This Woman Could One Day Be Making U.S. Foreign Policy

Apathy is Not an Option

I wasn't feeling particularly inspired today. The stale air inside HST is stifling, as anyone who works there -- or has worked there -- knows. You spend your days pounding away on issues that you know in your subconscious will far outlive you. The obstinance and short-sightedness of humanity will virtually guarantee that the conflicts you are working to try to resolve will be revisited upon the third and fourth generations of those who hate peace -- or who at least can't reconcile themselves to it.

It's enough to make you shove your keyboard across the desk and spew, "$&%@ it." And that's what I did today.

I needed air.

So I went for a walk.

On the Mall.

And I found myself at the WWII memorial. I saw them. Men in their eighties. Beaming with pride. Many, actually, in wheelchairs. Rolling around the fountain. Men who never said, "$&%@ it."

The numbers are subject to debate, but hundreds of thousands of American soldiers died to save the world. Literally, to save the world.

They fought for the world I live in. This abysmal, self-absorbed existential angst I'm struggling with over lunch break.... it's a luxury afforded me by the sacrifice of those brave men.
As if that realization wasn't enough to pound the point home, I had to walk past the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the way back.
Over 55,000 men. Think about that. Over 55,000 men we sacrificed to counter Communism.

I'm ashamed.

And I return to work with the sober realization of what it is I'm there to do and an appreciation of the weighty obligation I owe to those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Suddenly, my frustration seems so petty...

AFSANET: Staff Items of Interest to Members: November 9, 2009

Released today:

1) MESSAGE REGARDING THE 2009 AFSA ELECTION

The AFSA Committee on Elections wishes to advise the AFSA membership that the recent 2009 Governing Board election has been challenged. The Committee on Elections had previously found one violation in the course of the campaign and had so notified the candidates. Three candidates filed complaints with the Department of Labor (DoL) alleging that other candidates or slates violated the Instructions to Candidates. The DoL conducted a thorough investigation and we are awaiting the results. If the DoL finds that violations occurred that could have impacted the outcome of the election, it may order that AFSA conduct a new election.
The Committee will notify the membership accordingly once we have received a decision from the DoL.

Well, that's certainly the "Cliff Notes" version. Raises more questions than it answers....

Advice on the Oral Exam

Digger at Life After Jerusalem posted an excellent piece today on the group exercise in the oral exam portion of the Foreign Service Officers Test (FSOT). I, too, get a ton of questions on this, but when I took the FSOT years ago, I got nearly zero feedback on my performance; basically, I knew I passed and little more. As I read Digger's observations on what is probably the most engrossing activity of the oral exam, I realize now why I passed. If you are considering taking the FSOT, take the time to read Digger's post and ask follow-up questions.

Back on February 1, the now missing-in-action The Hegemonist published a comprehensive guide to the FSOT that you'll also find immensely useful.

It's a Matter of Trust

Photo from www.teach-ict.com

When I solicited your suggestions for topics a week ago, Andrew submitted the following:

A question that came to mind was your writing about your local colleagues. You are a supervisor, but it seems you were/are concerned about being taken advantage of or people not doing there (sic) jobs? (This isn't the first FSO blog about this.) Is there a level of distrust between FSO and local staff? Why would that be?

About six months ago, I blogged about the challenge of managing locally-employed staff, so I don't want to rehash the points I made about dealing with performance issues. But Andrew's question brings to mind an aspect that I didn't address: malfeasance and fraud.

I just googled "U.S. embassy fraud" a minute ago and found this article published today in KyivPost. But lest you think the vulnerability of consular sections is found solely amongst local employees, read the stories of Mike O'Keefe, Alexander Meerovich, and Gons G. Nachman. In some cases, fraud and/or malfeasance are so pervasive that the entire staff, both Americans and locals, of the section have to be removed and rebuilt from scratch. Here's an example.

