http://truthout.org/docs_03/030103A.shtml EDITOR'S NOTE: What follows is a letter of resignation written by John Brady Kiesling, a member of Bush's Foreign Service Corps and Political Counselor to the American embassy in Greece. Kiesling has been a diplomat for twenty years, a civil servant to four Presidents. The letter below, delivered to Secretary of State Colin Powell, is quite possibly the most eloquent statement of dissent thus far put forth regarding the issue of Iraq. The New York Times story which reports on this remarkable event can be found after Kiesling's letter. - wrp t r u t h o u t | Letter U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling Letter of Resignation, to: Secretary of State Colin L. Powell ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003 Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal. It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer. The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security. The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo? We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead. We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto? I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet? Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests. I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share. John Brady Kiesling
Unless some skeleton in this man's closet can be dragged out, I virtually guarantee that the most response you will get from those supporting the war on this, as with all the others ( How many have there been now?) is something like " He's wrong but he's entitled to his opinion."
honestly, what else can we say without getting into the same arguments we've rehashed here for over 6 months now.
Sorry about posting old news. I hadn't heard about this one, which is why I posted it. But with my many recent moves I've been away for long periods. I had heard about the reseignation from the woman who helped establish the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan, but I hadn't heard about this one.
Doesn't the sheer weight of experts in the filed...ex Presidents, directors of intelligence, diplomats, state officials,etc. pointedly resigning in protest over the very same issues the rest of the world has with our actions even give you pause? A moment's doubt? I agree that, taken as individuals they mean not much...something, to be sure; it is their field, and it is their careers they are sacrificing to reflect the magnitude of their dismay...and virtually all of them are citing unprecedented errors in judgment in the very areas in which they are expert. But the volume of them, and the consistency of their comments despite the variety of their areas of expertise is frightening...almost to a man they have stated that there have been problems before, but never like this. These aren't shrinking violets here, these are guys who worked through the Cold War, the 1st Gulf War...and they are all, without exception, dissapointed and afraid with what we are doing now. Does that not give you any second thoughts?
MacBeth, This is a very divisive issue for people across all walks of life. It is logical that you see many people who are involved with foreign policy be more passionate about it because these issues have been the basis of their life's work. Also, when you say 'almost...to a man', what exactly do you mean? A lot of people that are submitting resignation papers are against the current policy? That is logical because people that support the policy aren't going to resign. And if you mean that the whole of the foreign diplomatic corps is against the current policy, nothing in this thread provides any evidence to support that assertion. If all our diplomats dropped out, it'd be a different story, but the number that has resigned has been a few out of thousands. That said, of course the opinions of diplomats, etc. give me pause over my stance. Any evidence that I encounter requires me to evaluate it and also to evaluate my beliefs with respect to them. Your last sentence insinuates that people that have a different viewpoint than you are mindless drones who blindly follow the President. I take offense to that, and I think you would take offense if/when such a statement is made about you.
All this does for me is reinforce my view that the State Department needs reform. Other than that... nothing.
1) We have not seen this kind of protestation at higher levels beofre...We did not see it in the 1st Gulf War, Korea, WWII, etc...We did not even see it during Vietnam, despite significantly more public protestation. This is not just standard operating procedure during a devisive activity like war, this is a clear departure from American foreign policy up to this point. 2) By 'almost...to a man'. I was talking about the incredible similarity found in the reasons given for each resignation...Not just that we have made one bad decision...not disagreement over a specific strategic miscalculation, not even just over one declaration of war...There is consistent objection to a systematic shift, lead from the very top, towards a geo-centric unilateral attitude, rejection of the value of global will, and contempt for those less powerfull than ourselves that has now only been found in brief and accute flurries in American history. The consistency of these observations is what I am pointing to. The numbers have not been as dissproportionate as you suggest, and moreover have included some very, very senior diplomatic and intelligence officials who have, it could be assumed, seen enough in thier lifetimes that they wouldn't get that excited over trivial mistakes. 3) Last line? I was actually just looking for a way to finish my thoughts...it was in no way meant to imply what you took it to mean, and if I came across that way I apologize. I was trying to make the point that you can reject the odd objection, but the volume and expertise of those objecting, including former Presidents and generals who know the situation as well as anyone, and if anything have a pro-Bush/Repulcian bias...well THAT is what I meant should give secind thought, the distinction between one uninformed opinion and several very informed ones...not that anyone who doesn't agree with me isn't thinking.
