The Foreign Service Journal, September 2003

lessen my disagreement. However, the channel served its purpose in allowing me to offer my comments and suggestions and to get an acknowledgement of my concerns from the senior levels of the depart- ment. I would certainly encourage those who have serious disagree- ments with any specific U.S. foreign policy to let our senior policy- makers know through this appar- ently infrequently used channel, if necessary. Following my dissent cable, I continued to hope that the adminis- tration would not take military action against Baghdad without explicit U.N. Security Council authorization. But once President Bush gave Saddam Hussein “48 hours to get out of Iraq,” it was obvi- ous the administration had no inten- tion of working further within the international community — includ- ing with many of our traditional allies — to address their legitimate concerns and broaden the base of support for our actions in Iraq. Once that realization sank in, I knew I could not defend or represent the administration’s order for immediate military action. An Honorable Course When one disagrees so strongly with an important policy of any administration, in my view, resigna- tion is an honorable action to take. While I would not, of course, have undermined policy had I stayed in the Foreign Service and “waited out” the administration, I felt it would have been unfair to my col- leagues and to the government I have served for so long, both as a sol- dier and a diplomat, to continue rep- resenting my country while holding such opinions. Since my resignation, several per- sons who also had grave misgivings about the war in Iraq asked me if I felt they should also resign. I’ve told each of them that everyone has her or his own comfort level of accom- modation to policies in each admin- istration. There have been policies over which others in the Foreign Service wrote dissent cables and ultimately resigned — and I did not. On the issue of the timing of military action in Iraq, I felt I had to resign. My turn had come. I have been heartened in my decision by over 400 e-mails and telephone calls from those in the Foreign Service, active-duty and retired, from employees of other U.S. and international agencies and many persons I’ve never met, from America and other countries. I believe the responses are useful in illuminating aspects of what is involved in dissenting from a partic- ular U.S. foreign policy and making the choice to resign from the Foreign Service over it. (I have omitted specific posts and other information from these excerpts to protect the identities of those who wrote to me.) • “Please know that you have my respect and admiration for the val- ues you’ve articulated and the courage you’ve displayed. As princi- pal officer in [XX] , I find that what has traditionally been a strongly pro- American community is now over- whelmingly alienated and enraged by our foreign policy. Your example is a sign of principled opposition and is in the finest tradition of the Foreign Service.” • “Resignation in the face of poli- cies with which we disagree is a proud tradition in the Foreign Service. Although I’m very sorry the Service will lose you, I want to thank you for carrying on that tradition.” • “I just heard about your resig- nation and want to applaud you for your principles and courage to stand up for your beliefs. I share your views on the Iraq war. I have great concerns about America’s image and Americans’ future ability to work safely in development and humani- tarian assistance.” • “I, and many of my peers, share your position re: our country’s for- eign policy. What is frightening to me is the utter fear of expressing a dissenting opinion, for fear of losing a much-needed job — especially in light of the state of the economy.” • “I read your resignation letter and was much moved by all you said, but especially by what you’re doing. The Service is the poorer for losing you, but you’re showing an example of putting your money, and your career, where others only put their mouths.” • “I’ve had numerous inquiries from retired colleagues as well, who are in admiration of your courageous and moral stance, irrespective of whether they agree with each ele- ment of your letter. The tone and substance strike a positive and con- structive chord for the post-conflict debate that is both needed and 18 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 S P E A K I N G O U T I would encourage those who have serious disagreements with any specific U.S. foreign policy to use the Dissent Channel, as I did. Continued from page 15