David,
Can I put it a bit more bluntly? The US simply lacks the understanding/context to form an effective military partnership with many African states.
Why is this so? You cannot understand a nation from the comfort of a fortress-like embassy in the capital. The US will either get played or have to depend on the judgement of former colonial powers like Britain and France (who might have their own agenda).
How does the US break this vicious circle? Don't know.
Over the past few decades I have come to believe that our Department of State really doesn't mind driving blind. They're not an organization that habitually questions their assumptions. They push whatever their agenda is and seek the most expedient means to pursue that agenda, and in many cases do so without even trying to understanding of the context and how this will play out over time. Of course even if they wanted to gain understanding, that understanding will remain elusive if they don't navigate outside of diplomatic circles. This is not true for all embassies, but it does reflect the culture of most. The classic book, "The Ugly American" still accurately represents the culture of our country teams in too many cases.Originally Posted by KingJaja
The military is little better as this particular example points out. We too quickly rush to the easiest path so we take a "by, with, and through" approach. Any willing surrogate will do, and then we'll fool ourselves into believing we're on the legitimate path to victory regardless of how flawed our surrogates eventually prove themselves to be.
If we continue to rush in without first gaining understanding it is probable that we'll continue to create new problems, sometimes more problems, than the ones we attempted to solve. I think the only way to move beyond this haphazard approach is to make a concerted effort on gaining a holistic understanding of these issues in collaboration with multiple others (our views need to be challenged to see if they stand up to the sniff test). How we organize to do this is the million dollar question. Another issue in my opinion is that we all too often have policy influenced by think tanks in D.C.. They should be voice, but over the years they gained excessive influence.
The good news for us is that all we're all collectively stupid. I haven't seen any other powerful nations do it any better than we do, so relatively we're not that bad, but that shouldn't be our standard.
Trained Indifference
Besides full agreement with what you say above, your cite to "The Ugly American" brings back memories of reading it as a serial, starting in the Saturday Evening Post, October 4, 1958. Of course, that was something of a "pastel" world - not yet colored by Vietnam:from Bill Moore:
Over the past few decades I have come to believe that our Department of State really doesn't mind driving blind. They're not an organization that habitually questions their assumptions. They push whatever their agenda is and seek the most expedient means to pursue that agenda, and in many cases do so without even trying to understanding of the context and how this will play out over time. Of course even if they wanted to gain understanding, that understanding will remain elusive if they don't navigate outside of diplomatic circles. This is not true for all embassies, but it does reflect the culture of most. The classic book, "The Ugly American" still accurately represents the culture of our country teams in too many cases.
So, one has to "adjust" (refine, tweak) "The Ugly American" to meet current realities.
But, this point is as valid today as it was then: "Of course even if they wanted to gain understanding, that understanding will remain elusive if they don't navigate outside of diplomatic circles." I was reminded of that not that long ago because of an experience that must remain confidential. Simply stated, Embassy X not only elected not to navigate outside of diplomatic circles, it was unmannerly to boot.
Of course, as the old saying goes: "Discipline is a matter between officers; manners are a matter between gentlemen."
Regards
Mike
Ugly American was the good guy
As you well know, Mike the "ugly" American, COL Hillanddale - a very, very thinly disguised Ed Lansdale - was the hero of the book. He always got out of both the Embassy and the capital and the military compounds. The FAO program is designed to make its officers educated in the language and the cultures of the regions / countries they are assigned to. For the most part, it does a good job although I have educated some FAOS who never quite succeeded in comprehending the culture where they were assigned. I know a number of FSOs - some of whom have become ambassadors - who can immerse themselves ina culture as well as any FAO. At least one such FSO - Bill Meara who was occasionally online here when I joined - is one who was not only an FSO but a FAO, SF, and qualified Psyop officer. Part of the answer of getting out of the embassy is to remember that the FS is a commissioned service and to do your job you must take some risks.
Cheers
JohnT
Anyone care to offer an explanation how AFRICOM's future looks post-Mali? In particular if Congress wants to make a cut in spending.
The thread title was topical and useful. I don't think only the Pentagon is wilfully blind to local realities. Yes the DoD and AFRICOM can point the finger at other USG partners - did anyone within USG say "not sure about this boss or ma'm?"
davidbfpo
And watch their boss demolish their career while completely ignoring the warning?
How well do you think Hillary Clinton or Susan Rice would react to be told that maybe, just maybe, there might be something in the situation they'd overlooked, and the decision they'd made might make things worse?
This get's to the essence of the problem KingJaja brought up: "Can I put it a bit more bluntly? The US simply lacks the understanding/context to form an effective military partnership with many African states."
Because it isn't the good people John T. refers to who are in control, it's credentialed idiots who call the shots.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
Hey John,
My complaint did not rest upon "The Ugly American", Col. Hillanddale (Lansdale), FAOs (like Tom Odom), or even with "The Quiet American" of Graham Greene.
Nope, it rested upon straight-up DoS Foggy Bottom diplomatic types who would do well to read and follow their own protocol manuals and avoid insulting potential indigenous friends.
Regards
Mike
jmm99,
We are in violent agreement.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks