarization" of U.S. foreign policy, saying the State Department should lead U.S. engagement with other countries, with the military playing a supporting role.

"We cannot kill or capture our way to victory" in the long-term campaign against terrorism, Gates said, arguing that military action should be subordinate to political and economic efforts to undermine extremism.

I can't wait for the outcry--Secretary Gates has basically undercut the rationale for staying in Iraq, effectively debunking the myth that if we don't fight them over there, we'll end up having to fight them over here. He has put the onus on Secretary Rice, who has never been up to the task. Her State Department is a shambles, with hundreds of key positions unfilled for months and years.

Every time McCain talks about attacking Iran, staying in Iraq, or using war as the instrument of our foreign policy--he should be hammered with this quote from Gates. McCain's manly boast about "I know how to win wars" should have been met with laughter and derision. Instead, the Man Crush continues.

We don't need another Richard Cohen type situation--Gates should not be kept by a possible Obama administration, if only because we need to develop Democrats who can effectively lead on defense issues.

[h/t to Juan Cole]

--WS

Now Go and Get Him

Will the international community allow Sudan to continue to be ruled by a genocidal thug? Let's hope not. The next step is to go and get Omar al-Bashir.

The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court filed genocide charges Monday against Sudan's president, accusing him of masterminding attempts to wipe out African tribes in Darfur with a campaign of murder, rape and deportation.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo asked a three-judge panel at the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir to prevent the slow deaths of some 2.5 million people forced from their homes in Darfur and still under attack from government-backed janjaweed militia.

"Genocide is a crime of intention - we don't need to wait until these 2.5 million die," he said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"The genocide is ongoing," he added, saying systematic rape was a key element of the campaign. "Seventy-year-old women, 6-year-old girls are raped," he said.

The lack of action on the part of the US and the rest of the world with regards to Darfur is one of the great failures of this decade. Arresting and trying al-Bashir starts a process of rectifying this failure. What should come next is a unified attempt to redress the horrors of Darfur and stabilize the region.

Moreno-Ocampo was undeterred by concern that his indictment against Al-Bashir might ignite a storm of vengeance against Darfur refugees and lead to the closing of Sudan's doors to relief agencies and possibly peacekeeping troops.

"I am a prosecutor doing a judicial case," he said.

Al-Bashir "wants to end the history of the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa people. I don't have the luxury to look away. I have evidence," the prosecutor said in a statement.

Strong stuff. Where the hell is our State Department, by the way? I read this story from CNN.com and there's no mention of the US State Department. There's a casual mention that we have "characterized" what is going on as genocide. Well, what the fuck are we doing about it? That's my question.

Attack on the US Consulate in Turkey

Despite relocating the consulate to another location and heavily fortifying it, the US Consulate in Istanbul was tested today in a fierce gunbattle:

Unidentified gunmen opened fire on Turkish security guards outside the United States Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, on Wednesday and at least three officers were killed, the governor of Istanbul said.

Governor Muammer Guler, quoted by Reuters, said one of the policemen died at the scene after a 15-minute gun battle.

Three attackers were killed and others were being sought, the semi-official Anatolian news agency said.

Crowds and police milled around the 15-foot high high walls sheltering the American compound and police cordoned off the area. A helicopter was seen hovering above. Television footage showed one body lying on the ground, but news reports from Istanbul said up to six people may have died.

American officials said no employees or officials at the consulate had been killed.

Fundamentalism continues to march through Turkey, and that's another reason why we decry the lack of a functioning State Department.

--WS

Here's Why We Need a Truman Committee

I hate to write about something that's going to upset people so early in the morning, but how can anyone stomach the incompetence and the greed and the corruption of the political appointees of the Bush Administration?

A House investigative committee has learned that the American ambassador to Albania knew evidence of Chinese origins was being removed last year from an ammunition shipment before a U.S. contractor sent the material to Afghanistan, said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the panel.

This month, Maj. Larry Harrison, a Pentagon official at the U.S. Embassy in Albania, told staff members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that Ambassador John L. Withers II held a late-night meeting with Albania's defense minister. After the Nov. 19 meeting, the order was given to Albanian officers "to remove all evidence of Chinese packaging" from the ammunition, Waxman said in a letter sent yesterday to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

In a June 9 appearance, Harrison told the committee that "the ambassador agreed that this would alleviate the suspicion of wrongdoing," Waxman wrote. Harrison also said "that he did not agree with the decision to remove the Chinese markings," Waxman said.

A federal grand jury on Friday indicted Efraim E. Diveroli, president of AEY Inc., the U.S. company involved, on 71 counts, including conspiracy to defraud the government on a $298 million U.S. Army contract to provide various types of ammunition to the government of Afghanistan.

Where do you start with something like that?

I hope Major Harrison's career doesn't come to an end because of this incident. Rarely does the person who speaks up and blows the whistle on the Bush Administration and their political appointees emerge unscathed from the act of thwarting their political goals and their rampant greed. Someone will likely take action against Harrison's career, and that's why we are seeing a military that is hollowed out, staffed with yes-men, and overrun by the God-boys who invite crazies to come to the Pentagon and give them briefings.

No matter how you look at this story, what emerges is a troubling incident of corruption and greed:

On March 27, The New York Times published an article that said Albanian documents showed that the Miami company had bought more than 100 million Chinese cartridges that were stored for decades in former cold war stockpiles.

Mr. Diveroli arranged to have them repacked in cardboard boxes, many of which split or decomposed after shipment to the war zones, according to the article. Different lots or types of ammunition were mixed. In some cases the ammunition was dirty, corroded or covered with a film.

The repackaging operation, carried out by an AEY subcontractor at the Rinas Airport in Tirana, has become the focus of the Congressional investigation.

According to the transcript excerpts released by the committee, Major Harrison told investigators that he did not agree with the decision to hide the boxes from the reporter, and said that he felt “very uncomfortable” during the meeting.

Major Harrison, who as the chief of the embassy’s office of defense cooperation was responsible for helping American efforts to train, equip and modernize Albania’s military, said that his suggestion to bar the reporter from visiting the Albania base was rejected.

In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the committee’s chairman, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, said Monday that there were signs that embassy officials in Tirana tried to cover up the November meeting once Mr. Waxman’s staff began an investigation into the arms company. The letter said the committee would seek to interview Mr. Withers and other embassy personnel.

