Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
The Wrong Man?
August 19, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:16am | 20 Comments
Damn. This blog has expressed its reservations about the choice of Chris Hill as ambassador in Iraq, but my CNASty colleague Bob Kaplan really goes after him here. He doesn't get personal and keeps it above board, but it's pretty brutal nonetheless. And I am not sure I disagree. Especially not on a day like this.
so what does "a day like
so what does "a day like this" say about the COIN narrative of CNAS?
Andrew, Since you said you
Andrew,
Since you said you are "not sure you disagree" I've got a question for you. This is Kaplan's logic for why Hill supposedly isn't qualified:
"But he is not the best man for this particular job. The Arabs, like other cultures and civilizations, have deeply ingrained characteristics of language and history that require years of study before an outsider can be truly effective in their midst. Hill has proven himself a quick study by jumping from Eastern Europe, where he had been for years, to take charge of negotiations with North Korea. But it’s asking too much of anybody to jump directly from there to war-torn, teetering-on-the-edge Iraq and be brilliantly effective the first day on the job. Yet that is what is required."
Ok, so Hill doesn't have experience working with Arabs, lacks experience in the Arab world, and doesn't know Arabic. Let's just accept, for arguements sake, that Kaplan is right and for these reasons Hill isn't qualified.
But then following the same logic why are you and anyone else at CNAS qualified to talk about Afghanistan. None of you have non-military experience in Afghanistan, nor do any of you speak Afghani languages. None of the people on McChrystal's team have any qualifications to call yourselves "experts" on Afghanistan. You're functionalists specializing in COIN as Hill is a functionalist specializing in diplomacy.
So I would like to hear your explanation as to why Hill isn't qualified to work in Iraq, but you and other COINdanistas, despite lacking similar qualifications on Afghanistan, are qualified to make authoratative statements on Afghanistan.
Why is it different for Hill. Aren't you applying a double standard?
Kaplan is the one who is out
Kaplan is the one who is out of touch.
To say that Iraq is now at a "tipping point" and that a grand bargain can still be struck between war and peace is a fantastic view which is utterly divorced from reality. The country has been at war, still is, and the underlying conditions have yet to be resolved.
Well, that's a really good
Well, that's a really good question worth considering, Visitor 1249. I'll bite -- though consider this me arguing the other side of the coin and not necessarily my complete views and opinions. Okay? 1. Neither I nor any of my CNAS colleagues (why bring them into this, by the way?) are in the running to be the ambassador for Afghanistan. In June, I was asked to help evaluate ISAF operations -- not to make broad claims about the peoples of Afghanistan. I can probably do the former but certainly not the latter. So Chris Hill and I are occupying two different worlds. He is the nation's chief diplomatic representative in Iraq. I am a consultant who studies military operations and offers advice to people higher in the food chain. Which is why I tend to confine my opinions on this blog and elsewhere to U.S. and allied strategy and operations in Afghanistan. You don't see me running my mouth about Pashtunwali or the relationships between tribes, the state and Islam, do you? I mean, I'm interested in all that, but what I can offer an informed opinion about are, again, operations and strategy. 2. Our current ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, does not speak either Dari or Pashtu -- but love him or hate him, he does have a lot of relevant, high-level experience in Afghanistan. Hill has no relevant high-level experience in Iraq. Gen. Zinni, who does not speak Arabic (I do not believe), does have a lot of high-level experience in the region. Regional knowledge and high-level experience in the region counts for me, I think, more than language skills.I have my own doubts about
I have my own doubts about Hill's lack of experience and they're similar to yours. But I'm not sure how much of a glove Kaplan lays on the guy. Kaplan asserts more than he demonstrates that Hill is the wrong man for the job. If part of the criteria is putting "the more driven and charismatic" figure in the Baghdad embassy, then the administration really did signal it wanted a heavy-hitter there by putting one of the shining stars of the diplomatic corps in place. The Arabists that Kaplan cites as possible alternatives are relatively obscure; and besides, that embassy can come under a lot of criticism for a lot of different reasons, but there are a lot of Arabists there working below Hill, including some who've been ambassadors themselves.
Actually, it seems like
Actually, it seems like attacks like today are the strongest argument in favor of Hill, who's experience is in collapsing and collapsed states. My problem with his original appointment was that his experience seems to be largely in dealing with nations that are at war (in the case of the Bosnian peace Process) or you are worried are going to collapse (N. Korea), not countries that are 'over the worst of it' and therefor need very fine grained management of relations, rather than big sweeping peace treaties.
If you think that Iraq is going to keep having large-scale attacks, you might need that big treaty ability after all.
Its also not really clear
Its also not really clear that Ryan Crocker is fluent in Arabic. When he went on Arabic TV he spoke in Arabic. To get props for being "fluent" in Arabic, you have to actually speak it when Arabs are listening....
Here is Kaplan in the
Here is Kaplan in the "American Interest" issue of March 20008:
"The Iraq war has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and the death of close to 4,000 American troops, plus many more seriously wounded. This is not to mention the death of perhaps 100,000 or more Iraqis (estimates vary wildly). Thus, it is hard to imagine any future circumstance that will make the cost of invading Iraq seem worthwhile—and I say this as a supporter of the war years back."
Why do people give any credence to a fool like Kaplan who was MISTAKEN about Iraq!
Why is he en expert? Because like his fellow Atlantic scribe Jeffrey Goldberg (also pro-Iraq war) they both served in the Israeli Army as American citizens? Because they "know" arabs?
Kaplan writes about "Imperial Grunts" ands reshaping the Middle East, but for the benefit of whom? America? I doubt it. This man has the interests of another nation at heart.
Islamist-Nationalism vs.
Islamist-Nationalism vs. Transnational Jihadism in Gaza
1) "1. Neither I nor any of
1) "1. Neither I nor any of my CNAS colleagues (why bring them into this, by the way?) are in the running to be the ambassador for Afghanistan."
When people such as Kilcullen and Nagl (and sometimes you) frequently go on TV and make decisive statements about what the US should or shouldn't be doing in Afghanistan, without having obvious qualifications to call themselves experts on the country, it seems a bit inconsistent to then turn around and question whether Hill is qualified to be ambassador to Iraq, as you just did.
2) The people at CNAS know the function of COIN. Hill knows the function of diplomacy. If the people at CNAS are qualified to speak with authority about Afghanistan, then I see no reason why Hill hasn't demonstrated that he's capable of becoming Amb to Iraq.
I have no idea whether
I have no idea whether Kaplan's right or not but I think one of the reasons he gives for objecting to Hill’s appointment is nonsense. He writes:
" The Arabs, like other cultures and civilizations, have deeply ingrained characteristics of language and history that require years of study before an outsider can be truly effective in their midst."
The Arabs, eh? They have a language and a history; who’d have thought it? And you need years of study to be truly effective in their midst. They, you see, are not like us. While white English speakers like Kaplan and me say what we mean and mean what we say the Arabs – all of them, from Casablanca to Kuwait – speak in riddles, jealously guard their women, are loyal to their clans, are prone to sudden bursts of temper and violent mood swings, are inordinately influenced by their religious beliefs and haven’t really caught up with this Enlightened world. In fact, when you come to think about it, they’re not really people, not in the full sense anyway.
Okay, I’m exaggerating a bit but you can see what I mean. Kaplan is giving us Orientalism by numbers and passing it off as serious analysis.
"On a day like
"On a day like this..."
Coincidently, just after this:
Bureau of Public Affairs, Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
August 18, 2009
Israel's Travel Requirements
Question Taken at the August 18, 2009 Daily Press Briefing
Question: What is the U.S. government’s position concerning the Government of Israel’s policy that requires Palestinian Americans to obtain Palestinian Authority travel documents and that restricts them from traveling into Israel?
Answer: We are aware that the Government of Israel has recently begun employing restrictive measures for people entering the West Bank via Allenby Bridge, such as the use of a Palestinian Authority only stamp.
We have included information on this new policy in the Travel Warning for Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, which was updated on August 14.
We have engaged the Government of Israel on this topic and have requested clarification on this policy so we can properly inform the traveling public.
We have repeatedly told the Government of Israel that the United States expects that all American citizens to be treated equally, regardless of their national origin or other citizenship.
We have let the Government of Israel know that these restrictions unfairly impact Palestinian and Arab American travelers and are not acceptable.
I've been reading Kaplan
I've been reading Kaplan since 1996 and while I'm a fan and think he's done great work, this is the lamest piece of his I have ever read. As Spencer says, he asserts more than demonstrates. It makes me suspect that perhaps there is something personal motivating the article, or that Kaplan just got lazy and phoned this piece in. I hope the Atlantic didn’t pay him for it. They would deserve their money back.
And Gian is right, Kaplan is divorced from reality. I've spent close to four year in Iraq, first as an Army officer in 2003/04 and I currently work as a diplomat at a PRT doing development, and Iraq's problems are intrinsic to the state and not at some "tipping point" which only the US can solve.
Guess what . . . when you are trying to help two governments such as the GOI and KRG peacefully resolve what are existential issues (Kirkuk, disputed territories, the meaning of federalism), then what you need IS a season diplomat practiced in the art of high-level negotiation and developing and articulating USG policy. You don’t need an aggressive former general simply because Kaplan thinks “Arabs” respect martial men (some GOI or KRG official may not want to deal with Zinni simply because of his background). And you don’t need someone with a Ph.D. in the culture to come here and be successful.
