Like most everything else in life, diplomacy is a matter of balance and tradeoffs - diplomatic engagement in foreign policy, and security of our diplomats.
Our American ambassadors to foreign lands and their corps of State Department diplomats represent America's interests abroad. And as America's four percent of the world population is necessarily intertwined culturally, politically and economically with the rest of the world, we have to be constructively engaged.
Yet, as the tragic deaths of our ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three of his colleagues last September illustrates, the world is still a dangerous place. Embassies need to be safe and secure, even as our diplomats cannot avoid risk if they are to be effective.
During my four years at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman I had several occasions to visit the American embassy in Muscat. Oman is a peaceful nation, and friendly to the West. But this is still the Middle East, and the embassy is heavily guarded with several layers of exterior guards. The U.S. Marine detachment provides the inner ring security and is responsible for security of classified material.
During the 2004 presidential election, I went down to the embassy to vote. As one might expect, it was quite a process, even for an American, to get into the embassy. After voting, I walked outside to await my ride. I stood briefly beside one of the guards on the street. He immediately asked me to leave and keep my distance from him. I could easily understand the logic - in event of an incident, anyone standing near him would be a distraction.
The deaths of Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues in Libya illustrate the tradeoffs between engagement and security. Unfortunately, instead of this incident being an opportunity to discuss how to improve intelligence and security while permitting engagement of our diplomats, it was probably inevitable that it quickly became a matter of nasty partisan politics.
Was it a planned terrorist attack? Or was it a spontaneous demonstration provoked by that anti-Muslim movie? Were there prior warnings? Was security adequate? Who in the State Department knew what? Were the initial statements regarding the incident accurate?
Using that incident, Republicans tried to paint the U.S. State Department as incompetent and American foreign policy under Obama as impotent. While it didn't help the Republicans for the presidential election, they got their pound of flesh during the post-election fallout.
Republicans accused U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, President Obama's potential nominee for Secretary of State to replace Secretary Hilary Clinton, of being disingenuous with her early statements regarding the incident. Republican outrage was so vehement that Obama withheld Rice's nomination, deciding instead to nominate Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Kerry's confirmation practically assures that Republicans will gain a seat in the Senate with the probable election of Scott Brown.
Encouraged by that political victory, the Republicans went for more. They next grilled Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, attempting to take her to task over the Libyan tragedy. One senator insisted that she should have been fired over the incident, never mind that with her four-year horrendous travel schedule and work load, she has performed meritorious service to our nation. A heated exchange between an exasperated Clinton and Wisconsin's Tea Party-backed Senator Ron Johnson made national news.
Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic Studies asserts that this was a lost opportunity to have serious discussion on how our diplomats function and how they are deployed and protected. Cordesman reminds us that the blame game always produces similar results. There have always been requests for more resources and more security. And there have always been warnings that there is potential danger and, with 20-20 hindsight, "why wasn't disaster prevented?" Yet, there can never be perfect intelligence and certainty when a dangerous event will occur. And there can never be absolute security.
Cordesman adds that our diplomats "can only be effective if they are on the scene, work with the leaders and factions involved, and often go into harms way where there are terrorist and military threats."
So, instead of constructive discussion on how Congress can work with intelligence agencies and the State Department to enable our diplomats to function, we get nasty partisan politics.
It's easy enough to see what's happening here. For decades in the court of American public opinion, the Republicans have had the upper hand on foreign policy. That changed during the last four years. Republicans saw the Libyan tragedy as an opportunity to try to regain the upper hand by portraying the Obama Administration's foreign policy as inept, and the State Department and Secretary Clinton as negligent.
And with Clinton being the potential Democratic nominee for president in 2016 - it's as good as hers if she wants it - the Senate hearings provided an early chance for Republicans to take some verbal potshots and attempt to discredit her.
Did they succeed? Polls show overwhelming American approval of the job Secretary Clinton has done - over 67 percent, and these cannot all be card-carrying Democrats. The Joe Heller cartoon in Monday's Times says it all. It shows Uncle Sam standing outside the Senate Hearing Room proclaiming that women can handle combat situations. Inside the hearing room stands a triumphant Hilary Clinton, as a badly battered and bruised Republican elephant emerges from the hearing room muttering, "Tell me about it."
Secretary Clinton's prodigious work ethic, broadly acclaimed record on the world stage of restoring badly damaged foreign relations, history of extraordinary grace under extenuating circumstances, and crisp intelligence, not to mention consummate political skills, speak to her exceptional experience and ability as a public servant.