This is the kind of thing that sets off warning bells. When Major Harrison realized what sort of ground he was standing on, he immediately took steps to protect himself--perhaps he already was savvy to how the Bush Administration treats people who get between them and their money:

After his hour-long interview, Harrison "expressed an interest in seeking advice of counsel" and a Pentagon attorney terminated the session, Waxman wrote. Three days later, Harrison's lawyer told the committee he needed at least two weeks to prepare for continuing the interview.

Waxman charged in his letter that "it appears" embassy officials kept from the committee information related to the ambassador's meeting in Albania. Harrison told the panel that he had "urged embassy officials to inform the committee," Waxman wrote, but embassy officials did not mention it in response to a prior request for information.

All this, so a few corrupt officials in Albania could dump Cold War-era ammunition into the hands of some Club-hopping trash from Florida, who could then make millions re-packaging it and sending it to the Middle East.

Perhaps the death penalty for war profiteers isn't harsh enough.

The Hostages No One Talks About

US citizens have been held hostage in Colombia for five years, and aside from very casual mentions in the media, they have largely been forgotten. Speaking their names isn't even something this government can do when it is on Colombian soil--it would draw attention to another diplomatic failure.

Don't be surprised if you have never heard of Marc Gonsalves, Thomas Howes and Keith Stansell; The [Washington] Post has published only three substantial stories about them in the past five years. All three are U.S. citizens who were working for Pentagon contractor Northrop Grumman when their surveillance plane crashed in a remote Colombian jungle on Feb. 13, 2003. Since then, they have been hostages of the FARC, confined with chains and forced to endure a nightmarish life of isolation, disease and brutality.

The three men were taken hostage after their plane crashed into the remote Colombian jungle. This was certainly not the first or only time the US has lost aircraft and personnel in Colombia:

In July 1999, an American spy plane monitoring the skies and intercepting communications traffic crashed into a mountainside in Colombia, killing the seven men on board - five of them US military personnel.

It's difficult to specify what, if anything, the Bush Administration has done to secure their release. By antagonizing the government of Hugo Chavez, the United States cannot expect any help from the Venezuelan allies of the FARC.

Even worse, from the perspective of the captives, their government and media rarely even speak about them. It's not just The Post: Both President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have visited Colombia in the past year, but neither mentioned Gonsalves, Howes and Stansell in their prepared public statements.

[Luis Eladio] Pérez, a former Colombian senator, could not help but feel the men's distress. At the time Bush visited, Pérez was chained by the neck to Howe. Taken hostage himself in June 2001, Pérez lived with the Americans from late 2003 to late 2004, and then again from October 2006 until his release in February. The 55-year-old politician was freed in a deal orchestrated by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and appears to be in remarkably good health now. But he is anguished about those he left behind. "It hurts me to be here enjoying coffee and knowing that they are there in the jungle chained to each other," Pérez told me. "I'm not happy to think of them rotting. I haven't stopped one day trying to help them."

Pérez came to Washington in part because the men gave him letters addressed to President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the presidential candidates and The Post, among others. FARC guards confiscated the letters, so Pérez is trying to deliver their messages himself. "They are asking the country to please not abandon them," he said. "They are saying that they love their country, they love the flag, that they are rotting in the jungle and please do something for them."

What could be done? Pérez wishes that Bush would consider the FARC's demand that two of its members imprisoned in the United States -- including one sentenced in January to 60 years for conspiring to hold the Americans hostage -- be exchanged for the three men. He points out that Colombian President Álvaro Uribe has expressed a willingness to exchange FARC prisoners for hostages and that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has promised to accept FARC detainees temporarily in France if it will lead to the release of Ingrid Betancourt, a former Colombian presidential candidate who holds French citizenship.

Taking care of our own and doing the difficult work of diplomacy is the Achilles heel of the Bush State Department. Letting a few narco-terrorists go would do what in the war on drugs? Set us back a decade or more? We're so far behind in the war on drugs that it wouldn't make a lick of difference if we let a few of them go. Good luck to them--anyone we let go would be ostracized by their former associates anyway. Keeping them in prison does what for us when we could let them go and get our personnel back?

It all comes down to the State Department. It used to work pretty well. It used to be something to be proud of. Good people led astray and held back and forced to retire is the best way to describe what we have right now. We have eviscerated our diplomatic corps. We have hundreds of empty positions and a desperate need to engage our friends, enemies, and neutral partners on every level.

Jackson Diehl goes on to say:

Among other things, the release of convicted FARC terrorists would undermine what has been a successful extradition program between Colombia and the United States and give a political boost to a crumbling movement. The implosion of the FARC has been a huge setback to Chávez, who was trying to rehabilitate it and use it as a vehicle to export his "Bolivarian revolution" to Colombia.

Therein may lie the Americans' best hope. Pérez confirms that the FARC "is looking for a political solution" in conjunction with Chávez. He's hoping its leaders can be convinced that such an end must begin with a unilateral release of the remaining hostages. "The FARC must make a decision," Pérez said. If Betancourt or other hostages die, he added, "it will be the end of the FARC." That would be a triumph for Colombia and for the Bush administration -- but not much consolation for three American families.

Perhaps the next President will solve the problem. Sad to say, we're just running out the clock.

Christopher Hill and the art of the last laugh

As aWol's second term got underway, Condi Rice convened a series of strategy meetings to discuss what actions the U.S. could take to persuade North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons program. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, who was present at the meetings didn't have much to say, other than his oft-repeated refrain... "If you just let me go to Pyongyang, I'll get you a deal."

Much eyerolling resulted from this bold assertion every time it was made. No mid-level underling could possibly pull off such a diplomatic coup. Who did this megalomaniac think he was???

The answer to that question is - the guy who had the right stuff to pull off the greatest diplomatic coup since the Camp David Accords.

In the twilight of the Bush presidency, the nuclear agreement that Hill has tirelessly pursued over the past three years has emerged as Bush's best hope for a lasting foreign policy success. In the process, Hill has become the public face of an extraordinary 180-degree policy shift on North Korea, from confrontation to accommodation.

With crucial support from Rice, Hill has often triumphed over his bureaucratic rivals, making him a lightning rod for conservative critics. They caustically call him "Kim Jong Hill" -- a play on the name of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il -- and assert that he made concession after concession in a desperate effort to keep the talks from collapsing.