When a consular officer with supervisory responsibility arrives at a new post, it isn't unusual for a "honeymoon period" to ensue. The new officer wants to believe the best about his/her staff, and the staff likewise want to believe the best about him/her. Ideally, this is a phenomenon that doesn't occur, and for seasoned veterans (on both sides), it's a trap they avoid. The primary problem with that honeymoon period is that it delays or sometimes even replaces an honest, sober evaluation, the manager of his staff, and the staff of its new boss. As in any relationship, trust is something that has to be earned. There isn't any way around that. If a manager doesn't require that his subordinates earn his trust, and, just as importantly, if his staff doesn't make him earn their trust, the entire operation becomes vulnerable. Sound management controls can only mitigate this vulnerability, not fully eliminate it.

Andrew asked whether there's a level of distrust between FSO and local staff. If someone were to ask me about the indices I'd look for in a healthy consular section, distrust wouldn't be one of them. Vigilance would. Every employee, American and local, must be diligent in the execution of their duties and mindful of the activities of their coworkers. It really is a case of watching your partner's back. When a member of the team spots something out of the ordinary -- whether an anomaly in workflow, an apparent improvement in someone's material quality of life, mysterious phone calls, unexpected visitors to the section, you name it -- conscientious employees pick up on and report it. If it's a local employee, it's reported to the consular manager. If the suspicion falls on an American officer, then it has to go to post management. Incidentally, in the former case, if the consular manager fails to appropriately address the issue, then local employees may find themselves in the often uncomfortable but necessary position of reporting that to post management.

The ugly truth is that the acts of a single criminal cast aspersions on the integrity of each and every employee, and that's a stench that's very difficult to wash off. Good management controls, attentive supervision and vigilant staff can all help guard against the possibility of exploitation of the visa process by potential profiteers.

An Afternoon of Chess With Bibi

The full transcript is available here.

Back in August, I expressed concern at cracks I began to see in this Administration's defiant denunciation of the Israeli settlement enterprise in the West Bank. On September 22, The New York Times speculated, however, that,

"The White House is also trying to box in Mr. Netanyahu, administration officials said, by using his own unwillingness to agree to resolve the interim issue — in this case, a settlement freeze — to force him to a place he has indicated he really does not want to go yet: the final status talks."

So don't worry, this line of reasoning goes. Obama and company plan to use Netanyahu's intransigence against him. By failing to agree to a settlement freeze, and then failing to sit at the table to hash out a final status agreement with the Palestinians, Netanyahu will be exposed as a charlatan who only pays lip service to the two-state solution.

But there's a problem.

If that's the strategy, why the virulent response from the Arab world to Clinton's characterization of Israel's proposal to temporarily slow -- not halt -- settlement construction as "unprecedented?" Why the digging in of heels by Palestinian leadership on a settlement freeze as a precondition?

In other words, if this truly is the strategy, wouldn't we have clued these actors in to ensure they play along?

I hoping that what I'm witnessing is the most cleverly-engineered political approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ever attempted.

Because the alternative is unthinkable.

Quickie: The FS Blogosphere in 2009 | Diplopundit

Quickie: The FS Blogosphere in 2009 | Diplopundit

As usual, the quick-on-the-draw Domani Spero beat me to the punch on this one. Domani's observations about which blogs are included -- and which aren't -- certainly raises questions. Is any list of FS blogs complete without Consul-At-Arms II, for instance?

A notable quote that sums it up:

"The FSJ is the trade publication of the Foreign Service with a circulation of 15,000 and approximately 30,000 readers. We appreciate the blog press; just hope we won’t see a blog cop carrying a big hammer and a deletrius gun (used to disintegrate, or 'delete', an object) with nothing better to do, try and knock on our door in the weeks ahead."

Indeed.

