The Foreign Service Journal, June 2005

L E T T E R S u 8 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R NA L / J U N E 2 0 0 5 ious assault on one of our most beloved Secretaries of State. Such biased pieces of personal opinion are better reserved for one of those anti- administration Web sites, and do not deserve publication in theprofession- al journal of the Foreign Service. In over 40 years of FSJ readership, I do not recall any article that has been so o ffensive to me. Michael Wygant FSO, retired Scarborough, Maine From a Different Cloth Impressed by three “letters from the field” in the February FSJ regard- ing Secretary Powell’s record, I am reminded of a game we played in the (now-canceled) Senior Seminar over 20 years ago. With most of the inter- agency class divided by a question- naire into two types of thinkers, we found most FSOs in one group and most of our military classmates in another. Each group was given a set of p roblems to solve within 20 minutes. We FSOs were still arguing among ourselves as the military completed theirs and were laughing at our inde- cisiveness. The management consul- tant directing the game then gave us a different set of problems. We FSOs loved them and came up with all sorts of ingenious answers to problems such as: What did Victor Hugo’s last dying scribble mean? Or, how does a dwarf living in the penthouse manage to reach the top button of his build- ing’s elevator? Meanwhile, the mili- tary group had given up and one member threw up his hands, object- ing that these problems were too ridiculous to even try solving. The difference in mental approach is one of several that can affect work- ing relations between State and Defense, as well as between person- nel within each agency. I was remind- ed of this diff e rence by Peter Rice’s letter bemoaning the fact that FSOs are not more like the military, Ralph Falzone’s argument that diplomats are not intended to act as “lieu- tenants” and Marc Nicholson’s fair assessment of Secretary Powell’s excellent institution-building skills and his human touch, contrasted with his weak perf ormance as a foreign policy heavyweight — perhaps due to his military-honed instincts and val- ues. American FSOs may have ranks equivalent to military grades, but diplomacy is not war. And its job requirements may favor different mindsets and diff e rent life experi- ences. George B. Lambrakis FSO, retired London, England Shooting the Messenger John Limbert’s February “Presi- dent’s Views” is on the mark in responding to “cheap shots” at the Foreign Service. Of course, such attacks are as old as diplomacy itself. They certainly came repeatedly dur- ing my 40 years as an FSO, regardless of who was in the White House. When Hal Saunders became INR director [in 1975], he issued clear instructions that intelligence was to be analyzed as impartially and objectively as humanly possible. At the time, I was chief of the South Asia Division, which included Iran, an even hotter political potato then than now. He told me that if I wanted to keep my job, I was not to interpret things in any political way. He said we weren’t there to make — or even recommend — policy. That was the Secretary of State’s job. I hope today’s FSOs understand that com- plaints come with the territory, and continue to serve their country to the best of their abilities. The ancients may have used envoys as pawns to avoid wars or to save the necks of royalty, but diploma- cy has evolved into much more over the years. One wonders which axes the critics want to grind. Many of us can cite numerous instances of policy- makers seizing on a scrap of intelli- gence (usually from a single source, with no confirmation) to justify action. And even more instances of policy- makers reacting with outrage when p resented with carefully documented and researched intelligence that dif- fered from their preferences. Too many messengers have been sacri- ficed over the years, and the depart- ment should not have to suffer anoth- er McCarthy-like purge if policy-mak- ers in the White House and elsewhere react badly to honestly reported news f rom abroad. The critics may not like it, but there are powerful and influen- tial leaders abroad who disagree with Americans. The February issue also presented a useful mix of commentary on the changing of the guard at State, though some passages were a bit extreme. Most of the comments made by Dennis Jett and Peter Brookes need- ed to be said. John Brady Kiesling and Christopher Preble made com- pelling cases for Rice-watchers, and George Gedda offered his usually valuable “outsider’s” view of the department (though he has been there longer that most of the rest of us). Congratulations to all — includ- ing Editor Steve Honley, his editors and members of the Editorial Board — who put that issue together. George G. B. Griffin FSO, retired Blue Ridge Summit, Pa. Unelectable Senators Half a year later, Journal readers a re still re-fighting the election of 2004, in cogent if emotional contribu- tions from both camps, including