Please contact the original posters if you wish to use their portions of this exchange.
If you find it useful or have comments, mail me.
the letter from Counselor Kiesling appeared in the new york times and has been confirmed by the nice rumor-control people at snopes.
John Brady Kiesling, a distinguished career foreign service officer, resigned his post as political counselor at the American embassy in Athens last week to protest President Bush's foreign policy, as reported by Reuters. As a career diplomat, he has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan. Following is the full body of his resignation letter, perhaps the most elegant statement of dissent over the Republican administration's foreign policy to date:
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.
Cause for celebration, I'd say.
I find highly amusing Mr. Quisling... er, Kiesling's comment that "overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism". Let's examine the facts, shall we? The Clinton administration's policy of appeasement toward Al-Quaeda got us 9/11. Military force, meanwhile, had gotten rid of the Taliban, and in a roundabout way, has delivered Al Quaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed into the hands of justice.
Looks to me like military power's been doing a pretty good job.
We should examine a modern, democractic nation with overwhelming military power that has a decades-long history of dealing with terrorism. Surrounded by hostile neighbors, and with a de-facto policy of "ten dead enemies for each dead citizen" - and the military and political will to back up that policy.
This country has even used its overwhelming military strength against its enemies in "relatively bloodless [to us] lightning war" that lasted less than a week - but the repercussions and retribution for this war can, arguably, be said to continue until today.
Is this country "safe"? Is this country "secure"? Is this country at "peace"? Is this country suffering a shortage of duct tape?
The lessons of history and humanity are out there. You can't beat terrorists with the military, because to do so sacrifices all the values that make the United States a terrorist target. You may stop the bombs, but if the response to terror changes society dramatically enough to eliminate the threat of terror, the terrorists have won.
Tip: Invent a bomb-proof trash can, and you will clean up when the United States follows this country's example and we are left with a perpetual low-level terrorist threat. Every mall in America will need new trash cans... and that's a lot of trash cans.
Thats not a very good example. You are looking at the situation objectively enough. Military force is not doing Israel any good because they are restraining themselves.
Additionally, the situation is completely different from the US. Palestine is right next door to Israel. Both states are very small. The US can identify terrorists or suspected terrorists quite a bit easier. In the US they even joked around with airport security after Sept 11th. They did ridiculous things like searching old ladies boarding planes, in Israel they can't joke around with their counter-terrorist strategies. Palestinians and Eastern Jews are almost genetically the same, which doesn't help them out very much either.
If you examine Isreal from a military perspective, they have an enormous disadvantage, and are in a situation completely different from the US. Using force and effective Intelligence the US has successfully kept terrorism out of their borders after September 11th. About all Isreal can do is prevent itself from being wiped out.
Military victories can fix problems, but only if they are victories. When dragged out indefinately in a stalemate, nothing is solved, and the conflict itself may become the problem.
What the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does show us, is there will be no end to terrorism anytime soon. I doubt either fundamental Islam or the US is about to dissappear anytime soon. Nor do I expect the political views of either to change within the next 20 years, hell maybe 100. However, don't expect terrorism to run rampent in the US as it does in Israel . I'm sure there will continue to be incidents overseas, but doubtfully many more on US soil, especially on a Sept 11th scale.
In Israel, they may retaliate after a terrorist act is committed. The US invaded an entire country after a single (or multiple, depending how you look at it) terrorist attack.
I wish WWI never happened, and the US didn't keep getting dragged into foreign wars. Unforunately that didn't happen, and now we must deal with the consequences.
I might sound like a supporter of Israel. I am simply fed up with people who see nothing wrong with terrorists targetting and killing innocent civilians to achieve political goals. War is war, but terrorism is murder.
Thats not a very good example.
It's not a complete example, but I think it's a very good, and very relevant, example. This was in response to a post suggesting that "military power's been doing a pretty good job." I disagree. Military power has done what military power does, but it hasn't, and won't, eliminate the threat of terrorism or make the United States or its citizens secure.
