Washington File

Your welcome Brian.

As you know though in the paranoia that surrounds terrorism these days, I would hate for anybody to have their comments taken at face value rather than in the context of what they were written in.

I have experienced this many times where people try to read something into a straight forward comment that isn't there.

It just goes to show how mistrustful we as a society have become.

Charlene, thanks for the warning. My comments are framed as a hypothesis based on actions taken after WWII. They are in no way meant as direct threats against anyone and would only occur after court proceedings. There's no intent at vigilanteism here, just the use of a precedent in world history to make a point.

Brian R., I would caution you to not talk about anyone being sentenced to death,especially those who are currently in office.

It could possibly be misconstrued to be a direct threat to a person such as a President of a country.

I know that what you are saying is how you feel but on the other hand you don't need CSIS or the RCMP showing up at your door just for voicing your opinion and then trying to prove yourself innocent of any direct threats to anybody.

I know we are suppose to have freedom of speech but sometimes you have to be very careful of what you are saying.

I understand your frustration though.

Tim from Kitchener is wrong to disparage CMac's astute observation that Violence is the only language that Islamic Fundamentalists understand...

Nonetheless, Power and ruthlessness influences these people; sensitivity and graciousness don't. It's a cultural thing of course, not everybody thinks the same way, but overall most hardcore muslims view being "nice" with being "weak".

I remember reading how Mark Steyn walked around Iraq (in Baathist and Sunni dominated areas) in a Western-style business suit shortly after the country was conquered. He observed that he was completely unmolested, because of the power implicit in being a Westerner. Once the US proved they were weak (by being "nice" and not responding ruthlessly to sectarian violence) they lost all credibility and transitively thier power.

I see that here in Kandahar too; the local folks admire power; the morality of the cause is irrelevant, they want to side with a winner... And as violence sadly is the lowest common denominator of all human interaction, one has to be overwhelmingly better at it than one's adversary, so as to deter his pre-emptive descent to that level.

That's why the US is having a tough go in Iraq; they've proven they are too hesitant to engage in violence to the same degree as the Sunni and Shiite sectarian butchers. That's why the Taliban still have influence in Afghanistan; because they're brutes.

We should be absolutely overwhelming in our violence, but infinitely judicious in it's application... But as long as armchair generals and the media force ridiculous standards of Jus in Bello, we will fight with one hand tied behind our back.

Chuck Warren - as someone who works quite closely with the American military, you are mistaken in your belief that the Iraq war is supported by 80% of troops. While the top brass may be towing the line publicly, I've probably only spoken with a couple dozen soldiers who believe in the mission - most hold the "fight them there, not here" point of view. The other 100+ soldiers I've recently worked with think Bush is a moron.

Not only should America be out of Iraq, the Administration should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I'd like to see a coalition of European, Russian, and Chinese delegates to make up the court. The guilty parties in the Administration (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld etc) should either be sentenced to death or imprisoned for life. America should be obligated to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq and provide a settlement for the civilian deaths they caused, and like the Germans and Japanese after WWII, they should be disallowed from building up their forces and participating in any military actions. Their nuclear arsenal should also be dismantled.

That would go a long way towards having a lasting peace in the world.

Alright Tim, clearly your reading glasses may need to be checked by an accredited optometrist because you obviously did not read my posting correctly before drawing your conclusions. I never said that the "America=State Department" (whatever that means?) and as Henry correctly pointed out "only about 12% of foreign service officers believe 'Rice is fighting for them'". So clearly most State Department officials hate the current administration as much those that posted before and after me (i.e. Dave in Calgary and Tim in Kitchener). Which goes back to my original point that the web-forum, those of us that post our opinions here, are spewing Anti-Americanism because that is unfortunately the Canadian way. Finally, as for Tim's "obvious facts" that shun my argument that armed force is what is needed to fight Islamic fundamentalists, he should check the web-site www.icasualties.org for some real facts. Civilian deaths reached a two year low last month (565) and U.S. armed forces personel deaths were 38 last month compared with 101 in June. General David Petraeus's "take and hold strategy" is proving military force can win the day against Iraqi insurgents who will kill anybody, including Iraqi civilians, because of religious hatred. Tim, I don't think General Petraeus needs a translation manual since his strategy is having success, but you need some critical analysis skills to make-up for your blind "Anti-U.S. everything" ideology.

C Mac is convinced that America = the State Department, apparently. Criticism of its Iraq policy? Oh, that's "America bashing"! Detailed discussions are effortlessly dismissed with vague phrases.

As for the remarkable claim that armed force is "the only language... Islamic fundamentalists understand," C Mac must seriously wonder about just what the American forces have been saying in this language! Maybe they need a new translation manual? Because I haven't really noticed a decrease in religious extremism and violence in Iraq since America started applying military force there. How this conviction about the effectiveness of armed intervention is supposed to square with four years of obvious facts is quite baffling.