Quick Answers to Jason's Questions

1. How do you determine how much your stuff weighs? Is 18K lbs a lot or not enough? I've never weighed all my stuff.

The general guideline for estimating your weight is 1000 lbs. per room, excluding bathrooms and storage areas, plus the estimated weight of your appliances, your storage and whatever's in your garage. When assigned to an overseas post, you are entitled to ship 7,200 pounds of household effects. That's in addition to your Unaccompanied Air Baggage (UAB), which starts at 250 pounds for a single employee and more for families based on the number of family members. You are entitled to a grand total of 18,000 pounds of effects. If you have 18,000, and you ship 7,200, then the remaining 10,200 will go into storage at a government facility until your return to the U.S.

I've never come close to pushing the weight limit, primarily because until this tour, I never owned a stick of furniture. That will change this time around. But I'm still confident I'm well within the limit. That said, this is a career where you accumulate a lot of great pieces from all those overseas excursions -- art, furniture and so on. I have colleagues who are always out-of-pocket for overweight charges. The best way to avoid this is to go through your house prior to every move and get rid of whatever isn't essential or used anymore.

2. When you travel with your family what kind of luggage do you use and why?

I'm too cheap to buy quality luggage, but I actually ending up spending an equivalent amount constantly replacing cheap suitcases. Last go around, I spent more and bought hard suitcases, but they didn't fare any better. Because I have small kids who can't pull their own baggage, I try to find luggage that's easily stackable or hooks together somehow.

3. How have you best integrated yourself into the culture at your various posts?

Frankly, the best way is to simply make a point of socializing outside of the expat community. Make friends with locals and make a point to make an honest effort to speak the language, even if they speak English.

4. What is the dress code like for day to day work and the various events you go to?

It depends. In DC, it's business attire all the time. Overseas, it varies with the culture and sometimes even the section of the embassy you work in. Generally, the greater the representational component your position has, the more likely it is you'll be dressing up on a regular basis.

5. Do you go camping with your family in foreign lands? Has this been successful? Is it safe?

I haven't been camping recently; my kids aren't quite old enough yet. Again, depends on the security and criminal situation in the country, but fantastic outdoor activity is one of the real perks of this job -- hiking, skiing, fishing, diving -- just about anything you love doing you'll now be able to do in interesting and exotic places.

6. How have you felt about your own personal safety? What steps can you take to increase your safety? Can you carry a handgun or even have one at home? How about a taser?

I feel overall that Diplomatic Security takes the safety of DOS employees very seriously and implements measures appropriate to the local environment to ensure it. I often feel safer overseas than I do walking around Washington, DC. Vigilance is key. Pay attention to your environment. Vary your routes and times and avoid falling into a predictable routine. Be constantly on the lookout for things or people that seem out of place. I don't carry a weapon, and, to be honest, I'm not sure what DOS guidelines are on that. I do know that import of firearms by diplomatic personnel in most countries is very strictly regulated if not banned outright, except in the case of security personnel. A taser or pepper spray might not be a bad idea. They can come in handy not only in connection with crime, but also if you're working in a country with a significant population of occasionally hostile street dogs.

7. What advice do you have for handling the bureaucracy of the government?

Be patient, and build personal relationships. Use those interpersonal skills within the Department that you use to such great effect with foreign interlocutors. Don't get frustrated. Ask friends for advice; you're not the first trying to accomplish a particular task. Some colleague you know has invariably grappled with it before.

Most importantly, as you do your job, model the kind of job performance and exhibit the kind of customer service you hope to get from fellow bureaucrats.

8. What household items have been invaluable in your travels?

Nothing jumps immediately to mind, but one thing always conspicuous by its absence: a good set of tools. Sure, the General Services Office will fix whatever needs repair in response to your work order, but it's so much better to be able to handle small tasks by yourself on the spot.

9. What household items can you easily do without?

Surprisingly, almost all of them. One thing that's really striking during those periods between tours when the majority of your household effects are in transit is how little you miss them. If too much time goes by, you even begin to forget what you shipped in the first place. It's always an experience that puts the value of material possessions in context.