No assistant secretary of state can so dramatically change policy without the full backing of the secretary or the president. But for a mid-level official, Hill has had unusual access to the president, often joining breakfast meetings that include Rice, Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley. He has even had an occasional one-on-one chat with Bush.

Through deft use of public appearances and the news media, Hill also has become an international figure in his own right. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon last year hailed him as a "diplomat par excellence" whose "persistence and skillful negotiation have brought us close, I believe, to resolving this last legacy of the Cold War." Along with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Aga Khan, Hill is even a finalist for Britain's prestigious Chatham House Prize -- given to the statesman who has had the greatest impact on international relations -- for keeping the North Korean "talks alive and viable, against seemingly impossible odds," including the "complex internal politics of Washington."

Under the agreements Hill has reached, Pyongyang has shut down its nuclear reactor, disabled key facilities and provided thousands of pages of records meant to verify the size of its stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium. Hill is traveling to Asia this week to prod North Korea to fully declare its nuclear programs. But the United States has backed off an earlier demand for detailed information about North Korean uranium enrichment or assistance to a clandestine Syrian reactor -- and is poised to remove key sanctions against North Korea.

Hill has been amazingly successful at tamping down the threat of a nuclear North Korea, but the greatest test is looming...Will North Korea give up their Plutonium stockpile and pledge to make no more weapons from it?

That is the $64,000 dollar question.


How long can Hill maintain his perch on the tightrope? He has managed the impossible thus far - he has managed to commit actual diplomacy while dealing with an administration that finds peaceful resolution of conflict anathema, and will only accept a diplomatic solution if there is no other alternative.

All the while, chickenhawk Übermensches have awaited his failure with bated breath, and the administration has been less than pleased with his successes. Indeed, they have denied him plaudits he richly deserved, just to remind him who works for whom.

Hill, for instance, was largely responsible for arranging the unprecedented visit to Pyongyang this year by the New York Philharmonic, even lobbying reluctant musicians to make the trip over a pizza lunch in the chorus rehearsal room last fall. "It was a spectacular thing to witness. He was direct and honest, and . . . changed a lot of minds that day," said Eric Latzky, spokesman for the orchestra.

But Rice ordered him not to attend the news conference announcing the trip after administration officials realized he would share the stage with a North Korean envoy.

"On the one hand, he is an effective negotiator," said Victor Cha, a former director of Asian affairs at the National Security Council, who was Hill's deputy at the nuclear talks in 2006. "But you can also view him as a media hog trying to be a hero."

The sort of dismissive drivel that Cha spouts is what prompts eyerolling from me - and most other reasonable, thoughtful, reality-based people.

Diplomacy is not appeasement, and Christopher Hill is a damned fine diplomat. The next administration needs to find a more powerful position from which he can showcase his talents. I don't know his party affiliation and I don't care. Obama says he is "post-partisan" so he shouldn't either.

What I do have a crush on is competence, and Hill has that in trump.

Will Bush and McCain call the Israelis "Appeasers?"

Don't hold your breath...

Israel confirmed Wednesday that it is holding indirect peace talks with Syria mediated by Turkey.

The statement from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was the first official Israeli admission of the contacts.

Wednesday's statement said the sides "have declared their intent to conduct these talks in good faith and openly." The statement says the goal is "to reach a comprehensive peace agreement."

There have been reports in recent months of new Israeli-Syrian contacts through Turkey. Syria wants Israel to return the Golan Heights, which it captured in the 1967 Mideast war.

U.S.-mediated peace talks between the two countries broke down in 2000 because of disagreements over the extent of an Israeli withdrawal.

Due to their lack of historical context or actual knowledge of diplomacy, it is highly unlikely that the Bush Administration will know how to react to this. The Israelis will not be denounced as appeasers, for it is likely that the Israelis took Bush aside last week and casually told him of their own "appeasement" of their sworn enemy. And, please note that the US Secretary of State was probably kept, deliberately, out of the loop and out of the room. I say probably, but I would hasten to add "definitely."

“NATO is in Afghanistan; it’s time they did some soldiering.”

The United States is running into resistance from Pakistan when it comes to securing the border between that country and Afghanistan.

“Pakistan will take care of its own problems, you take care of Afghanistan on your side,” said Owari Ghani, the governor of North-West Frontier Province, who is also President Pervez Musharraf’s representative in charge of the neighboring tribal areas.

Mr. Ghani, a key architect of the pending peace accord, believes along with many other Pakistani leaders that the United States is floundering in the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan, he said, should not be saddled with America’s mistakes, especially if a solution involved breaching Pakistan’s sovereignty, a delicate matter in a nation where sentiment against the Bush administration runs high.

“Pakistan is a sovereign state,” he said. “NATO is in Afghanistan; it’s time they did some soldiering.”

The US and NATO regularly target Taliban forces on either side of the border:

On Wednesday night, the United States fired its fourth Predator missile strike since January, the most visible symbol of the American push for a freer hand to pursue militants from Al Qaeda and the Taliban who use Pakistan’s tribal areas as a base to attack Afghanistan and plot terrorist attacks abroad. In Afghanistan, cross-border attacks have doubled over the same month last year and present an increasingly lethal challenge to American and NATO efforts to wind down the war and deny the Taliban and Al Qaeda a sanctuary.

In an unusual step during a visit to Pakistan in March, Adm. Eric T. Olson, the commander of United States Special Operations Command, held a round-table discussion with a group of civilian Pakistani leaders to sound them out on the possibility of cross-border raids by American forces. He was told in no uncertain terms that from the Pakistani point of view it was a bad idea, said one of the participants.

Instead, Pakistani officials are trying to restore calm to their country, which was rattled by a record number of suicide attacks last year. Within days, they are expected to strike a peace accord with Pakistan’s own militants that makes no mention of stopping the infiltrations. In fact, Pakistani counterinsurgency operations have stopped during the new government’s negotiations with the militants.

[SNIP]

American officials in Washington said the Predator strike on Wednesday killed a handful of Qaeda militants, including one they described as a “significant leader.” The strike indicated that the C.I.A. retained some freedom to operate in the tribal areas. But as the gap between Pakistani and American policies widens, United States officials are pushing harder for still more latitude.

