Top State Dept. Official Resigns Over War With Iraq!!
 

A voice of reason and an act of courage:

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation


U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation


The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.


Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America?s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America?s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?
Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America?s ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Reprinted under fair use.

hit the nail on the head a few times in that article..

Nobody seems to see the underlying agenda here. We're bringing democracy and US control to the Middle East. One of the main reasons the resentment is there is because all the corrupt kingdoms / dictatorships will be threatened politically.

You think the House of Saud (aka Saudi Arabia) wants to see democracy move in next door?

Bullshit!

How often does the USA support repressive totalitarianist regimes when it's in their interests? Constantly.

The USA supported the Taliban financially for years and they repressed their people far more than Saddam represses the Iraqi people. In fact, the USA's support for the mujahadeen (Islamic fundamentalists) in their struggle against the Soviet Union set the groundwork for the establishment of the Taliban in 1996.

So get down of your moral high horse and stop pretending you're going to war for the Iraqi people. It's bullshit and we both know it.

You don't fight for the freedom of others. You fight for your own economic interests.

This rhetoric is getting old and tired.

I honestly wish I could disagree.

You are correct. Every adminstration from Roosevelt to the current administration has used our military to enforce what the administration perceives to be in the national interest (which includes economic interests among other interests). The US does not wear a white hat, but a gray hat. Having said that, there is not any doubt in my mind that if, and I stress if, Iraq can be converted to a Democratic Republic the future of Iraqi's will be much better than anything they have ever experienced in their history. It will also be the beginning of the end of Principalities in the Mid-East and the Mid-East will become more secular, which is a good thing in my opinion.

Bringing Democracy to the Middle East is certainly a high ideal. But really, given the US's dismal history at engineering puppet governments and fledgling democracies, what are the odds we're going to be successful this time, in such a hostile cultural and religious environment?

The Bush administration would like you to believe that anti-western leaders like Arafat and Hussein are the problem. They want you to think that if only the yoke of religious tyranny were removed from the citizens of these countries (by gallant Westerners of course), they would shout for joy and jump at the chance to form a US friendly, western democracy.

It is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Your average Iraqi might not like Saddam, but he doesn't like the United States a whole lot more. Same thing with the Palestinians, 70% of whom support suicide bombers, and the Saudi's.

I think the most we can hope for in this area of the world for now is that the religious governments will slowly become more benevolent, open to the west, secular, and capitalistic.

Why should it be up to us to change an entire culture? How would you like for them to come here and remove our democracy even if a majority of the nation supported it? It isn't our place to decide. :2 cents:

A very good point!

Democracy is a very foreign concept to these people and not one they are used to or probably even want! What right does any power have to come in and change their entire system of government at a whim!

It is the duty of our government to protect us from what it perceives to be our enemies. Democracys do not usually wage war against one another, so of course it is our place to decide.

America has shed more blood for freedom than any other country I know of. Need I say more? That kind of says it all.

I think we will find that trying to establish a western friendly democracy in Iraq will have the opposite of the indended protective effect. Everyone is operating under this ridiculous assumption that these people are going to be grateful to us for what we're about to do. Don't be so sure of that.

Wow. How many governments perceive us to be a threat? With that attitude don't be suprised when the rest of the world is knocking on our doors.

No it doesn't. It's simply more rhetoric. You certainly haven't shed more blood PER CAPITA for freedom then any other country on Earth.

I think you've been watching too many Hollywood movies. You spill blood for your economic interests more than you shed it for freedom.

Because no one else has the will or power to do it besides us.

There isn't a better system devised that I've seen besides democracy.

Yes it is our place to decide. When you are a free country with the power and wealth we have in the USA, we have a moral obligation to protect, defend, and liberate repressed people everywhere.

You are going to see AMERICAN FLAGS waving on the streets of Iraq and I do mean WAVING when these people get Saddam's regime out of their world.

You watch CNN don't you. :1orglaugh

Who's protecting the millions that die every day in Africa? For that matter who's protecting our homeless? It makes no difference what you or anyone else thinks about our system. Some of these cultures you are wanting to liberate people from are tied closely with their religious beliefs. If you think these people are going to praise us for "setting them free" you are 100% misinformed or crazy.