10. What food items do you always miss or ship with you?

I never ship any food with me. But what do I miss? Habbersett's Scrapple. Breyer's Mint Chocolate Chip Ice Cream, Hard Pretzels from Snyder's of Hanover, Rita's Water Ice, a good cheesesteak, Tastykake's Butterscotch Krimpets, Lee's Italian Hoagies. The list goes on. You can imagine how much weight I gain on R&R.

11. If you continue on the consular track what will you be doing in 5 or 10 years that is different from today?

That's a good question and one that I'm trying to answer for myself. If I'm doing consular work, I hope to be running a large section somewhere, indoctrinating and brainwashing the next generation of Foreign Service officers -- a prospect that probably leaves some in CA shuddering. If things go well, maybe I'll get a shot at a Deputy Chief of Mission position honing my administrative skills and trying to effectively "manage up" as I deal with some politically-appointed ambassador....

"What is your guiding principle in this job, or why do you do what you do?"

These aren't two ways of asking the same question; they're actually two distinct -- and profoundly different -- questions. To address the first, the following classic Hollywood quote always comes to mind:

I've seen much of the rest of the world. It is brutal and cruel and dark, Rome is the light.
-- Russell Crowe as Maximus

I don't live under the illusion nor inebriate myself with any delusion that it's my country wrong or right. No nation is perfect. But the difference between ours and many others is that we aspire toward a higher ideal. We recognize our imperfections, and we strive to address them and to move beyond them. As an American, I believe without a doubt that the experiment which our forefathers undertook at the cost of their own lives is worthy and noble and worth replicating in other lands. It encompasses the values that we believe to be universal. Our old men, those who charged Normandy and stared down Communism, wax eloquently in their philosophical defense. Our young men to this day sacrifice themselves out of the conviction that they're worth dying for.

While I do my job imperfectly, I do it because I believe that promoting human rights, nurturing democratic ideals, trumpeting the value of the individual, standing firm against tyranny, fostering vibrant civil societies, and demanding justice for the wrongfully oppressed are causes worth championing.

There are few careers where you can say that without sounding like a pompous, self-important buffoon. Admittedly, I do it in some small way right now. But many of my colleagues, some of whom are very close friends, are doing it in places you would never dare visit, far away from family and at the quite literal risk of their lives.

That's the guiding principle.

But why do I do what I do? The reasons are slightly less noble but no less valid. The Foreign Service, frankly, was paying more than my previous job. It offered more security and came with better insurance. And it's far more interesting and stimulating than installing home security systems.

"Do you have any advice for AmCits that you wish you could give them before they leave the US & that you wish they would heed?"

There's no shortage of information available to American citizens before boarding a plane for a foreign land. I like this page Cheaptickets.com posts on advising Amcits of what they can expect in the way of support from embassies and consulates overseas.

The problem is that many Americans don't take the trouble to seek out and seriously consider the information provided. That problem is only exacerbated by the fact that many Americans seem to feel that American citizenship is some sort of teflon coating that makes them immune to all the bad things that could possibly befall them abroad. How many prison visits have I performed where incarcerated compatriots express astonishment that I can't simply walk up to the prison director and secure their immediate release -- regardless of infraction?

I don't know about advice, but what I would like to give each American considering an overseas excursion is a reality check.

Running on Empty

Well, to be honest, I've been feeling a bit less than inspired lately. When you start a blog, you've got a couple dozen decent ideas for posts, and then the flow slows a bit -- although that sure wasn't the case with the missing Madam Le Consul! I've addressed areas of consular work that have been sticking in my craw for awhile and tried to offer some useful advice for those hoping to join the ranks of the FS, but I thought I'd hit up you, my loyal readers, for ideas on what you'd like to hear about. The Phillies won Game #1, so I'm in a good mood and open to suggestions. Anything about Foreign Service life, anbout consular work, hell, about just about anything. Post a comment, and I'll do my best.