Its good to see good old fashioned America bashing is in full swing on a CBC web-forum, I would not expect any less from our "national broadcaster". Champ provides both sides of the story relatively fairly, unlike that other CBC reporter, Neil MacDonald, who makes Anti-Americanism seem like our national sport in his heavily-biased reports. Look, if you sign-up to be in the Foreign Service, you have chosen a potentially dangerous profession. To climb up the ladder of this organization you sometimes must pass rungs that are not fastened securely in place (i.e. Iraq, or the bombed out embassies in Tanzania or Kenya in 1998). You signed-up to a job that provides many perks many in America can only dream of (pension and government health rates as examples) and thus no matter what you think of the current administration, you have sworn to serve and must follow your word. As the Islamic fundamentalists have shown time and time again, it doesn't matter if you love President Bush or loathe him, you are an infidel, and thus are inferior to them and must convert or die (although most Islamists don't give their captives the chance to take the former option before they sever your head from the rest of your body).Kenya and Tanzania were not "Islamic" countries by any stretch and Al-Qaeda proved it could strike and cause many deaths to locals as well as State Department officials. Anyways, if all else fails, a nation's most influencial foreign service is the armed forces, they speak the only language these Islamic fundamentalists understand.

Even the insiders in the Bush administration know this war is lost. To hear them whistling in the dark week after week is just fascinating. They borrow billions to pour down the same hole, while their president vetoes bills to provide health care to American children and ensure responsible freshwater resource management. Congress, tasked to end the war in the most recent mid-term elections, is in fact held hostage by the Defense Industry, and appears utterly impotent.
Just consider what the Canadian Economy will look like when the spell is finally broken and America's enemies, now gleefully lending billions of dollars to the US as fast as the Bush Administration can squander them, call in those loans and the whip-hand changes.
Enjoy the war folks, because the peace is going to suck. The real question is, when do they attack Iran?

How stupid do you have to be to be stupid. No one will ever know just how stupid George Bush is, but Im sure those in the foreign service can not be as stupid as the stupid person who sending them to mind the fences in a field of failure. Naw, man just stay home, Iraq is not worth it. Why die for nothing. Why risk your life on a lost cause, and even if things do turn out ok, the sacrifice was and is not worth it. Save your bravery for the big one. Something worthy of your courage. George, SEND THE TWINS, instead of someone else's kids...

Dear Jerry from Seattle,

I don't think you can equate not wanting to die for nothing, nor wanting to follow wrong orders with being a "cry baby" nor with being a "sissy."

With regard to the part about not wanting to follow wrong orders: In the Western World, and indeed (hopefuly) in all the world: "I was only following orders" doesn't cut it any more. It hasn't since the Nuremberg trials!

"Pampered" and "overpaid," however, sounds about right. Have you ever seen video clips of diplomats in the duty free shop in the basement of the UN building in New York City? They look like a bunch of gluttonous swine at the trough!

I think the world is changing and the ones who want peace far out weigh the ones who want war.

If you don't believe any longer in the reasons given for being somewhere,especially when it goes against what you can see [the writing on the wall], then why be forced to go along with something that is against your better judgment?

The U.S. went against everyone in their outright bid to destroy Iraq under whatever guise you want to call it.

They thought they would run in and run back out but instead they have found theirselves saddled with a war and surmounting casualties everywhere and now can't get out without admitting defeat.

They should have listened to the scholars of the Middle East who warned the politics over there shift with the sand and that the West doesn't understand them or even try to.

When will the U.S. ever learn?

These so-called professional diplomats are sounding like cry babies. I say to them, find a new line of work. If there is anybody out there who needs overpaid, pampered sissies who will only work where there is no danger, call the US Dept of State today.

To Chuck Warren:

I gather that a number, possibly the majority, of US forces still support the mission but here in Canada I've seen a number of television documentaries that suggest more troops than ever before are beginning to oppose the mission. I suppose the two sides cannot be adequately reconciled with the numbers weighting the pro side of the war more than the con, but I also think that opinions among military personnel are not that far removed from public opinion in general, and public opinion is heavily anti war these days. Can the military be far behind? perhaps not so much, particularly as commentators - increasingly vocal - point out the horrifically incompetant method by which the war has been conducted to this point. More and more people are beginning to peak through the layers of propaganda and are discovering that in the almost 8 years Bush has been in the Whitehouse he has yet to be right about anything, and in fact has been wrong on everything.More and more people are coming to understand just how badly this president has ruined the american reputation in the world and damaged america itself: from Abu Ghraib and the sanctioned use of torture - a grossly immoral and despicable perversion of american attitudes toward decency, humanity and justice! -to illegal wiretapping of american citizens without cause.