During his visit to North-West Frontier Province, Admiral Olson was taken to the military headquarters of the 14th Division of the Pakistani Army in Dera Ismail Khan, an area just outside the tribal region, where he was struck by the extent of the anti-Taliban sentiment, Pakistani officials said.

Still, in the talks, which were organized by the United States Consulate here in late March, the civilian leaders said they advised the Americans against fighting in Pakistani territory populated by Pashtuns. Pakistan’s government has long been wary of nationalist and separatist strains among the Pashtuns, whose population straddles the Pakistani-Afghan border.

“I said it would be extremely dangerous,” Khalid Aziz, a former chief secretary of North-West Frontier Province, said he told Admiral Olson. “It would increase the number of militants, it would be a war of liberation for the Pashtuns. They would say: ‘We are being slaughtered. Our enemy is the United States.’"

Map-languages and regions of Afghanistan

Within Pakistan, there are indications that the coalition government is coming apart:

Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif pulled his party out of Pakistan's six-week-old coalition government on Monday, plunging the volatile Muslim nation back into political uncertainty.

Sharif, whose Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) was the second-largest member of a four party alliance, made the announcement after failing to break a deadlock with its main coalition partner over the reinstatement of dismissed judges.

Sharif made the restoration of 60 judges sacked by President Pervez Musharraf in November the main condition for joining the coalition led by the party of Asif Ali Zardari, the widower and political successor of the late Benazir Bhutto.

Three days of talks in London between Sharif and Zardari, whose Pakistan People's Party (PPP) leads the coalition, ended on Sunday without any breakthrough.

"Our ministers will meet the prime minister tomorrow and will submit their resignations," Sharif told a news conference.

Nine of the 24 ministers in Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani's cabinet belong to the PML-N, including Finance Minister Ishaq Dar.

Sharif said his party would continue to support the PPP government despite quitting the cabinet.

"For the time being, we'll not sit in opposition."

Despite the possibility of the collapse of the Pakistani government, however, the New York Times says that the US is stepping up its rhetoric:

Last week John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, used perhaps the strongest language yet against Pakistan, saying that the United States found it “unacceptable” that extremists used the tribal areas to plan attacks against Afghanistan, the rest of the world and Pakistan itself.

“We will not be satisfied until the violent extremism emanating from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas is brought under control,” Mr. Negroponte told the National Endowment for Democracy.

Earlier this month, Afrasiab Khattak and Asfandyar Wali Khan, the leaders of the Awami National Party, which leads the government in the North-West Frontier Province, met with Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and Mr. Negroponte in Washington.

In their meetings, Mr. Khattak said, it was hard to deter the Americans from the notion of launching their own operations into Pakistan. The topic came up “again and again,” he said.

The Americans specifically mentioned their concern that Qaeda operatives in the tribal areas were preparing an attack on the United States, he said.

“We told them physical intervention into the tribal areas by the United States would be a blunder,” Mr. Khattak said. “It would create an atmosphere in which the terrorists would rally” popular support.

Should the United States and its NATO allies be focused on operations along the Pakistani border at all? According to researcher Sarah Meyer, the Afghan people are facing starvation and famine due to a particularly harsh winter, coupled with ongoing war in their country:

Among the resources compiled by Meyer, this article highlights the need to take care of the Afghan people:

If instead of the fields of poppies there were expanses of wheat, 18 million Afghans who today suffer from hunger would have enough food. With these statements - which appear a bit naive - the experts of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) have declared that by better using international funds, the development of new irrigation and technology systems for agriculture could be realised. But the most difficult thing is convincing Afghan farmers to change their extensive opium cultivation to the production of wheat, fruit, and vegetables.

According to data supplied by the UN, Afghanistan uses 193,000 hectares of land for the cultivation of poppy, and produces more than 90% of the opium in circulation. The estimates reveal that by the end of 2008, the country will produce more than 8,200 tonnes of raw opium.

According to some experts, the world economic crisis and the dizzying rise in food prices everywhere could prompt farmers to convert their poppy fields to wheat. In fact, the price of wheat has risen from 157 dollars per tonne in January to 500 dollars in April of this year.

Tekeste Ghebray Tekie, the FAO representative in Afghanistan, is certain that by growing wheat with the appropriate irrigation systems, more than two and a half tons per hectare could be produced. "If you use this land for high cash crops like vegetables, fruit or cotton", Tekeste says, "then the contribution to food security will be enormous".

Before the Soviet invasion in 1979, Afghanistan had much more irrigated land, but the irrigation systems were destroyed during the war. After the United States military intervention in the country, begun in October of 2001, 15 billion dollars in international aid was invested. But according to Oxfam, only 300 million of this has been earmarked for agriculture.

Photo: Dara, Afghanistan

Herschel Smith at The Captain's Journal highlights efforts by the US Department of Agriculture to assist Counterinsurgency Operations in Afghanistan:

Body armor is not in [Jeff] Knowles’ typical wardrobe as an employee of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). But then again, working with farmers in Afghanistan to help rebuild their agricultural system isn’t his typical work either.

Knowles, who now lives in Hawaii, spent six months in the war-scarred nation talking with farmers about what they grow and what their needs are. He was honored last week by USDA secretary Ed Schafer for his service in Afghanistan in 2005-06.

“I think it’s one of the best things we’re doing in the country,” Knowles said via a phone interview from his USDA office in Hawaii. “If we can help improve quality of life for farmers — and 95 percent of the Afghan people are farmers — we’re doing something real.”

Living conditions are rough. And most farmers are subsistence farmers, growing crops like wheat, potatoes, onions, tomatoes, apricots, apples and almonds.

But getting enough water for crops is a major issue …

It was in Hawaii that Knowles decided to volunteer for a six-month stint in Afghanistan.

“It was really intriguing to me — they were facing problems with erosion, heavy and widespread, and a lot of their irrigation system was destroyed,” he said. “It seemed that my entire career was pointing to this. The things I’d been working with for close to 30 years were the things they needed in Afghanistan.”

And you thought that certifying the embassy in Iraq was the last we would hear of that fiasco!

When the State Department asked for bids for the new mega-bunker embassy in Iraq, exactly one came pouring in. It was from J. A. Jones International of Charlotte, North Carolina.

The company has a solid track record with the State Department, having constructed the embassies in Belize and Athens. Both of those projects were brought in on time and close to budget.