But Then Face to Face

The ride in. My favorite part of the day. It's the silent interlude between the stress of family responsibilities and the duties of the job. It's only 20 minutes, but they're my 20 minutes. Bidding this post maybe wasn't such a hot idea. The infrastructure sucks. With the street dogs, my wife and kids can't go out for a walk. Driving is just insane. All traffic laws are apparently optional, so driving is always an adventure. Security? Well, it helps that we have regular patrols by the locally-employed guard force to check the yard and car four times a day for suspicious objects. But I'd feel better if those frequent checks weren't necessary at all. I've been here three weeks. I always hate the beginning of a tour. This is an "out-of-cone" tour for me, which means that I'm doing consular work but am actually a Public Diplomacy officer. Last tour was great. I hated to leave, because I really felt like I had a handle on my job. But now I'm starting from zero again. I never enjoy that sense of disequilibrium. In retrospect, maybe it would have been better to do a Washington tour this time. This is our third straight time abroad. But we really had little choice. Life is so expensive in DC, and with our kids so young, my wife can't work. We simply couldn't afford to go back. I get homesick more than I used to. The Phillies finally made the playoffs this year, but I've got to watch them at 3 in the morning. I miss walking down the street and hearing English as a matter of course.

Wonder if my locally-employed staff is taking me seriously. It's difficult to adapt your management style to a different culture. Employees at my last post had a great work ethic and were so low maintenance. Here, I don't yet have a good read. Hard to tell if everyone is being genuine or just sucking up. Even three-year tour isn't that long in the scheme of things. I've got to be sharp enough to see through whatever mind games are being played. Who can I count on? Who's playing me hard, because they were this close to being forced out the door by my predecessor? That reminds me: I have got to read through those employee evaluations.

Here it is. The Embassy. And there's the long line of visa applicants. Again. Haven't we already interviewed everyone in this country? I wish I was better at foreign languages. Doesn't help that I'm an introvert in the first place. I certainly got the training I need to do this job, but sometimes it's just the knots in my stomach that make it hard to focus on each and every one of the 80 interviews I'll do today. But I don't have the luxury of dozing on the job. I have got to get this right. No one wants to issue a visa to the next terrorist to launch an attack on American soil. It's so hard early on to find that balance, too. Am I being too much of a hard-ass at the window? Am I being too gullible? I have got to make a point to travel around the country and see all these towns applicants hail from. It'll give me a little context. But time. When will I have time? Balancing work and home isn't easy, and when your family is basically homebound due to host country conditions, well, you owe it to them to make the weekends exciting.

Pulling into the "Main CAC." They're swiping my car with a white cloth to detect traces of explosives and running a mirror under the car to search for any out-of-place items. Great. A false positive. I've got to wash this car once in awhile. Now I'll have to wait another couple of minutes.

Wonder what kind of stories I'll hear at the window today.

Choosing a Cone (or Career Track or Specialty or Whatever They're Calling It This Week)

The most significant change to the recruitment process in recent times is the requirement that you choose a career track at the time you take the Foreign Service exam. And until I worked a recent recruitment trip, I didn't realize how big a deal this has become. The problem, of course, is that very few prospective FSOs have any clue about what work in each of those tracks entails. For those of you less familiar with the State Department, career tracks include Political, Economic, Management (formerly Administration), Consular, and Public Diplomacy. The State Department website offers a brief explanation of those tracks, but it's woefully insufficient. Here are the brief descriptions, according to State:

Consular: Consular Officers protect Americans abroad and strengthen U.S. border security
Economic: Economic Officers promote economic partnerships, development, and fair trade
Management: Management Officers run our embassies and make American diplomacy work
Political: Political Officers analyze political events
Public Diplomacy: Public Diplomacy Officers explain American values and policies

Those are pithy little summaries but aren't particularly helpful when you are trying to choose a specialty. Let me dispel one misperception about one track, Economic. Frequently, it's envisioned as a hard-core economist career, an Alan Greenspan-like job where you spend time analyzing sophisticated matrices and crunching numbers. Poppycock. Econ work is much like work in the Political track but with an emphasis on economic activity -- facilitating bilateral trade, protecting American economic interests, advocating for fair trade, and so on.

