Diplomacy

I think we all tend to criticize too much and praise too little, especially with public officials. So I was impressed today to see proven provider John McCreary, who has forgotten more about intelligence than I will ever know, commend Hillary Clinton for her sharp comments in Pakistan yesterday:

"The US secretary of state questioned Pakistan's commitment to the fight against al-Qaida, saying she found it hard to believe that no-one in the Pakistan government knows where senior figures are hiding.

"I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to," she told a group of newspaper editors during a meeting in the city of Lahore on Thursday.

Bravo for Secretary Clinton.  Either the Pakistani security services contain senior officers who know where bin Laden is and are lying or they are incompetent and ought to be dismissed. There are no other explanations for Pakistan having become the headquarters for al Qaida and the base area for international Islamic terrorism.

‘Nuff said.

AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images

My item on the bad blood between our ambassador in Iraq, Christopher Hill, and our top officer there, Gen. Raymond Odierno, provoked some interesting comments and e-mails, especially from those who encountered him on Korean issues.

This is one that was posted by Joel Wit, a longtime Korea expert who, according to his bio, "served as senior advisor to Ambassador Robert L. Galluci from 1993-1995, where he developed strategies to help resolve the crisis over North Korea's weapons program, and as Coordinator for the U.S.-North Korea's weapons program and as Coordinator for the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework from 1995-1999, where he was the official in charge of implementation":

As someone who follows Iraq only as closely as any foreign-policy generalist but who specializes in North Korea, I can tell you none of us would be surprised by the problems between Chris Hill and the U.S. military in that country. When he worked on North Korea issues at the end of the Bush administration, Hill was not willing to listen to anyone who knew the issues and had his own little team of groupies who worshipped the ground he walked on (or at least pretended to). While there are a number of reasons why we are in trouble with the North today, not the least of which is the North Koreans themselves, Hill wouldn't listen to experts or anyone else about how to deal with a country that he knew nothing about. Sounds like he is repeating his performance in Iraq. Lets hope the consequences arent as bad.

And this is a story I recieved by e-mail from someone in Washington intimately familiar with all this:

During the NK talks, he supposedly coached the North Koreans on what answers to give, so then he could go back and tell Washington they said the right language. The technique finally blew up at the end when he told Bush that if the president  took them off the terror list they would agree to a verification plan. He had none of this in writing but Bush and Condi agreed -- and then when the U.S. went back to North Korea, they denied they had ever agreed to what Hill said they had agreed to.

I have been told that the Obama folks, once they looked at the negotiating record on North Korea (after Hill was off to Iraq), they were absolutely appalled at what they discovered.

Meanwhile, Hill is telling people that he’s never met me. I guess he doesn’t remember a conversation we had in his office in the embassy in Skopje, Macedonia, in the late '90s.
 
Finally, Lady Emma Sky, the always-interesting political advisor to General Odierno, surfaces to report that she has "smacked [Tom Ricks's] bottom and told me I was totally wrong in my portrayal of the relationship of these two people."

TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images

Michele Flournoy, the no. 2 power at the Pentagon, lays down the law in the new issue of Proceedings, along with the shadowy but powerful Shawn Brimley. Wanna know where the QDR is going? Read this and learn, little grasshoppers. And listen up: China and India are where it's at.

Pretty near the top they quote Alfred T. Mahan, which seasoned Pentagoners know is a sign that the Navy is getting teed up to get hit long. (This is like when Gorby would quote Lenin, or Marc Antony would praise Julius Caesar.)

Yeah, they want the State Department to get its act together-but who doesn't?:

The task for the United States is to respond to these challenges with a whole-of-government approach that advances our interests while legitimizing our power in the eyes of others."     

They also want to the Pentagon to help allies keep the global commons free:

Helping to build the capacity of our partners and allies and working toward a common agenda on these increasingly complex issues should be a critical pillar of America's national security and defense strategy."

Okay, sounds good. But this is my question: If the global commons (sea, air, space, cyberspace) really is gonna be contested, why does anyone think conventional aircraft carriers and short-legged fighter aircraft are the answer? I think it is time to commission the UCAV carrier the USS Obama, whose hull and aircraft would both be stealthy. With perhaps a crew of fewer than 500 sailors. (Most controllers of aircraft could fly them from Virginia.)   

You listening, Navy? Your professional magazine has run an article by two of the Pentagon's top civilian thinkers telling you where they think you need to go. You might want to think on this. You too, Air Force.   

CSIS/Flickr

He says the Pakistani ambassador is blowing smoke. Sure, that may be in the envoy's job description, but Bill's take is worth reading. (Hat Tip to Attackerman)

Meanwhile, Dawn has a Pakistani official firing this shot across the bow of the USS Richard Holbrooke, which I believe to be a unique steam-driven amphibious bulldozer:

The ties are in a very delicate stage and there are very few options left for both the allies - either to concede some ground to the other or to enter an all out confrontation," a diplomatic source opined adding things may worsen in days ahead because the Americans are known to be bad listeners and have an inclination for 'bulldozing' the matters."

J.D. Pooley/Getty Images

NightWatch passes along this classic bit of diplo-babble, from a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry:

At present, the situation on the Korean peninsula is rather complicated with an increasing number of uncertain factors."

I think this observation could be applied to just about anything, not just the Korean peninsula. Kind of like the classic British universal retort, attributed to Stephen Potter, of "Yes, but not in the south."

Look, not every op-ed piece about diplomacy with Syria needs to be headlined "On the road to Damascus." It is just not that clever. In fact, it is getting mighty tired.