Far be it for me to advise the Republicans. But the more that men of power (particularly those of lesser intelligence, experience and stature) try to tear her down, the smaller and pettier they make themselves look.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
Our American ambassadors to foreign lands and their corps of State Department diplomats represent America's interests abroad. And as America's four percent of the world population is necessarily intertwined culturally, politically and economically with the rest of the world, we have to be constructively engaged.
Yet, as the tragic deaths of our ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three of his colleagues last September illustrates, the world is still a dangerous place. Embassies need to be safe and secure, even as our diplomats cannot avoid risk if they are to be effective.
During my four years at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman I had several occasions to visit the American embassy in Muscat. Oman is a peaceful nation, and friendly to the West. But this is still the Middle East, and the embassy is heavily guarded with several layers of exterior guards. The U.S. Marine detachment provides the inner ring security and is responsible for security of classified material.
During the 2004 presidential election, I went down to the embassy to vote. As one might expect, it was quite a process, even for an American, to get into the embassy. After voting, I walked outside to await my ride. I stood briefly beside one of the guards on the street. He immediately asked me to leave and keep my distance from him. I could easily understand the logic - in event of an incident, anyone standing near him would be a distraction.
The deaths of Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues in Libya illustrate the tradeoffs between engagement and security. Unfortunately, instead of this incident being an opportunity to discuss how to improve intelligence and security while permitting engagement of our diplomats, it was probably inevitable that it quickly became a matter of nasty partisan politics.
Was it a planned terrorist attack? Or was it a spontaneous demonstration provoked by that anti-Muslim movie? Were there prior warnings? Was security adequate? Who in the State Department knew what? Were the initial statements regarding the incident accurate?
Using that incident, Republicans tried to paint the U.S. State Department as incompetent and American foreign policy under Obama as impotent. While it didn't help the Republicans for the presidential election, they got their pound of flesh during the post-election fallout.
Republicans accused U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, President Obama's potential nominee for Secretary of State to replace Secretary Hilary Clinton, of being disingenuous with her early statements regarding the incident. Republican outrage was so vehement that Obama withheld Rice's nomination, deciding instead to nominate Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Kerry's confirmation practically assures that Republicans will gain a seat in the Senate with the probable election of Scott Brown.
Encouraged by that political victory, the Republicans went for more. They next grilled Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, attempting to take her to task over the Libyan tragedy. One senator insisted that she should have been fired over the incident, never mind that with her four-year horrendous travel schedule and work load, she has performed meritorious service to our nation. A heated exchange between an exasperated Clinton and Wisconsin's Tea Party-backed Senator Ron Johnson made national news.
Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic Studies asserts that this was a lost opportunity to have serious discussion on how our diplomats function and how they are deployed and protected. Cordesman reminds us that the blame game always produces similar results. There have always been requests for more resources and more security. And there have always been warnings that there is potential danger and, with 20-20 hindsight, "why wasn't disaster prevented?" Yet, there can never be perfect intelligence and certainty when a dangerous event will occur. And there can never be absolute security.
Cordesman adds that our diplomats "can only be effective if they are on the scene, work with the leaders and factions involved, and often go into harms way where there are terrorist and military threats."
So, instead of constructive discussion on how Congress can work with intelligence agencies and the State Department to enable our diplomats to function, we get nasty partisan politics.
It's easy enough to see what's happening here. For decades in the court of American public opinion, the Republicans have had the upper hand on foreign policy. That changed during the last four years. Republicans saw the Libyan tragedy as an opportunity to try to regain the upper hand by portraying the Obama Administration's foreign policy as inept, and the State Department and Secretary Clinton as negligent.
And with Clinton being the potential Democratic nominee for president in 2016 - it's as good as hers if she wants it - the Senate hearings provided an early chance for Republicans to take some verbal potshots and attempt to discredit her.
Did they succeed? Polls show overwhelming American approval of the job Secretary Clinton has done - over 67 percent, and these cannot all be card-carrying Democrats. The Joe Heller cartoon in Monday's Times says it all. It shows Uncle Sam standing outside the Senate Hearing Room proclaiming that women can handle combat situations. Inside the hearing room stands a triumphant Hilary Clinton, as a badly battered and bruised Republican elephant emerges from the hearing room muttering, "Tell me about it."
Secretary Clinton's prodigious work ethic, broadly acclaimed record on the world stage of restoring badly damaged foreign relations, history of extraordinary grace under extenuating circumstances, and crisp intelligence, not to mention consummate political skills, speak to her exceptional experience and ability as a public servant.
Far be it for me to advise the Republicans. But the more that men of power (particularly those of lesser intelligence, experience and stature) try to tear her down, the smaller and pettier they make themselves look.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