My contention is that your choice of career track should depend primarily upon your personality type. Let me explain. In many parts of the world, if you do political or economic reporting, you may write some bang-up cables and do great liaison work. But at the end of the day, you send out your cable, and only God knows whether anyone ever reads it, especially if you work in Carjackistan or Tsunamia. So something you must deal with is the fact that you may very well not see the concrete, tangible results of your labor during your tour -- or ever. Some people have no problem with this. They love the work for what it is and appreciate the intrinsic value of advocating for American interests abroad. I deeply respect that. That they may never see the long-term fruit of the seeds they plant doesn't bother them at all.

But you have to be mentally wired to extract satisfaction from your job in that case. And not all of us are.

Some people gain satisfaction from seeing the results of their labor and are frustrated when they don't. I am definitely one of those people. If you are, then you may want to consider Consular, Management or Public Diplomacy as a career. I chose Consular. What I like about it so much is that I almost always witness on a daily basis tangible results of my efforts. That destitute American who needed to get home? I got him on the plane. That visa applicant going for emergency medical treatment in the U.S.? He's on his way. That abducted American citizen child whom I've tracked down and worked with law enforcement to return to his mother? He's smiling widely and can't wait to see Mom. Management and Public Diplomacy are similarly task-oriented jobs that yield concrete, quantifiable results as psychological "deliverables" to the person doing the job.

So when you're trying to pick one of those enigmatic career tracks, ask yourself whether you have a psychological need at the end of the day to point to something to which you've brought closure. That will be a significant factor in determining the degree to which you find your FS career satisfying.

Blogging on "Matters of Official Concern"

Like many of you, I've felt the chill in the blogosphere triggered by the apparent shutdown of Madam Le Consul at The Consuls' Files. I've given it quite a bit of thought, wondering if perhaps I should just hang it up myself, before I accidentally stray over the line and incur the wrath of Big Brother. There's been a great deal of soul searching over the conundrum faced by USG employees wishing to pontificate, speculate, opinionate or simply rant on "matters of official concern." No one has been a better moderator of this debate than one of my favorites, Domani Spero at Diplopundit.

While I've drawn some attention with some of my posts, I've been spared the axe so far, and I'll posit that it's due to two simple rules I follow:

1) Write as if the blog isn't anonymous. I mean, look, let's face it: if you've ever met me, you'd have to be a stone-cold moron not to know who the author of this blog is. Biggest Phillies fan in the world who's obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and loves consular work? HELLO? So there's no point pretending that the blog is anonymous. Inspector Gadget could figure out who's writing it. So I don't say anything that I wouldn't say if my name was plastered on the blog. Sure, the tone would be a bit less acerbic, and I might write more for a family audience. but the content would remain the same.

2) I don't publicly disagree with U.S. policy. Go ahead; check my past posts. I do try to add to the conversation about our policies, but I have never suggested that I disagreed with them, nor did I encourage anyone to act in contravention to them. That's no easy task, especially given the content matter. But it's necessary. U.S. policy should be assailed when it's wrong, but a blog isn't the place for that. Either write a dissent cable or quit and get work as a pundit (and don't think I haven't given that some thought).

Frankly, whether I'm adhering strictly to the inadequate, outdated guidelines for this sort of activity is a matter of debate. "Don't speak on matters of official concern without clearing it." Well, for all intents and purposes, pretty much all foreign policy matter covering the last 100 years would be off limits. And as for speaking about consular work with a CA imprimatur: would you take me as seriously, if my posts appeared on the official State Department website?

I have no interest in disparaging the USG nor my employer; I blog, because I love this job, and I hope to get you, especially if you're contemplating a Foreign Service career, amped up about my line of work, too. Fact is, that's why all of us blog. Otherwise, we'd hang it up and move on to something else.

And I know Madam Le Consul felt the same way. Whenever I'm out recruiting or speaking spontaneously to some graduate student about the Foreign Service, I always conclude by recommending they google Foreign Service blogs. Why? Because they are honest slices of diplomatic life and do far, far more than any official recruiting pamphlet to pull back the veil on this career.

