US Diplomats Opposed to Bush Doctrine

J Brady Kiesling is a 20-year State Department veteran of the Middle East and the Caucasus who has just resigned his post as Political Counselor at the US embassy in Athens, in protest of US policy concerning Iraq. He will not make any public comment until his duties end in Athens on March 7.

Edward Peck was an American diplomat for 32 years, including service as America's top diplomat in Baghdad from 1977 to 1980. He was a Army paratrooper and served in 2 wars. Ambassador Peck has been outspoken about the folly of the Bush Doctrine, and the roots of terrorism.

"When the rubble has settled and the dust is gone, the disease is still going to be out there untouched. Because we don't want to look at why, why it is that all of these people hate us. It's not because of freedom. It's not because Britney Spears has a belly button or because we export hamburgers. They hate us because of things they see us doing to their part of the world that they definitely do not like."

I've already posted some references to the many Generals and senior military officers who are opposed to their country's invasion and occupation of Iraq. There is no shortage of authoritative and patriotic Americans who are trying to convey dire warnings about the future of our new Mideast interventionism, but their messages are suppressed in the major media war-hyping viewership/readership drive.

I would like to know about other dissenting voices from the State Department, and of course share comments.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where did you hear about these people? I'm assuming it wasn't the corporate media.. It would be wonderful if the fact that those who really have the best understanding of the situation were against the war became general knowledge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So how many "diplomats" does the US have?
Things the US does to thier part of the world? Like liberate Afganistan?? I figure the average Afgani is glad the US has intervened in thier part of the world.
Edward Peck is "outspoken" about the roots of terrorism? What does that mean?
We know why so many Arabs distrust the USA but that will be taken care of.
No, it won't be easy. Yes, we have given them excuse if not reason to "hate us (US). Keeping that in mind, it is the future we need to focus on.
It won't be easy but niether was WWII and it was worth the effort. (right?). This war, even if it does take another ten years, will (I hope) be allot easier on everyone than WWII. There will be no genocide, no displaced populations, no drawn out blood sucking battles.
With any luck at all, the liberation of Iraq will be the worst of it and potential enemies will see the light. Of coarse how Iraq goes after the liberation will be critical in that regard.
Terrorism? The world will see more of it and likely as bad or worse than 9/11 but not near as bad as if we wimped out.
War is hell. Better it be fought on our terms and schedule than thiers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bear in mind ...

We should bear in mind though, that those the US hired--e.g. Taliban--are pretty pissed. You know, Rumsfeld recruited Muslim extremists who would later contribute to the Taliban, which ascended to power with the United States' blessing. And the same thing in Iraq: the guy we paid big bucks for is gonna be pissed when all this is done.

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

sure the dead civilans that u droped bombs on "by mestake" and there familys are happy with u

 

Superfudd: "Terrorism? The world will see more of it and likely as bad or worse than 9/11 but not near as bad as if we wimped out. War is hell."

There is no need to see more terrorism. All who espouse this doctrine of military force vs. terrorism should study Israel in the occupied territories, or the Russian Army in Chechnya. It does not work militarily (each action recruits enemies). It does not work economically (terrorism is far cheaper) It does not work politically (military intervention as "counterterrorism" is always hostile occupation) It does not work socially (polarization and paranoia increase on both sides). Understanding the world, solving problems, spending on betterment and not destruction, increasing international police cooperation, is not wimping out. Reacting improperly to foreign anger will have devastating consequences for America: We need voluntary trade and cooperation with the world outside to maintain our present standards of living.

"Edward Peck is "outspoken" about the roots of terrorism? What does that mean?"
That means he has taken the time to understand a critical dynamic that you have not come to grips with. You are already preparing yourself for the failure your reason tells you is coming - "The world will see more of it and likely as bad or worse". This is twisted logic that, at its source is not only muddle-headed, but also irresponsible and criminally destructive to America and the world.

 

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.

:m: Peace.

 

Certainly terrorism can be avoided if we all either convert to Islam or blow our brains out.:bugeye:

 

What brains?