In spite of the fact that the company has performed satisfactorily in the past, and that the company submitted the only bid, the State Department rejected the bid because it was for twice what State wanted to spend, and the company would not guarantee that the facility would be complete by June 2007. Additionally, the J.A. Jones bid was a cost-plus estimate, which frankly, is about the only way a responsible contractor would have bid the job, since the construction site was in a freakin' war zone...that was getting hotter every day. First Kuwaiti was chosen solely because it was willing to offer a fixed-price contract, in which cost overruns aren't supposed to be passed on to the government.

"The only company in the end that would offer us a firm fixed-price (contract) was First Kuwaiti. The decision was made, and I believe rightly so, that firm fixed-price is the best protection for the American taxpayer. If an American company had bid a firm fixed-price, they might or they might not have won." said Patrick Kennedy, the State Department's director of management policy.

Unable to get a legitimate contractor to walk down the primrose path to potential financial ruin, the State Department Bureau of Overseas Building Operations (OBO) waived the law requiring open and competitive bidding, and awarded the contract to a firm from Kuwait, First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting Company. When the OBO issued the waiver, they described First Kuwaiti as "capable of completing the design and construction in accordance with the required schedule, budget and performance parameters."

That rosy assessment and vote of confidence was, to say the least, overblown. The project has been plagued by scandals of using counterfeit and shoddy building materials and slave labor. Ten months after the embassy was supposed to be ready to open, it is still not ready.

Now, on top of everything else, we learn that the facility has insufficient living quarters.

The new U.S. Embassy complex does not have enough fortified living quarters for hundreds of diplomats and other workers, who must remain temporarily in trailers without special rooftop protection against mortars and rockets, government officials have told The Associated Press.

Sorting out the housing crunch and funding could further delay moving all personnel into the compound until next year and exposes shortcomings in the planning for America's more than $700 million diplomatic hub in Iraq.

The issue of "hardened" housing in the U.S.-protected Green Zone has gained renewed prominence since Shiite militias resumed steady attacks on the enclave in late March as part of backlash to an Iraqi-led crackdown.

More than a dozen people have been killed in the Green Zone in the latest waves of attacks, including a U.S. civilian government worker whose housing trailer was hit.

At one point — during the heaviest barrages early this month — the State Department ordered all its Baghdad employees to wear body armor and other protective gear while outside buildings in the Green Zone, which also contains the British Embassy, key Iraqi government offices and other international compounds.

Staffers also were ordered not to sleep in their trailers, and hundreds of cots were placed inside the current embassy — a former Saddam Hussein palace.

The facility was finally certified this month, after myriad problems had been identified and corrected, and McClatchy reported at the time that the move-in could start as early as next month.

Well...not so fast...

There is inadequate hardened housing. Let's just recap what that means and why it is so...

After the fact, it was decided that the coalition headquarters would come to the embassy, too. State official Patrick Kennedy said that decision was made because "Crocker and Petraeus don't want to divorce."

In addition to the military command, there are aid workers who will be moved into the embassy that accommodations were never planned for.

But of course, this plays hell with the living quarters situation, and according to Patrick Kennedy, there is now inadequate hardened housing for hundreds of people, and flimsy trailers are lined up behind the compound, awaiting a hardened canopy and occupancy; and plans are underway to divide the apartments in the embassy into smaller but more numerous units.

When I read this yesterday, I thought "Hmmm. I wonder if the naysayers who poo-pooed the foreign service personnel who protested forced postings to Iraq, maintaining that service there was a potential death sentence still think they are just being histrionic?"



We have something of a history of following this embassy fiasco...see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for previous posts.

Whatever Happened to Discretion?

Here's one episode that we would be all better off NOT knowing anything about:

Secret Service Catch Mexican Official Nabbing White House BlackBerries
Thursday, April 24, 2008

Whether he was up to no good or simply desperate to play BrickBreaker, a Mexican press attaché was caught on camera by Secret Service pocketing several White House BlackBerries during a recent meeting in New Orleans, FOX News has learned.

Sources with knowledge of the incident said the official, Rafael Quintero Curiel, served as the lead press advance person for the Mexican Delegation and was responsible for handling logistics and guiding the Mexican media around at the conference. He took six or seven of the handheld devices from a table outside a special room in the hotel where the Mexican delegation was meeting with President Bush earlier this week.

Everyone entering the room was required to leave his or her cell phone, BlackBerry and other such devices on the table, a common practice when high-level meetings are held. American officials discovered their missing belongings when they were leaving the session.

It didn't take long before Secret Service officials reviewed videotape taken by a surveillance camera and found footage showing Quintero Curiel absconding with the BlackBerries.

Sources said Quintero Curiel made it all the way to the airport before Secret Service officers caught up with him. He initially denied taking the devices, but after agents showed him the DVD, Quintero Curiel said it was purely accidental, gave them back, claimed diplomatic immunity and left New Orleans with the Mexican delegation.

This is an example of how "sources" like to leak stories that the public doesn't need to know anything about. This incident would have been best handled government to government, via the Ambassador or perhaps another diplomatic channel.

The government of Mexico is not at fault if someone who works for them does something stupid in this country, nor is our government responsible if one of our own does something equally as stupid in Mexico. Discretion means, you quietly handle the incident with as little noise as possible. Embarrassing Mexico might be a titilating story for your dumb buddy at Fox News, but it's bad diplomacy, and can lead to an escalation of meaningless little tit-for-tat episodes. Do you really think there isn't a story similar to that that Mexico could trot out?

Someone in the White House just wants to fuck things up as much as possible before they leave office.

FOX News' James Rosen and Mike Emanuel contributed to this report.

No, more like "these two idiots had someone inside the White House give them a story, complete with cute reference to 'brickbreaking.'"

The Incompetent Diplomat Strikes Again

In a moment of unusual stupidity, gall, and otherwise idiocy, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice plays to the base and makes America look bad again:

BAGHDAD — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward on Sunday, hours after the radical leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers.

Rice, in the Iraqi capital to tout security gains and what she calls an emerging political consensus, said al-Sadr is content to issue threats and edicts from the safety of Iran, where he is studying. Al-Sadr heads an unruly militia that was the main target of an Iraqi government assault in the oil-rich city of Basra last month, and his future role as a spoiler is an open question.