If it isn't just the public or the foreign service abandoning this president then you have to ask yourself if the military aren't far behind. Given that the president supports the use of troops in combat on the one hand but then cuts their hospitalization and benefits on the other, how coul;d anyone of conscience or intelligence contin ue to support a failed, unethical, immoral,m broken policy? How can anyone support this president, a man who in 8 short years brought the once great USA so low? It boggles the mind.

Harry Champ seems to be jumping on the "Iraq is a lost cause" bandwagon. If this is true, how to explain the overwhelming support of the mission among the troops? They're no dummies: during Vietnam soldier discontent reached record levels. No one wanted to fight in southeast Asia. In comparison, today Bush is lauded as a hero on every military base he visits. Can you imagine what would have happened to Nixon or Johnson had they visited US bases during the last years of the Vietnam war? As long as 80%+ of the military support the mission, I think Bush can easily discount "experts" like Mr. Champ and their opinions.

I have little sympathy with the core establishment at the State Department. These were the folks who backed the wrong man in pre-war Iraq and who sold the notion that only a small occupying force would be needed in Iraq because the population would rise up and greet them in the streets. These were the folks whose most senior member---Richard Armitage---revealed Valerie Plame's name and set in motion the Plamegate hunt that ended with the ruin of Scooter Libby. These are the people who, in conjunction with some CIA seniors, have consistently undermined Presidential foreign policy (see Scarboroughs devastating book). These are the high-grade civil servants who form a self-appointed mandarinare in Washington, and whose elite status has been threatened by the Bush team. Such self-anointed cliques always see "outsiders" as country bumpkins and fools.

That Henry Champ should be drawing attention to their "plight" is a classic example of one elite sticking up for another and damn the facts.

The contrast between the onset of the invasion and the current situation is night and day. Take a look at "Imperial Life in the Emerald Palace: Inside Iraq's Green Zone" by Rajiv Chandresekaran, which is an insider's account of the original Coalition Provisional Authority, from the month after the invasion, where hopes were high and CPA employees were set to create a model Western liberal democracy with all the fixin's and the slow realization of the magnitude of the catastrophe they had created. Read this and what Mr. Champ is saying will be not news, but plain common sense.

Henry Champ really is a champ. From his long experience as a journalist, he brings a perspective to this story that would be lacking in a younger writer. There is still much of value to be contributed by us old geezers who still remember Viet Nam and all its horrors. A first class journalist, he just the right guy for his "directed assignment" in Washington. Kudos, Henry.

Iraq may be a lost cause for the US now.
If I were a diplomat I would certainly prefer
retirement. I wonder if our US envoy Mr.Wilkins would be willing to go?

Just a couple of points:
- As a frequent traveler, people ask me, 'What is your favorite place in the world?' And I reply, 'The Maple Leaf flag hanging in any Canadian airport/point of entry.' I love my country; I love the fact that I am Canadian; and I love the fact that I absolutely know how fortunate I am to say these things.
- In my life, family is, 'first, last, and always' and I would quite willingly 'lay down' my life for those whom I love.
- But to knowingly 'lay down' my life in a 'direct assignment'? I don't know! I just don't know if my love for Canada could override my love of family. God bless all military personnel; and just as importantly...their families.

As a former Canadian diplomatic spouse, I can say that the expectation to serve in danger zones is perfectly legitimate. You go where you’re sent, but the reciprocal contract is that you will be adequately looked after for.

What has changed since those heady days of the Pearson Era (and Vietnam) is the now inadequate safeguarding of our diplomatic families while they are living in these overseas hell-holes (foreign embassies in Ottawa, take note). It is mainly the families of the “unwashed” and low-paid junior scribes and OGD members of whom I speak, who comprise the vast majority of every embassy and are never seen at cocktail parties schmoozing journalists like Mr. Champ.

The excuses given these days by those who are now charged with dutifully piloting DFAIT onto the shoals of irrelevance is that Treasury Board doesn’t allow them the budget to take care of us. Essentially, we’re instead told that hanging lots of Canadian flags will surely deflect the bullets, or will make the Russian Mob feel sorry enough for us that they won’t break in to our home next time around. Meanwhile, the Ambassador is busy restocking his wine cellar at the Official Residence...

US diplomats are now being told that if they don’t like these conditions, they know where to find the door. Welcome to the Canadian staffing model, as evident by the findings of the spring Auditor General report on the dismal state of HR at DFAIT. The department is now losing more each year than they can replace, especially those at mid-career, with spousal employment issues being the second-highest reason. As the list of “former” diplomatic families grows (to a nice ripe age), Canadians should then prepare themselves for more of their overseas services to be delivered from Canada (“In case of arrest and torture, press 4”).