It's Called Public Service for a Reason

Though it may seem like it at times, the diplomatic corps and the armed forces are not at opposite ends of the national interests spectrum. We should be on the same side, working towards the same goals, albeit with different tools. The diplomatic corps would be little more than a bunch of puffed up blowhards without the armed forces watching their perimeter, literally (in the case of the USMC embassy guards) and figuratively. And the armed forces would be mired in endless wars without the diplomatic corps working towards solutions to worldly problems without resorting to force, and setting the stage for peace when force is necessary.

It is a bit disturbing to me, therefore, to find a resignation letter so obviously flawed in logic as the one submitted by COL (USAR-ret) Mary Ann Wright, at the time Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. embassy in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. The resignation, dated 19 March, 2003 is a great example of why the folks at Foggy Bottom appear to be unable to keep up their end of the balancing act between the diplomatic corps and the armed forces as they apply to US interests. She writes in her resignation the normal BDS pablum of “the Administration's policies are making the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place” and “I feel obligated morally and professionally to set out my very deep and firm concerns on these policies and to resign from government service as I cannot defend or implement them.” All well and good, as anyone with any character should, in fact, be willing to resign their taxpayer supported position when they can no longer carry out the mission given them by their duly elected civilian leadership (military included). However, it becomes apparent later in her resignation letter, as she feebly tries to explain her reasons for being unable to “defend or implement” the policies of the duly elected president, that she never really should have been entrusted with that duty in the first place. She states that she “believe(s) we should not use US military force without UNSC agreement to ensure compliance.” With this statement, Ms. Wright is confirming that she feels more duty-bound to the United Nations, and their wishes, than she does to the wishes of the President of the United States. As head of the Executive Branch, he is her boss. There are a few layers in between, but he has every right to tell the State Department what their priorities and policies should be. The people of the United States elected President Bush to set our foreign policy, they did not elect Kofi Anan. In fact, not one of the members of the United Nations, Ambassador Bolton included, was elected to the United Nations by the people of the United States. There is no mechanism whatsoever for the will of the citizens of the United States to be reflected in the actions or policies of the United Nations. None whatsoever. And yet, Ms. Wright feels that US military force should not be used at the direction of the US President, but instead should be used only under the direction of the United Nations Security Council.   For someone who seems worried about the US Constitution, she certainly has a warped idea of who the Constitution gives the power of Commander in Chief to, and who the Constitution says is in charge of foreign policy (here's a hint, it's not going to be anyone in the UN, ever). 

There are 15 members on the Security Council. Only one of those members is even casually responsible for representing the American public. The others can, and will, (and sometimes should) vote as they see best for their country, and not what is best for the US. We should expect nothing different. This has apparently slipped by Ms. Wright; that there might be a reason that UNSC agreements will never be forthcoming and that we have to act militarily in their absence. Clearly she has divided loyalties, and quite frankly, it scares the hell out of me that a senior member of the State Department can’t readily recall who it is that she works for. She also seems to believe the myth that most of the world supported us shortly after 9-11, a myth which I personally don’t believe, but can understand why some people would, especially people like State Department employees who believe that the whole world is just a heartbeat away from declaring universal peace (and harmony). “Countries of the world supported America's action in Afghanistan as a response to the September 11 Al Qaida attacks on America.” is how she puts it in her letter, choosing to ignore the hundreds of thousands of people who protested in EU nations against US action in Afghanistan. She is mistaking as sympathy something far less supportive, and much more odious. The Europeans were willing to “support” us as long as they were also allowed to help us understand “why they hate us.” Once we understood that, they were willing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us as we pay penance, through the UN of course, to the muslims for their hatred of us. I guess I should not be surprised that a senior member of the State Department thinks that would constitute an acceptable way forward in the war on terror. But belief in myths is a dangerous thing in this dangerous world, and has no place in the hard-nosed world of diplomacy.

I will commend Ms. Wright for resigning from her position when she could not carry out her appointed duties. I applaud her sense of honor, even if she chose to have a very public resignation (I’m thinking that she would not have turned down a just as public re-instatement to a higher grade back into State at the beginning of the Kerry presidency), the antithesis of diplomacy. But I’m appalled at her completely flawed reasoning, and dismayed that a public servant could reach such a high grade level and still not understand what the term “service to the nation” means. If the UN interests are the same as US interests (I think that everyone will agree that they rarely are), then you use that fact to embellish and strengthen the US position. When the two diverge, US State Department officials should serve only the US.

Comments

[tblubrd]

Kind of reminds me a little of the military desertion issue. You sign up to be a soldier, get the training, learn the skills, and when told to serve, get political angst about the "right war".
Jeremy Hinzman and the Watada fellow come to mind.

But at least they weren't in the dark about the identity of their commander.

Mary Ann Wright apparently was.

[WW]

George W. Bush comes to mind. During the Vietnam War he signs up for the "Champagne Brigade" of the Texas Air National Guard. He checks "no" in the box on a form asking whether he'd be willing to perform overseas duty. He boozes his way through his "service," takes time off for Republican campaigning and then skips his drills and goes AWOL.

That's desertion.

[Fox2!]

Did she also resign her position on the retired list and forfeit her retainer pay?

[ww]

The Incompetent Liar-in-Chief Prepares to Cut 'n Run

I wonder if he'll apologize to the families of the 2,500+ American soldiers that have died for his lie, or to the 8,000+ seriously wounded for his lie, or to the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, wounded or made homeless for his lie. Will he apologize to Americans for ruining this country's reputation by instituting a policy of torturing enemy combatants and civilians?

What about the people of Iraq, whose country he had ruined, and who will be left in the lurch when he yanks American troops out of there? And how about the consequences of such a highly visible U.S. defeat 'n retreat?

Oh yes, George W. Bush and his final act of desertion. What will he knee-jerk right-wing liar followers say? What will Faux News and Bill O'Leilly say? We know that none of you believe in accountability or personal responsibility, so who will you blame the defeat on? Cindy Sheehan? The New York Times? Death rays from outer space?

http://tinyurl.com/zge58

Excerpt:

The Bush administration insists Iraq is a long way from civil war, but the contingency planning has already begun inside the White House and the Pentagon. President Bush will move U.S. troops out of Iraq if the country descends into civil war, according to one senior Bush aide who declined to be named while talking about internal strategy. "If there's a full-blown civil war, the president isn't going to allow our forces to be caught in the crossfire," the aide said. ...

If the country did someday meet the definition of civil war and the U.S. pulled out, military officials warn, the consequences would be disastrous. "All the neighboring powers would be drawn in," said one senior military official who has examined the scenarios and is not authorized to speak on the record. "It would become a regional war."

[Agnieszka O.]

Seriously WW - get your own blog.

[Consul-At-Arms]

I've linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/08/re-its-called-public-service-for.html

[Maggie45]

She has her own blog. She's the Nutty Professor. Hopefully her family will do an intervention soon and get her the help she so desperately needs.

[MarkF]

WW has a political blog. At a guess, frustration from the lack of comments there is the reason WW finds it necessary to leave his droppings here.
Just your basic far-left, still convinced the election was stolen, Sheehan cultist.
No hope for an intelligent conversation. Their 'Truth' beats the facts every time.

[MissBirdlegs in AL]

That's my assessment, also, MarkF. I decided long ago that he just wasn't getting enough attention. His dribbles on the Milblogs are rarely read, so why in the world would anyone go to his blog?