"I know he's sitting in Iran," Rice said dismissively, when asked about al-Sadr's latest threat to lift a self-imposed cease-fire with government and U.S. forces. "I guess it's all-out war for anybody but him," Rice said. "I guess that's the message; his followers can go too their deaths and he's in Iran."

Was it too cute to just say "bring 'em on!" or did you just think, hmmm...I'll make juvenile remarks about a sworn enemy of the United States who just happens to hold a sword over the head of thousands of vulnerable, exhausted US troops who are going to be in harms way if the Mahdi Army comes out of hibernation and resumes attacking our forces?

The schoolyard taunt doesn't work when you consider that Sadr is not a military man in any way, shape or form--he is a religious figure, a cleric. He is a spiritual leader and organizer, and his followers do not follow him because he risks death. They follow him because they have a far more sophisticated view of who is a leader and who is not a leader than anyone in the Bush Administration can fathom right now.

I mean, really. How fucking stupid can you be?

UPDATE I - Blue Girl - 0230 4/21

Pale Rider hits the nail on the head when he stresses that Sadr is not a military man, but a cleric, and that fear of death is unlikely to dissuade his followers and cause them to lay down arms. Quite the opposite is the case, in fact.

Last May, when Sadr emerged from hiding after four months of laying low, he emerged wearing a funeral shroud, signifying that he is willing to die, and indeed, expects to be martyred.

Within months, Shi'ite militants were wearing shrouds during street demonstrations.

Consider that most militia fighters are anonymous, the stereotypical black-clad, masked gunman.

Now look at the followers of Sadr. They show their faces and they wear funeral shrouds:

These are not actions to be taunted, mocked and ridiculed. Just the opposite, in fact. This should be taken quite seriously.

This is what happens when lackeys staff your administration

In the months before the invasion of Iraq was launched, a congressional fact-finding junket comprised of three Democratic congressmen and members of their respective staffs. The trip was organized by an American citizen who was also a covert Iraqi intelligence agent, and who accompanied the delegation. On Wednesday, the Justice Department unsealed an indictment against Muthanna al-Hanooti , charging him with one count of conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein, one count of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers act, and three counts of making false statements.

The Michigan resident began working for the Iraqi intelligence service without registering with the Justice Department and was paid for his services with 2 million barrels of oil, the indictment said.

The trip was organized by a Michigan charity, Life for Relief and Development, that looked legitimate but in fact was connected to the Iraq government, according to the indictment.

The October 2002 trip included three members of Congress, the indictment said. Between 1999 and 2002, the Michigan man had been providing the Iraqi intelligence service with strategic advice on getting Congress to lift sanctions against Iraq, the indictment added.

The members of Congress were innocent and unwitting victims of the scheme, according to officials familiar with the case.

"None of the congressional representatives are accused of any wrongdoing, and we have no information whatsoever that any of them were aware of the involvement of the Iraqi Intelligence Service,” Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said.

The government did not name the lawmakers. But The Associated Press said the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington and Mike Thompson of California and then-Rep. David Bonior of Michigan.

I am sure that if I went to the right side of the blogosphere, I could find all manner of crowing and squawking about the congressmen who were on that trip. Some slavering simpleton has no doubt pounded out a treatise on why questioning the patriotism of Democrats is now okay; nay, it is it is demanded of all true and noble upright citizens!

Never mind that the fault for this lies squarely at the feet of the State Department, who vetted the trip. Let me put it this way - at one point, during the vetting process for a security clearance, the FBI found and interviewed my freakin' prom dates mother during the vetting process for a security clearance. I would expect them to do a better job vetting the trip and it's organizers, especially in that political climate.

When the Detroit News called David Swanson for comment on the indictment, he basically shrugged and said "so?"

Of course, at that time, Hussein was screaming the truth to the world: "I have no WMDs," and an important corner of the world was refusing to listen. Instead, the White House was telling us that Saddam Hussein might blow us all up at any moment, that a "war" with him would take no more than a few weeks and cost no more than $50 billion, and that Iraqi oil would pay for that war. So, if a few congress members unwittingly got Iraq to pay for a trip aimed at saving millions of lives, that's more than Bush has accomplished wittingly or otherwise. He invaded, slaughtered, and is sticking our descendants with a bill for trillions of dollars (including another $102 billion from Congress next month unless we help Congress find a spine).

Well, that works too.

It certainly doesn't reflect poorly on the congressmen. But the lackeys and ideologues who have destroyed every federal agency from a to z? They don't get the same pass.

Too Easy To Forget People Who Make a Stand

Just a reminder of what could have been. These people had the courage to quit.

Love of country and professional self-respect compelled each of us to speak out, in the only honorable way open to us, by resigning. In our letters to Secretary of State Colin Powell, we opposed invading a country that posed no genuine threat to the United States. We underscored that our invasion would not be understood by our allies, that our occupation would be resisted, and that the consequences of the war would be dire for both Americans and Iraqis.

The war happened, with tragic but predictable consequences. Mistakes by ambitious, ignorant political appointees worsened the fiasco. For domestic political reasons, the Bush Administration could not adapt its policies to the reality that its “war on terrorism” was actually an intricate maze of local conflicts into which it had blundered without a guide.

The invasion of Iraq had a terrible impact on America’s relationship with the world. The tricks of totalitarian manipulation of public opinion the White House used to “sell” the war at home — simplification of the issues, repetition of empty phrases, demonization of foreigners, and falsification of history — simply did not work abroad.

By counting on such methods, Bush appointees tainted the US informational, educational, and cultural programs that once were the beating heart of America’s public diplomacy efforts. The desperate PR campaign by Mr. Bush’s Texas confidante, former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes, failed utterly to repair the damage.

Five years later, we are convinced that the Bush administration is still on the wrong path for regional stability. Key officials lack the empathy and local knowledge needed to wield the tools of US diplomacy effectively in the Middle East. America’s outsized military presence is the principle around which local fanaticism organizes itself, to the detriment of the ordinary Arabs and Kurds America aspired to help. A rapid withdrawal from Iraq, coordinated with Iraqi factions and neighboring states, is the least destructive option remaining.

Our gesture earned us a brief moment in the media and the cautious respect of our colleagues. Five years later, we do not regret our decision to leave the profession we loved. Faced with a flawed policy we had no power to change, the three of us embraced the hope Brady expressed in his resignation letter, that “our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting; [we] hope in a small way to contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.”