Let's not err on the side of silencing voices emerging from new technology; let's harness the potential.

Afghanistan: Defining the Objective

Photo by Eros Hoagland/Redux

On October 16, at the 18th Annual Arab-U.S. Policymakers Conference in Washington D.C., former Commander of U.S. Central Command General Joseph P. Hoar (USMC, Ret.) posited that as we re-evaluate our strategy in Afghanistan, we should ask this question: if Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were to pack their bags and go to Yemen, the Sudan, or elsewhere, how would this affect our view of the conflict and impact our planning. Hoar's observation is the latest in an increasingly vibrant conversation questioning the assumptions underpinning the rationale for our continued engagement in Afghanistan. On September 16, Paul Pillar, deputy chief of the counterterrorist center at the CIA from 1997 to 1999 and current director of graduate studies at Georgetown University's Security Studies Program, appearing in an interview with Margaret Warner on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer to discuss his Washington Post Op-Ed entitled, Who's Afraid of A Terrorist Haven?, challenged the oft-repeated assertion that the USG must do whatever it takes to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a "safehaven for terrorists."

The thrust of his argument is this:

How much does a haven affect the danger of terrorist attacks against U.S. interests, especially the U.S. homeland?

... the issue is whether preventing such a haven would reduce the terrorist threat to the United States enough from what it otherwise would be to offset the required expenditure of blood and treasure and the barriers to success in Afghanistan, including an ineffective regime and sagging support from the population. Thwarting the creation of a physical haven also would have to offset any boost to anti-U.S. terrorism stemming from perceptions that the United States had become an occupier rather than a defender of Afghanistan.

... expanding the counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan... would require not merely invoking Sept. 11 and taking for granted that a haven in Afghanistan would mean the difference between repeating and not repeating that horror. It would instead mean presenting a convincing case about how such a haven would significantly increase the terrorist danger to the United States. That case has not yet been made.

The difficulty in finding a way forward in Afghanistan, the struggle with formulating a definition of success stems largely from an disturbing inability of policymakers to complete the following statement: The United States will consider the mission in Afghanistan a success when...

When Al Qaeda is defeated?

When the Taliban are eliminated or neutralized?

When the government is capable of maintaining internal security and defending its borders?

When Afghanistan enjoys a Western-style participatory democracy that provides an outlet for political discontent other than violence?

All of these have been offered either singularly or in combination at one time or another. As the Administration considers the recommendations of the McChrystal report, the inability to date to set specific, achievable goals becomes all the more startlingly apparent.

Our consideration of overarching objectives is, in my opinion, complicated by the moral dimension. Because we invaded Afghanistan, we feel an obligation to leave the country in as stable a position as possible before backing away. There is an understandable, justifiable recoil at the thought that after U.S. troops leave, a fundamentalist Islamic regime that subjugates women, forbids religious pluralism and so on might return. But this simple fact must be kept steadfastly in view: we entered Afghanistan, because it was in the national security interest of the United States to do so. And when that interest has been exhausted, the mission, or at least that phase of it, is over. Our national resources are stretched, and even in the best of times, our abilities to remedy the centuries-old maladies of any society are limited at best. We have too many crises at the moment, priority issues for which we have limited sources to address, in much the same way that my child's comfort blanket is incapable of covering my queen-size bed.

The time has come to return to cold, hard analysis, to develop clear-eyed priorities, and to exercise discipline in their execution. The simple fact is that we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good; we will leave Afghanistan and Iraq eventually, and neither will be idyllic. But that cannot be the criteria by which we judge success. Our military action in Afghanistan and Iraq should end when it no longer serves our national interest, when the cost of continuing outweighs the benefit.

I think this is what Hoar was getting at, and Pillar's insistence that we start challenging the now cliche justifications for our actions in the region are a great start. The sooner we figure out what specifically we want to achieve, the closer will appear the horizon and an end to these conflicts.

