The Foreign Service Journal, January 2005

J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 5 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 9 The Afghanistan Model The November article by James Goodby and Kenneth Weisbrode, “Rescuing the U.N. Security Council,” offers thoughtfully pre- scriptive and timely advice regarding the Bush administration’s failure to secure international cooperation against common threats, notably in Iraq. Strangely, however, this excellent analysis fails to address the one example of U.S.-U.N.-NATO coop- eration that offers a potentially suc- cessful model for the future: Afghanistan. In 2001, the interna- tional community, working through the U.N., created a political frame- work that has yielded a government which is perceived by most Afghans and the international community as legitimate. Moreover, U.S. and NATO troops have provided the security space that government needed to establish itself. To be sure, this venture is not yet a success. The failure of the U.S. and NATO to adequately address the still-grave threat to the Karzai regime posed by opium-enriched warlords, and the still-inadequate levels of international development support for the regime, could yet doom this undertaking. But even at this fledgling stage, international efforts in Afghanistan offer some lessons. International action grew out of a broad consensus that the world community must act; that an authentically Afghan admin- istrative/political entity should be empowered simultaneously with application of military force to dis- place the Taliban and al-Qaida; and that providing humanitarian and developmental assistance was essen- tial to stability. The Bush administration’s impa- tient decision to bypass creation of a baseline international consensus on Iraq is the fundamental difference in the administration’s approach to the two challenges. Edmund McWilliams Senior FSO, retired Falls Church, Va. Get with the Program I fail to understand Eugene Martin’s outrage (Letters, Novem- ber) at political columnist/ pundit Mark Shields’ reference, in a PBS interview, to a “limp-wristed State Department type” and at ref- erences to our diplomats as “effemi- nate.” Perhaps Mr. Martin has been retired too long to realize that such an attitude implies an unacceptable bias against the State Department’s tireless and successful efforts to attract and recruit more women. Indeed, the entrance of those with “alternative lifestyles” into our for- eign affairs agencies is not only wel- comed but celebrated. I would strongly suggest Mr. Martin get with the program before he gets slapped with a purse. Albert Krehbiel FSO, retired Fredericksburg, Va. A Just Election Result We’re disappointed that some of our colleagues cast aside the tradition- al Foreign Service code of neutrality this election year to campaign furious- ly against the re-election of President Bush. In post-election e-mails they have proposed a four-year period of mourning because their candidate, Senator John Kerry, lost to President Bush, who received an absolute majority while compiling a three-mil- lion-plus vote margin of victory. Perhaps those colleagues, most of whom are based in the northeast cor- ridor between Boston and Washing- ton, should spend some time over the next four years in the 30 so-called “red” states, like Missouri and Nevada, in order to better understand the mood of the American electorate. For starters, they should read the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the anti-gay marriage referendums that passed in 11 states, including liberal Oregon, which define mar- riage as a union between a man and a woman. Next they could compare that information with recent FSJ articles that grapple with the State Department’s concept of “eligible family members.” And then our embittered col- leagues could take a closer look at Sen. Kerry, who is a decorated war hero to some, but a traitor to many others; a man who threw his ribbons over the White House fence 30 years ago but proudly displays his medals on his Senate office wall today. He opposed President Reagan’s policy L ETTERS