HOME I ABOUT EWR I PREVIOUS ARTICLES I PHILOSOPHY BOARD I LUMINOUS LINKS I EMAIL EWROSS I BOOK A SPEECH | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
AMERICAN DIPLOMATS IN HARM'S WAY Ed Ross | Monday, September 17, 2012 The many attacks on U.S. diplomatic and military facilities and killings of official Americans abroad since the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 have had a profound and detrimental effect on U.S. foreign policy. The September 11, 2012, sacking of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others is another in a long list of incidents that limit U.S. access and influence abroad. The U.S. diplomatic and military presence overseas is an essential element of U.S. foreign and national security policy. American Embassies do far more that show the American flag, issue visas, and interact with host-government officials. They are microcosms of the U.S. government on the front lines of U.S. endeavors to gain access and influence. Forward-deployed U.S. forces do more than deter and fight wars. They build and maintain critical partnerships and alliances and provide an example of the proper role of the military in democratic societies. Official U.S. civilian and military personnel abroad collect and report information critical to U.S. policy makers as they interact with the broadest possible spectrum of individuals and groups in the countries to which they are assigned. The more they have become victims of terrorist attacks and are threatened by them, however, the more they are forced to withdraw within the confines of the fortresses our established embassies and overseas military installations have become. This limits their ability to do their jobs and the quantity and quality of first-hand information people in Washington, D.C. have to make critical foreign policy decisions. American military heroes deservedly have our gratitude and respect for the many sacrifices of life and limb they make on the battlefield; so also do our diplomatic heroes like Amb. Stevens and the other victims of the Benghazi attacks. By all accounts, Chris Stevens was the ideal Foreign Service Officer/ambassador. He had long experience, spoke several languages, and spent little time behind a desk. He mingled with the people in whatever country he was stationed, and he listened more than he talked. Increasingly, however, I also have observed disturbing trends as security deteriorated in many countries—the tendency to rely on second-hand sources for information rather than venture onto the streets and the reduction in the number of people serving in many embassies. In the days before cable television, the internet, digital cameras, and smartphones, embassy political and economic officers and military attachés got their information the old fashioned way—mostly through personal contact. That meant they necessarily spent a lot less time in their offices than they did out and about. The more they interacted with the country’s people, the better they spoke the language. The better they spoke the language, the better they understood the society and culture; and the better they were able to write insightful and useful reports. To be sure, watching CNN, monitoring social networks, and reading the vast array of news reports and commentary on the Internet has its benefits. It is an important supplement to personal contact, but not a substitute for it. It is the goal of Islamic terrorists to make us cower in fear of them, to force our diplomats behind high concrete walls and barbed wire that separates us from those that seek U.S. leadership and counsel, and to eliminate U.S. embassies from Islamic countries entirely. The more Americans are perceived as faceless figures behind armed guards, the easier it is for al-Qaeda and its ilk to vilify them. The less people in the Islamic world see and hear what America is all about firsthand from official Americans that live in their countries and speak their language the less they will know and understand us. We can’t allow that to happen. Many Muslims fundamentalists do hate Americans; but they are not the majority. My experience in the Middle East is that Americans are widely admired and respected. Nevertheless, the threat to American diplomats around the world is clear and present. We have to protect these men and women as best we can, especially in countries where terrorists will kill them without reason or mercy. Still, the diplomat’s life has never been without risk and never will be. Many unanswered questions remain surrounding the killing of Amb. Stevens and his colleagues. Did we have prior warning of an attack? Several smaller attacks preceded those of September 11, 2012. Should we not have expected some kind of attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11? Why didn’t Stevens have more security—because he didn’t want it or because it wasn’t available? In time, answers to these questions will come. In the meantime we cannot allow the terrorists who killed Amb. Stevens and those that have and will kill others to achieve their goals. There are no easy answers to this dilemma. American diplomats must and will continue to go in harm’s way. We need to support and protect them as best we can and make sure that the sacrifices they make serve the purposes of American engagement and leadership for peace and stability.
|
US Embassy Attacks and Bombings: A Recent History Al Qaeda in Yemen Urges Muslims to Kill U.S. Diplomats Over Film State Department Sets Up 24-hour Monitoring Team for Embassy Crisis
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © Edward W. Ross 2006-2012 All Rights Reserved HOME I ABOUT EWR I PREVIOUS ARTICLES I PHILOSOPHY BOARD I LUMINOUS LINKS I EMAIL EWROSS I BOOK A SPEECH | ||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