In my time on the ground, I’ve learned that what matters most isn’t any specific knowledge coming in (though of course it helps), but the personal characteristics of the individuals sent here. A diplomat of Hill’s caliber likely has what is needed to meet the challenges. Besides, it isn’t like he’s been hidden under a rock since 2003, or that he didn’t have time to bone up on things while waiting for Senate confirmation. And he is able to utilize the experience and knowledge of others . . . I don’t work for him in the front office, but I’m sure he has plenty of Arabists on his staff to seek out advice from.
I love Abu Muqawama and I love CNAS, but considering the amount verbiage that comes out of CNAS’ collective cakehole, it’s not a stretch to say that when it comes to the issue of being qualified for a position or for giving “expert” commentary, the CNAS crew is being a bit hypocritical with regards to Hill.
I'm with Gian and Visitor.
I'm with Gian and Visitor. To believe Kaplan's assertions, you have to believe 1) that any replacement, no matter how highly qualified, is going to have a better opportunity to be successful at negotiating US policy issues in Iraq, and 2) that the US govt is in some position to positively influence events through its diplomatic channels.
Hill's a diplomat. You're a former military soldier. The lingo and the general concepts don't change within the community. He's a representative from the US govt. What's more critical is his ability to express what the Obama administration's policy objectives are and that he has the governmental tools and levers to assist Iraq. You don't need a decade of regional experience in the Middle East and Arabic fluency to achieve those objectives.
It's arrogant to think that Hill can't do the job and that an Iraq expert could, and it's even more arrogant to think that US diplomacy is going to substantially affect the "birth pangs of democracy" in the Middle East - or whatever you want to call the constant turmoil that will continue with or without an Iraq expert. You've jumped the shark in Iraq - not much more anyone can do, as evidenced by the agreement to pull out combat forces. Time to let Iraq grow up and govern itself. We can't continue to force "nation-building" on countries that aren't ready for it, and you had better recognize that is going to be true for Afghanistan too - even though McChrystal "the savior" has arrived.
I think the critiscism is
I think the critiscism is purely practical, sine a lot of the praxis of a diplomat in the ME is based on personal relations and polite chitchat. So not knowing the players is a starting problem, since a lot of time will be wasted on opening tea/whiskey drinking politeness. On the other hand, it could be played as a Mr. Wolf position, the new hard hand. Depends on his competence, really. So far, the US team doesnt impress me as being particularly effective and competent...
Am I the only one who sees
Am I the only one who sees the irony in Kaplan's Atlantic article on Chris Hill? Kaplan now pines for an "Arabist" of the very sort that he criticized in his 1993 book "The Arabists" as those who often see Israel "in only the simplest stereotype."
Besides Cameron Hume and David D. Pearce, there is also Francis Riccardone, who was Ambassador in Manila and Cairo and now is the Deputy Ambassador in Kabul.
You can't have it both ways Bob.
Stay in your lane. It is
Stay in your lane. It is painfully obvious that both you and Kaplan are not well informed on this matter, which is demonstrated by the stale arguments against Hill that were made back in April when he was first being confirmed.
It would be one thing if either of you said:
"Chris Hill is the wrong man for the job, and these events (insert your "wisdom" here) that have taken place since he assumed the role of Ambassador prove it.
Instead you add a link to an article that was obviously written 5-6 months ago, and you imply that the bombings of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Finance, were somehow the result of Hill's ineptitutde.
Both Kaplan and your arguments against Chris Hill are incredibly weak, as weak (and almost exactly the same) as Mcain and Grahm's arguments were 6 MONTHS AGO.
Do you expect readers to take you seriously when you haven't adapted your argument even though Hill has been in Baghdad for quite some time now? Well I don't, stick to COIN and leave the rest to those who are qualified to comment.
I'm with Prof. Gentile and
I'm with Prof. Gentile and Iceberg Slim here, and surprised Mr. Exum linked to this...This sounds like an op-ed piece Kaplan never got published back when Hill was nominated. To call the piece a "dispatch" is joke. It offers no concrete evidence of what Hill is doing NOW to prove that he isn't the right guy. I admit -- I followed him extensively during the six party talks wrangling -- I am still skeptical that Hill was a good choice here. And Hill is kind of media-whore that tends to promote himself over policy. But he's also a smart guy and experienced diplomat.
Now, if Kaplan had shown Hill did something or said something -- and this dude says A LOT every day to anyone who will listen -- that proved he was not the right guy, that's great. But he doesn't. Maybe he should get off his ass and go spend a day with Amb. Hill, or at least scour some transcripts to find some proof for his hit job. He's probably just talking to the grunts on the ground again (I hope he's at least doing that instead of sitting in an office at CNAS) and treating their words as if they were scripture. Listen, many soldiers are smart and their experiences need to be listened to and reported on, but since when is it news that soldiers on the ground might be skeptical of a State dept. employee? Kaplan's schtick is getting old and he's been riding on reputation for way too long.
I agree with your point,
I agree with your point, please share with us more good articles.2001 Cadillac Seville AC Compressor
Add your comment