Do We Even HAVE a Secretary of State?

The always excellent Anne Applebaum (who should be on the Op-Ed page of the NYTimes instead of MoDo) writes about the ongoing unrest in Tibet:

And like all of its predecessors, the Chinese imperial class cares deeply about the pacification of the imperial periphery, more so than one might think.

For proof of this, look no further than the biography of Hu Jintao, the current Chinese president -- and former Communist Party boss of Tibet. In 1988 and 1989, the time of the last major riots, Hu was responsible for the brutal repression of dissident Tibetan monks and for what the Dalai Lama has called China's policy of "cultural genocide": the importing of thousands of ethnic Han Chinese into Tibet's cities, to dilute and eventually outbreed the ethnic Tibetan population.

Clearly, the repression of Tibet matters enormously to China's ruling clique, or members would not have promoted Hu, its mastermind, so far. The pacification of Tibet must also be considered a major political and propaganda success, or it would not have been copied by the Chinese-backed Burmese regime last year and repeated by the Chinese themselves in Tibet last week. Tibet is to China what Algeria once was to France, what India once was to imperial Britain, what Poland was to czarist Russia: the most unreliable, most intransigent and at the same time most symbolically significant province of the empire.

Keep that in mind over the next few days and months, as China tries once again to belittle Tibet, to explain away a nationalist uprising as a bit of vandalism. The riots of the past week began as a religious protest. Tibet's monks were demonstrating against laws that, among other things, require them to renounce the Dalai Lama. The monks' marches then escalated into generalized, unplanned, anti-Chinese violence, culminating in attacks on Han Chinese shops and businesses, among them -- as you can see on the cellphone videos -- the Lhasa branch of the Bank of China.

However the official version evolves, in other words, make no mistake about it: This was not merely vandalism, it could not have been organized solely by outsiders, it was not only about the Olympics, and it was not the work of a tiny minority. It was a significant political event, proof that the Tibetans still identify themselves as Tibetan, not Chinese. As such, it must have significant reverberations in Beijing. The war in Algeria brought down France's Fourth Republic. The dissident movements on its periphery helped weaken the Soviet Union. Right now, I'd wager that Hu Jintao's Tibet policy is causing a lot of consternation among his colleagues.

And if they aren't worried, they should be. After all, the past two centuries were filled with tales of strong, stable empires brought down by their subjects, undermined by their client states, overwhelmed by the national aspirations of small, subordinate countries. Why should the 21st century be any different? Watching a blurry cellphone video of tear gas rolling over the streets of Lhasa yesterday, I couldn't help but wonder when -- maybe not in this decade, this generation or even this century -- Tibet and its monks will have their revenge.

So if we were to ever get a handle on this Tibet thing, and properly support an oppressed people against the Chinese regime, could we do so in a way that doesn't antagonize them? Probably not--but if we were to back Tibet in such a way as to convince China to pressure North Korea, who knows? For purely moral reasons, yes, we should be concerned about Tibet. For purely political reasons, why shouldn't we cause the Chinese a little pain over this issue?

We are never going to get back our moral authority in the world if we take a pass on issues like Tibet. We need to consistently speak about human rights and champion the cause of people who are being oppressed. It is in our best long-term interests to find a way to connect with the world on issues like human rights again. We cannot go around talking tough to the Chinese while our own people waterboard mentally ill people and while our own state security apparatus rivals the Chinese one at spying on the innocent.

So do we even have a functioning State Department? Secretary Rice wows us with this:

Statement by Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
March 15, 2008
I am deeply saddened to learn that the turmoil that erupted yesterday in Lhasa following what began as peaceful protests has resulted in the loss of lives, and I am concerned that the violence appears to be continuing. I also am concerned by reports of a sharply increased police and military presence in and around Lhasa. We call on the Chinese government to exercise restraint in dealing with these protests, and we strongly urge all sides to refrain from violence.

President Bush has consistently encouraged the Chinese government to engage in substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama directly and through his representatives so that long-standing issues with regard to Tibet may be resolved. We urge China to respect the fundamental and universally recognized right of all of its citizens to peacefully express their political and religious views, and we call on China to release monks and others who have been detained solely for the peaceful expression of their views. We also urge China to address policies in Tibetan areas that have created tensions due to their impact on Tibetan religion, culture, and livelihoods.

All that, when what we should say is this:

The United States condemns the actions of the Chinese government and calls on other nations to join it in this condemnation and to express support for the oppressed people of Tibet.

See, that wasn't so hard was it? Instead of urging them to stop slaughtering people, let's condemn them for it. And then let's start stripping them of trade agreements and question whether they can even host the Olympics.

Priorities

Given our current problems in the world--you know, the Middle East in turmoil, tensions in South America, the Iraq War, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Pakistan, and a whole host of others--is this really the best place for the Secretary of State to be?

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stands for the National Anthem before the Georgetown Louisville college basketball game, Saturday, March 8, 2008, in Washington. (AP Photo/Nick Wass)

You know, when you have a handle on your job and things are going pretty well for you, take in all the ballgames you want. When things are tough, sure, it's a good idea to unwind for a bit and recharge your batteries. I won't begrudge someone a little downtime. Take a week off if you need it.

But when you are proven to be the worst Secretary of State in the history of this country, perhaps you ought to get a skybox and try not to be noticed when you waste a perfectly good Saturday instead of trying to do something, anything even remotely related to doing your job.

Maybe we should be grateful she does things like this, rather than try to talk to world leaders who don't want to listen to her repeat whatever she was told to try to accomplish.

UPDATE I - PALE RIDER

Wow.

WASHINGTON - President Bush said an early farewell to political Washington on Saturday night, making his first appearance on the stage of the Gridiron Club of Washington journalists.

Bush surprised the white-tie audience of more than 600, including Supreme Court justices, Cabinet members and lawmakers, by appearing as the final act of the club's annual revue. To the tune of "Green Green Grass of Home," he sang about looking forward to his return to Texas.

"As I step down from the plane and there to meet me is my mama and my papa, down the lane I look and here comes Barney, heart of gold and breath like honey," the president warbled.

