×
Ralph Peters, in the midst of saying some almost sensible things about Blackwater, decides he need to temper his wisdom with a rant against the State Department:
But State’s diplomats - the men and women theoretically responsible for building good relations with Iraqis - prefer the Blackwater approach (shoot first, and don’t bother asking questions).To those who know little or nothing of State, it doesn’t make sense. Why should our diplomats, of all people, hire out-of-control gunslingers who routinely set back progress, who are despised by our military, who we protect from Iraqi or American justice - and who won’t even play by the loose rules laid down for security contractors in Iraq? Actually, the answer’s simple: Our foreign service officers - the professional diplos - are just the most-frightened human beings you’ll ever meet (I swear they take showers in body armor). Although I’ve met some impressive State employees over the years, they’ve been the exceptions. The average junior FSO is cowardly, arrogant to a degree that would embarrass the Greek gods, and disdainful of anyone stupid enough to wear a military uniform.Of course, State always wants to run the show - it just doesn’t want its diplomats to spill their Diet Cokes. Dead Iraqis? Better than stained trousers.Let’s be clear: The real diplomacy in Iraq is being conducted by our soldiers and Marines. State has botched every single thing it touched, from the disastrous reign of “Jerry” Bremer to the botch-up with our imperial embassy compound (the hubris of which makes the Tower of Babel seem like a homeless shelter). And State firmly believes that the life of the lowliest diplomat is far more valuable than the life of any one else, American or Iraqi.So State’s mission for Blackwater is straightforward: “Protect the principal.” Defend the diplomat, whatever the cost. Well, maybe it’s time for State to risk a few principals in support of America’s principles.This is rich in so many ways. First things first, Peters has long been an advocate for more brutal counter-insurgency methods in Iraq. Back then, he undoubtedly blamed State Department "cowards" for lacking the will to kill enough Iraqis to pacify the country. Now that butchering Iraqis is bad again, he apparently believes that the blame can be heaped upon State. I don't doubt that Peters would happily pile all of our failures in Iraq onto the State Department; it makes the abject military failure (and in particular the abject failure of Peter's vision of the use of military force) much easier to take. This all fits comfortably into a series of right wing narratives; military always good, diplomacy always bad, to the extent that the military can actually conduct diplomacy better than the diplomats, and that we need more diplomats to get shot. Peters is hardly the first right wing nutcase to accuse State of betraying the United States, as blaming State for American policy failures has been a staple of right wing discourse since the McCarthy era. I myself know plenty of State Department employees, and I have yet to meet one who either a) is cowardly, or b) displays contempt for the US military. I also know that the State Department *hates* the embassy compound, which is much more of a monument to American military supremacy than to any diplomatic effort. State Department professionals also by and large didn't care for Jerry Bremer, and in any case it's rather a nifty move to blame State for the appointment (which was made while the administration was dominated by DoD) and for the failure of an occupation that was almost entirely run by the Department of Defense. But hey, blaming State worked for Joe McCarthy, so it's got to be good enough for Ralph. --Robert Farley
