U.S. Diplomat Resigns in Protest

[Chris Alger]

From yesterday's NY Times, John Brady Keisling's letter of resignation from the foreign service. The Times identifies him as a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

(The remark about Micronesia refers to one of the few countries that sides with the US in UN votes regarding the Middle East).

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.

[Jimbo]

If the possibility of war with Iraq accomplishes nothing other than cause a large group of career diplomats to resign it will have been well worth the trouble and expense.

[B-Man]

He's a gifted writer, no question. His letter is very persuasive and definitely had made me think about my position on the pending war.

However, I am still extremely troubled about Saddam having/acquiring WMD, and I disagree with his assertion that Iraq and Al Queda are unrelated problems. Just because no definitive links between the two have been proven, that doesn't mean Saddam couldn't slip a nuke or a vial of smallpox to a group like Al Queda or another terrorist group that may have only one thing in common with Saddam--hatred for the U.S. and a desire to murder innocent Americans. This is a major concern; the only way to defend against WMD is to prevent them from being delivered, and the best way to do that is to prevent your enemies and lunatics from acquiring them. The scenario from the movie Sum of All Fears was not the least bit far-fetched in my mind (other than the fact that, in an effort to be politically correct, nazis were portrayed as the terrorists, rather than the Palestinian terrorists in Tom Clancy's book).

The bottom line is that I believe there are legitimate reasons to go to war. Unfortunately, Bush has not done a great job of convincing the rest of the world. It's a shame he doesn't have Slick Willy's charisma or communication skills, because his heart is in the right place, he just isn't a great salesman.

[hudini36]

If George w. Bush and Dick Cheney resign, then it will have been worth it.

[Baltimore Ron]

that the President is the Head of State, not the Secretary, not the Department and not any ambassador or diplomat. His job is to carry out the instructions of said President. If he feels (as he apparently does) that he can no longer fulfill that mission, then he is correct in resigning.

Mr. Kiesling, as a citizen of the United States, certainly has a right to hold and voice his own opinion - but in the role of a citizen, not as a representative of the government of the U.S. The proper response would have been to resign quietly and with some dignity and then, as a private citizen, voice whatever concerns he has about the direction of U.S. foreign policy. This letter reminds me too much of a four-year-old yelling and stamping his feet in the grocery aisle because mommy won't buy him the Fudge-Covered Oreos.

Of course, this is just one private citizen's opinion.

BR

[Chris Alger]

I can't tell why you detect any problem in his explaining his resignation publicly. Are you guilty of the totalitarian tendency of disgust toward any expression of dissent? One could say the same thing about Soviet or Iraqi defectors, or whistle-blowers anywhere. Few people accept the notion that one should conceal heart-felt beliefs about policy or morality so that those with power can maintain an illusion of consensus among the experts.

[Baltimore Ron]

"Are you guilty of the totalitarian tendency of disgust toward any expression of dissent?"

Please check all weapons and hyperbole at the door. If you read carefully what I said, I expressed no "disgust toward any expression of dissent." Just the opposite. Mr. Kiesling, or any former diplomat can express any opinion they wish. But when they represent the people of the United States, they must espouse the views of the elected representatives of the people of the United States. (And, no, I don't wish to turn this into a debate about Florida or the Electoral College.)

Secondly, freedom of expression is NOT freedom from criticism. If Mr. Kiesling is free to criticize President Bush over foreign policy differences, I am free to criticize Mr. Kiesling for boorish behavior. And, if he and I are free to do so, you are free to criticize my criticism. But, please use real arguments, not name calling. Because, after all, your right to speak does not create in me a corresponding obligation to listen.

BR

[Chris Alger]

"I expressed no 'disgust toward any expression of dissent.'"

You said his letter reminded you "too much" of a 4-year-old having a tantrum. I think that fairly qualifies as an expression of disgust.

"But when they represent the people of the United States, they must espouse the views of the elected representatives of the people of the United States."

Not quite, and never when they're in the process of resigning in protest.

[Chris Alger]

I think the link between Saddam and bin Laden can be dispensed with pretty easily: it defies what we know about these people and there isn't any evidence to support it. The NY Times and The Economist, among many others, have chastised the administration for risking its credibility by straining to make a connection.

The only honest argument for war I've seen is M's: the possibility of liberating Iraq from a tyrant justifies all the destruction and risk that the war will bring. Obviously I don't buy it, but at least it's based on facts and logic.

[Baltimore Ron]

Chris,

Just so I'm clear: my "disgust" with Mr. Kiesling is not with his dissent, but with the timing of said dissent. After all, unless he is fired for insubordination in the meantime, he is planning to hold his current position until March 7th.

"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."

As to whether or not those in the State Department should be espousing personal views, I guess you and I will just have to disagree. But in my view, those persons who represent this country to the rest of the world (diplomats, soldiers, etc.) have a special obligation to keep personal views personal, lest others mistake the official positions of the U.S. government.

BR