Putin Rattles the Saber

As the world financial system goes into freefall, the Russians rattle the saber. As Blue Girl posted earlier, the Russians have a message for Europe: they are still relevant, and they still have a military that can project power into Europe's backyard:

Russia has sent two long-range bombers to the Bay of Biscay, off the French and Spanish Atlantic coasts, to test-fire missiles in what Moscow billed as its biggest naval exercise in the area since the Soviet era.

Firing missiles off the coastline of two NATO members is the latest in a series of Kremlin moves flexing Moscow’s military muscle on the world stage.

Russian bombers joined aircraft carriers, battleships and submarine hunters from the Northern and Black Sea fleets for the Atlantic exercises, which come as the country enters an election campaign to choose a successor to President Putin.

“The air force is taking a very active part in the exercises of the navy’s strike force in the Atlantic,” the Russian air force said in a statement reported by Reuters. “Today, two strategic Tu-160 bombers departed for exercises in the Bay of Biscay, which ... will carry out a number of missions and will conduct tactical missile launches."

It sure would be nice to have a State Department right now, wouldn't it? I mean, diplomacy wouldn't necessarily stop this kind of thing, but it would go a long ways towards forcing their next moves to be a little less belligerent, perhaps.

Russia last month said it would begin major navy sorties into the Mediterranean, with 11 ships backed up by 47 aircraft, that would then travel to the Atlantic for exercises.

The navy’s flagship aircraft carrier, the Soviet-made Admiral Kuznetsov, was leading the fleet in the Atlantic where Nato were trying to keep a close eye on Russian movements, Russian media reported.



“This is the biggest exercise of its kind in the area since Soviet times,” a spokesman for Russia’s navy said, adding that more details would be released later. There was no further information about where in the Bay of Biscay, which lies off the west coast of France and the northern coast of Spain, the missile tests were due to take place.

Russia’s air force said turbo-prop Tupolev Tu-95 strategic bombers, codenamed “Bear” by Nato, would join ATO, would join the exercise on Wednesday “From January 23, the aviation component in the zone where the exercises are going on will be widened and the following planes will take part: Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-22 M3, Il-78, A-50,”, the air force said.

Do you think the fact that our forces are tied up in the Persian Gulf has any relevance here?

Your State Department At Work

McClatchy picks up the story and reveals exactly what kind of a State Department we have right now. I don't fault the career diplomats or the civilian employees of the State Department--these are people under siege from insanely corrupt and incompetent political appointees. The fault rests with whoever thought it was a good idea to let criminals run wild with taxpayer dollars in a war zone.

State Dept. retains manager of troubled embassy project
By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — A State Department project manager banished from Iraq by the U.S. ambassador and under scrutiny by the Justice Department continues to oversee the construction of the much-delayed new American embassy in Baghdad from nearby Kuwait, State Department officials disclosed Thursday.

James L. Golden, a contract employee, is still managing the $740 million project, said Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, the department's top management official.

"Mr. Golden is still . . . our project manager, and still is working with the contractor, at their base in Kuwait," Kennedy said.

This is where a little bit spin enters the story. I can't tell whether they're proud or embarrassed. I can't tell whether they're trying to express outrage or just simply flip Waxman the bone and laugh hysterically:

One State Department official with detailed knowledge of the unopened embassy expressed outrage that his superiors haven't replaced Golden.

"I find it absolutely amazing that State senior management doesn't seem to think it a trifle odd that two people under investigation . . . are still making all the management decisions under this same contract," the official said in an e-mail. The official asked for anonymity because he feared retaliation by his superiors.


So it's either a Republican who is tired of waking up in the middle of the night terrified of prosecution or a Republican tired of waking up in a puddle because their conscience won't let them rest. I can't figure out which one it is anymore because, quite frankly, this is just the outrage of the morning, here on December 7, and we have a whole day to get through. We have a whole, entire day of revelations and wrongdoing to shove our way through. When the Pentagon dumps its bad news at 6:30PM, what then? How much outrage can you display in just one day with these people?

Golden and the Baghdad-based embassy construction coordinator, Mary French, have been implicated in a Justice Department criminal investigation into how embassy construction subcontracts were issued, according to current and former U.S. officials and congressional testimony.

Neither Golden nor French has been charged with any wrongdoing.

You'd need a measure of competence, shame, and humility to actually charge someone who's done something illegal with a crime in the Bush Administration. One need not apply if you're not willing to look the other way, shove money in your pants, and let people die because you can't do your job. This is your Republican Party at work, circa 2007.

Construction and safety problems have plagued the Baghdad embassy, originally scheduled to open in September. Kennedy and other top department officials have declined to provide a firm date for when it will be ready to house nearly 1,000 U.S. diplomats and staff.

Kuwaiti-based First Kuwaiti General Trading and Contracting Co. is constructing the embassy, which will be the largest American embassy in the world once it's completed.

Department officials defended the decision to leave Golden in place, saying it was necessary to provide continuity on the project. The department is working to overcome construction flaws that range from questions about the strength of blast walls to a fire-suppression system that failed inspection.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker banished Golden from Iraq after an incident last May in which a mortar round damaged a wall at the new embassy that was supposed to be blast resistant. Golden, along with First Kuwaiti, attempted to repair the damage before an investigation could be conducted, U.S. officials said.

Crocker obviously doesn't matter, does he? Don't look to him for anything more than a polite complaint. Just a hint--you resign, you give a lengthy interview to 24 news outlets, and you go on TV and you say, "these incompetent sons of bitches are pissing US tax dollars away on a project that threatens the safety of US personnel and they're not doing anything about it."

Oh, and you'll laugh, you'll cry:

New details were made public a month later during a congressional hearing, in which it became known that the State Department's inspector general, Howard Krongard, had met personally with Golden and French despite warnings from his staff that such a personal meeting would "taint the investigation," according to a congressional report.

The two embassy project managers weren't mentioned by name in the report by majority Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Golden was referred to as a "person of interest" in the Justice investigation, and French as a "subject of investigation."

But Krongard divulged their names publicly. "I would like to tell you what exactly I was doing, both with Mr. Golden and Ms. French," he told the committee.

According to the committee's report, Golden hasn't returned to the United States or made himself available for a follow-up interview since the August meeting with Krongard. Krongard has since recused himself, at Justice's request, from the embassy investigation.

Many details of the probe remain under wraps.

Thank God Condoleeza Rice is on the job--no snark about her need to shop for shoes is necessary, is it?