Because Democracy works better than anything else out there. We not only have the right, but also the obligation to protect and defend the helpless people of the world who are subjugated to these brutal thugs.

The time is growing near, so we will soon learn how grateful the Iraqi's will be. I personally think the majority will welcome us, but there will always be those till the end of time that won't. Just keep in mind the great success we had with Germany and Japan and Japan in particular, a society that was as culturally different as Mid Easterners are at this point in time.

Yea, we earned that right when we tortured and murdered the Native Americans when we came here. Our government could give a rats ass about who is suffering where unless they have something to gain from it.

I also have friends that have relatives, friends in different parts of the middle east so I've heard genuine thoughts out of there.

Some would try to break our door down if they could but at this point in time they cannot and it is the duty of our government to see that they cannot.

Excuse me, but my ancestry is Italian. The Italian Americans did not do this. So don't lay the Native American guilt trip on me.

It really makes no difference if the people want a democracy or not. It isn't OUR place to do it and we would not be there without another agenda.

Regardless of where you or your ancestors are from that is the history of the U.S. and the foundation on which Democracy was put into place.

There are several "agendas" on the plate, and everyone that pays attention is aware of that fact.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofhe...edge_large.jpg

God and Joe Sixpack bless America.

That's amazing. Now show me where it includes putting our form of Government in place for other countries? That is the Constitution of the United States, not the entire world. Are we going after all the monarchy's next because democracy is so much better?

I sit at Gods right hand!

Read the last line:

With Liberty and Justice FOR ALL!

Hey if you don't like America, there are about 200 other government systems you can try.

It should say "With Liberty and Justice FOR ALL WITH THE CASH!"

You buy your own justice in the US.... look at OJ Simpson! :1orglaugh

Yeah, we'll soon know. Japan might be a good analogy, but it doesn't have land borders on all sides with countries who share religions, cultures, and an intense distate for the idea of the US gaining a major foothold in the region. Who knows tho? You might be right. When I said dismal I was referring to Latin American and the former USSR btw.

I just think the idea that a US invasion is going to have a long term stabilizing effect on the region, and lower our risk of future terror attacks, is an enormous gamble. One which rests on assumptions we'd like to think are true, but don't really know for sure. It does looks like the fireworks are going to begin very soon though, so we won't have to wait long.

Another interesting aspect will be the political fallout for Bush and Blair and how that plays out over the next year or two.

One Nation Under God would refer to the U.S. Liberty and Justice for all that pledge allegience here dipshit. Are you really that ignorant or are you just trying to make your point?

Never said I didn't like America or democracy. I said it's not our place to force it down the throat of others. If they want to come to America and pledge allegience to OUR flag that is a different story. What is democratic about forcing our beliefs on another culture? That pretty much goes against everything a democracy stands for.

First off I'm not a dipshit.

Second, if the USA had not in the past, nor doesn't in the present and future exercise its muscle to protect democracy and capitalism worldwide everything would and will be different. And it would not be a pleasant different, that's for sure.

Ok, forgive me for the dipshit remark.

Differences in opinions aside, I honestly hope you know that the for all in the Pledge of Allegience isn't intended on the entire world. Even if the U.S. has the most valid reasons in the world to start a war with Iraq it is being approached completely wrong. Our President should have enough sense to play the political game enough to not piss off the majority of the world when going after his agenda. Iraq will be the very least of our worries if Bush doesn't get his head out of his ass and at least appear to give a shit about what any other country has to say. He is creating more hate for the U.S. in a few months than has been created in all the time before he took office. Some countries will always hate us but anybody that keeps up with the happenings of our great nation know we do whatever we want to benefit us at the time. Most of the powers that we are now fighting we once supported and handed weapons to. If we are going to go after whoever we decide the least our President could do is try to make it appear that we are doing something most of the world agrees with. :2 cents:

I don't think its direct hate of America as much as it is jealousy and despise for the wealth and power we are about to garnish from our acquisition of Iraq. That's what people resent at the core.

All the powerful countries that are against this move, have multinational corps that stand to lose enormously profitable countracts when Saddam's regime gets the boot. They have influence in the media. People's opinions can be shaped and influence by the media.

"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--Former CIA Director William Colby

Read up on Operation Mockingbird.

you're dumb as a rock!