 

You see, that is the problem. We are to stupid to convert to Islam and we have no brains to blow out.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Joseph Wilson, who was senior American diplomat in Baghdad during Desert Shield, also has grave doubts about the Bush Administration's agenda:

"...the upcoming battle for Baghdad and the lengthy occupation of Iraq will utterly undermine any steps forward. And with the costs to our military, our treasury and our international standing, we will be forced to learn whether our republican roots and traditions can accommodate the Administration's imperial ambitions. It may be a bitter lesson."

 

Some CIA veterans have also warned against the consequences of US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

"It is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future. Far from eliminating the threat, it would enhance it exponentially."

As a violent onslaught of Bushevik neocolonialism reaches the point of inevitability, authoritative warnings do not lose their significance. When overambitious neocolonialism inevitably begins to unravel, shortly into the occupation, these voices will begin to find a much wider audience. "I told you so" has no merit; these criticisms, recalled after the disaster is fully manifest, will have much greater impact and resonance.

There will be no case for a surprise, conspiracy, or treachery that did in the Bushevik grand vision, as long as the experienced, objective, and authoritative voices from before the invasion are preserved. When the debunking of the Bushevik world view, its flawed strategic thinking, lack of responsibility, and lack of honesty is combined with Bushevik failure ruling a unified Iraq, a precipitous rise in terrorist action, and convulsions of instability across the Middle East, the dam will break, and the truth that was always right before America's eyes will be accepted.

"In human terms, your daughters are unlikely to be able to travel abroad in future years without a phalanx of security personnel."

What a pity that so many will die in the Middle East before America recognises the grand illusion, the disingenuous exploitation of fear and nationalism that brought us here. What a pity America's recovery (and I hope it will come) from this mistake will be arduous and long, when we finally turn ourselves to repairing an upended economy and a deeply shamed international reputation.

 

Another diplomat has spoken out, this one not for the first time. His Middle East experience is considerable. President Carter's NY Times op-ed expresses serious doubts about the probabilities for success in a unilateral and premature occupation of Iraq:

"...The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace."

 

To: Secretary of State Colin Powell

March 10, 2003

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am joining my colleague John Brady Kiesling in submitting my resignation from the Foreign Service (effective immediately) because I cannot in good conscience support President Bush's war plans against Iraq.

The president has failed:

--To explain clearly why our brave men and women in uniform should be ready to sacrifice their lives in a war on Iraq at this time;

--To lay out the full ramifications of this war, including the extent of innocent civilian casualties;

--To specify the economic costs of the war for ordinary Americans;

--To clarify how the war would help rid the world of terror;

--To take international public opinion against the war into serious consideration.

Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force. The president's disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century.

I joined the Foreign Service because I love our country. Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, I am now bringing this calling to a close, with a heavy heart but for the same reason that I embraced it.

Sincerely,

John H. Brown
Foreign Service Officer

John H. Brown, a Princeton PhD, joined the Foreign Service in 1981 and has served in London, Prague, Krakow, Kiev, Belgrade and, most recently, Moscow.

A senior member of the Foreign Service since 1997, he has focused his diplomatic work on press and cultural affairs. Under a State Department program, he has, up to now, been an Associate at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, where he was assigned in August 2001.

 

While the majority of the american population is happy with bush's forign policy at the moment.

 

superfudd mentions that terrorism ends once we all convert to islam . ... i guess its more like terrorism ends when we all start converting to the doctrine of the loony far right dominating capitol hill !!!

 

Clockwood, I believe the majority of the american population has yet to give this issue more thought than "What's on TV?" and "Do we have some beer?".

 

Beer swilling rednecks do love violence.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why stupid and brainless have a habit of writing in plural.
Is it part of the disorder?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OK this is not technically US diplomat, but since Blair works for the Busheviks and not the UK... close enough.

Robin Cook has resigned from the Blair cabinet.

'... the US is left embarking on military action from a position of diplomatic weakness, unable to get any major international organisation to agree with it. We are heading for a very serious risk of a big gulf between the Western and Islamic world. That seems to me to have thrown away a powerful asset for the US which relates to its number one security concern."