The Agony and the Ecstasy

One can only imagine how excruciating this is to watch for his parents. I wish all the victims of this interminable conflict peace and hope for a lasting, equitable solution in which episodes like this one are never repeated.

Eight Years Later and No Closer to Mending the Net

In the wake of the arrest last week of Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, a 19-year-old Jordanian who had overstayed his tourist visa, accused of planning to blow up a Dallas skyscraper, this article from The New York Times is a reminder that until we get border control fixed, immigration reform is a waste of time.

Notable quotes:

"Eight years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and despite repeated mandates from Congress, the United States still has no reliable system for verifying that foreign visitors have left the country."

"Last year, official figures show, 39 million foreign travelers were admitted on temporary visas like Mr. Smadi’s. Based on the paper stubs, homeland security officials said, they confirmed the departure of 92.5 percent of them. Most of the remaining visitors did depart, officials said, but failed to check out because they did not know how to do so. But more than 200,000 of them are believed to have overstayed intentionally."

You can read the rest here.

Without a Trace

Domani Spero at Diplopundit cleverly speculates on the disappearance of that shooting star, Madam Le Consul of The Consuls' Files. Where in the world is MLC???

The Right Move

Enough has been said about the utter absurdity of the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for, well, for great speeches and the promise of an anti-Bush foreign policy. There's no shortage of punditry on this topic, so no need to re-plow that ground. But I do have a suggestion.

Obama should politely decline.

I don't think there's any question that the White House was as dumbfounded as the rest of us by the announcement, and it no doubt sent advisors scurrying to formulate an appropriate response. They settled on the whole "the award is a call to action" spiel. That wasn't a bad option. But the best option would have been an announcement from the President that while he appreciates and understands the sentiment behind the Committee's decision, the fact is that he's been President for less than a year, is still fighting two wars, still hasn't closed Guantanamo, and, in fact, doesn't have a significant, defining foreign policy achievement to point to. Don't get me wrong; I think we're on the right path, for the most part. But let's get real.

All this does is feed into the Far Right's criticism that Obama is a Pied Piper, a charismatic figure who generates ridiculous displays of hero worship.

Nobel did Obama no favors here. The only way to come out ahead here is to demonstrate the humility his opponents claim he lacks and take a pass.

Now We See Through a Glass Darkly

I got up early. Had to. The embassy is a four-ride drive from my house, and my appointment's at 8:30. You'd think in a country with only one visa processing post, they'd consider scheduling appointments in the afternoon instead. Some people drive as long as six hours. That means you're getting up at 2:00 in the morning just so you can get there on time for an early morning appointment. Whatever. I got here a little early. Didn't want to risk being late. I'm standing in a line of visa applicants; no one wanted to risk being late. And we're standing in rain. I forgot my umbrella. Great. Couldn't they put an awning or roof up around here? They know applicants gather here every morning. I hope my documents don't get wet. I'm bored. They won't let people in for another ten minutes. Bored and wet. Two girls are chattering next to me. One is telling the other how she's trying to get to the U.S. to join her husband who sneaked across the Mexican border a year ago. She says she's got documents that show she's going for business training. She works for a bank, she says, so maybe the consul will buy the story. I quietly seethe. Why? Because I really am going to the U.S for training. And goddamn visa applicants like this one are why American consuls are so skeptical of visa applicants. Pisses me off. I just hope I don't interview at the same window this bitch does. If the consul sniffs her out, it'll make it that much harder for the following interviewees. Must be nice to live in a visa waiver country. Wonder if my wife and kids are up yet. I'm hungry. How much longer before they start letting us in? Four hours for what will probably be a two minute interview. For $131. What a racket. Won't it ever stop raining? Just my luck. Should have checked the forecast before scheduling the appointment. I'm such a dumb-ass sometimes. FINALLY. Somebody's at the window. They'll start letting us in. I swear to God, I wish my company hadn't insisted I go. This is a pain in the ass. And if I get refused.....