Are you aware of a better example of a successful military response to terrorism? I'd be quite happy to learn about it.
Military force is not doing Israel any good because they are restraining themselves.
I'll just assume you're serious about this "restraining themselves" concept. This begs the question: are you saying that "unrestrained military response" is the answer to terrorism? Can you tell me where "unrestrained military response" stops and "genocide" begins? Would you care to predict how long an "unrestrained military response" is possible before [national, global] public opinion turns so sour that it becomes impossible to sustain?
Additionally, the situation is completely different from the US. Palestine is right next door to Israel.
Perhaps the lesson that geography is irrelevant to low-level terrorism has escaped this country. In the 80's, discos in Germany (frequented by Americans station there) were bombed by terrorists. In this century, embassies in Africa were bombed by terrorists. The United States has interests throughout the world, so there isn't exactly a lack of potential targets. Everything is "right next door" to the United States.
If it's only the "homeland" you're protecting, then how far can you lock down the borders and screen out the people already in North America so you don't leave any potential backpack bombers in the homeland? How far can you push that policy before you compromise everything that defines the United States of America? And how far can you "cut loose" American interests on foreign territory before the hosts decide it's not worth letting the presence of Americans make their own citizens "incidental casualties"? Do you propose to solve the problem by withdrawing from all foreign lands, sealing the borders and bombing anyone who says mean things?
If you examine Isreal from a military perspective, they have an enormous disadvantage, and are in a situation completely different from the US. Using force and effective Intelligence the US has successfully kept terrorism out of their borders after September 11th. About all Isreal can do is prevent itself from being wiped out.
Could you explain the enormous military disadvantage? I'm afraid I don't see Israel as militarily disadvantaged in the region. Has Israel lost wars? Is there a significantly more capable military presence in the region? What is the source of this disadvantage?
The threat here is that the United States appears to be trying very hard to put itself in a very similar (to Israel) situation - and that is a situation that decades of history have demonstrated is a) untenable, b) insecure, and c) incompatible with human and civil rights.
Military victories can fix problems, but only if they are victories. When dragged out indefinately in a stalemate, nothing is solved, and the conflict itself may become the problem.
Then there are examples of non-military "success" against terrorism. There's an example from a little island off the north coast of Europe that might be a useful lesson.
I'm suggesting that the conflict is already the problem. And the most prominent evidence of that is that the vast goodwill toward the United States that was present on September 12, 2001 has evaporated and turned into open, public (thankfully mostly verbal) hostility.
What the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does show us, is there will be no end to terrorism anytime soon. I doubt either fundamental Islam or the US is about to dissappear anytime soon.
So you are suggesting genocide is the only answer? There will be no end to terrorism until there is no "fundamental Islam" or no "United States"?
I wish WWI never happened, and the US didn't keep getting dragged into foreign wars. Unforunately that didn't happen, and now we must deal with the consequences.
Are you really prepared to deal with the consquences of this new conflict? Shouldn't every effort be made to solve this before it turns into another century of trouble? Shouldn't we find (or at least try) a different solution before your grandkids post on some small message forum "I wish the War On Terror never happened, and the US didn't keep getting dragged into foreign wars. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and we're still dealing with the consequences"?
I might sound like a supporter of Israel. I am simply fed up with people who see nothing wrong with terrorists targetting and killing innocent civilians to achieve political goals. War is war, but terrorism is murder.
I'm not suggesting that there's nothing wrong with terrorists. I'm suggesting that the solution to terrorism is not more dead potential terrorists. Dead potential terrorists (and non-terrorists that just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) have families and friends. Family and friends of dead potential terrorists make really good new potential terrorists. Unless, and I hope I'm wrong about this, you actually think you can identify and kill them all.
You are apparently aware that there is a difference between terrorism and war. The military is a solution to war; it is not a solution to terrorism.
Please contact the original posters if you wish to use their portions of this exchange.