General Zinni gets dissed ... ???

[bert]

having someone running the largest US Embassy in the world who knows the "lingo" might be to our advantage

That is what the attachés are for.

I have to say I don't have a lot of sympathy for him: ambassador positions are a political game and I am sure he knows that. (That doesn't mean he deserves to be treated like that - assuming we have the full story which I doubt - because nobody does, I am just saying he knew it was a snake when he picked it up).

 

[The Chief]

.... will set the wrong tone when our relationship is becoming less and less predicated on our military presence. ....

.... and would add : " .... the perception of just another military guy trying to run our country ...... "

 

[Bevo16]

A military operation which is dwindling in size and influence over the shape of events in Iraq. Putting a military man in charge of diplomacy will set the wrong tone when our relationship is becoming less and less predicated on our military presence.

Mr. Hill has a strong track record from the Bosnia peace settlement and as the US rep to the six-party talks with North Korea. It's insulting to demean him as a bureaucrat "rounding out his resume". You might as well call Gen. Zinni a "manager"; it'd be about as accurate.

Follow the bubbles to the surface. Exhale one the way up.

Anyone who would use the verb "dwindling" to describe our military operations in Iraq is either retarded or woefully uninformed. Maybe you could give us an update on the situation in Afghinastan from your apartment in South Texas?

Just how many members of the State Department have you met in your extensive carrer? All of the ones that I know refer to themselves as bureaucrats. Do you even know what the word means?

.... and would add : " .... the perception of just another military guy trying to run our country ...... "

I can see how that would be a concern. Still, I would rather say "to hell with perception, get the best man for the job".

 

[A4sForever]

A military operation which is dwindling in size and influence ... putting a military man in charge of diplomacy will set the wrong tone when our relationship is becoming less and less predicated on our military presence ...

Hmmmmm ... never heard of these guys ... ???

 

[helmet91]

Yeah... that George Marshall guy really screwed up Europe after WWII.

 

[HercDriver]

Follow the bubbles to the surface. Exhale one the way up.

Anyone who would use the verb "dwindling" to describe our military operations in Iraq is either retarded or woefully uninformed. Maybe you could give us an update on the situation in Afghinastan from your apartment in South Texas?

dwin⋅dle   [dwin-dl] verb, -dled, -dling.
–verb (used without object)
1. to become smaller and smaller; shrink; waste away
President Obama has directed a draw down of our troops in Iraq, as I'm sure you know. This tends to make military operations "become smaller and smaller". But that is just semantics; whoever goes into this job is presiding over the removal of the bulk of our troops. I'm guessing you are arguing semantics instead of the actual points on whether he is better, because you've been shown up by others that you don't have a good handle on who this guy is (your Wikipedia link, notwithstanding).

Just how many members of the State Department have you met in your extensive carrer? All of the ones that I know refer to themselves as bureaucrats. Do you even know what the word means?

I think he was taking more issue with the phrase "rounding out his resume", than the term bureaucrat [hint: look at his use of quotation marks.]

I can see how that would be a concern. Still, I would rather say "to hell with perception, get the best man for the job".

As for having a retired military officer there or a civilian; I think the points made by The Chief are spot on. There will be much difficulty as we navigate the draw down and having a (former) military person in charge would put the spotlight on him unnecessarily.

 

[Bevo16]

President Obama has directed a draw down of our troops in Iraq, as I'm sure you know.

Really? He has? Starting when and by how many troops?

Since you are so fucking great at verb conjugation, maybe you can figure out that there is a difference between the president directing the top brass to start making plans for a withdraw and an actual change in status. Maybe you could go with "Hopes to dwindle the level of forces, unless things change."

I'm guessing you are arguing semantics instead of the actual points on whether he is better, because you've been shown up by others that you don't have a good handle on who this guy is (your Wikipedia link, notwithstanding).

RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT :sleep_125

My "handle" on the fact that he has no Middle East experience is doing just find thanks.

 

[sevenhelmet]

^ I'm forced to agree about Mr. Hill's lack of Middle Eastern experience. That matters to me more than his lack of military experience in terms of being an ambassador. That being said, the real reason this stinks is the disconnect between Washington and General Zinni. This isn't the first time since the new administration took the reigns that military/retired military have been slighted.

I just hope it doesn't become a habit. Communication makes all the difference!

 

[The Chief]

Changing their mind about him being the ambassador is not a huge deal, but the way they did was very inept. Hopefully this trend doesn't continue.

Well, the grapevine is at it again, this morning's Koffee Klatch, mostly retired Goverment DAS/SES/OD level folks say that the decision on General Zinni was made by the White House (staff, NSC Chief most likely), but when Secretary Clinton was "told" she said ".....no way...." that is a State Department position, I am State Department and I will make the decision on the new ambassador to Iraq and he/she will be a career diplomat. Cat fight %%^$$#$##@!!. Round #1: SECSTATE 1; NSC 0. Stay tuned.

 

[Mumbles]

Well, the grapevine is at it again, this morning's Koffee Klatch, mostly retired Goverment DAS/SES/OD level folks say that the decision on General Zinni was made by the White House (staff, NSC Chief most likely), but when Secretary Clinton was "told" she said ".....no way...." that is a State Department position, I am State Department and I will make the decision on the new ambassador to Iraq and he/she will be a career diplomat. Cat fight %%^$$#$##@!!. Round #1: SECSTATE 1; NSC 0. Stay tuned.

This is interesting.... I remember wondering after her being nominated to State whether the Clintons would somehow usurp or undermine Obama vis-a-vis foreign policy. Nobody could convince me that there's not some bad blood between the two camps that's carried over. Lots of surreptitious little power plays in this town that are seldom reported.

 

[The Chief]

.... usurp or undermine Obama vis-a-vis foreign policy. ... .

Tip of the spear perhaps, but Secretary Clinton must win over those bureaucrats in the Foreign Ministry. As someone said previously, they bureaucrats are the ones that run the Department, not the Secretary. Immediately out of the box Clinton has shown the "troops" that she supports them and by going to the mat to get a career diplomat in that high profile slot she gained a lot of points. Also a shot across the bow to those who might take her for granted. Also, they bureaucrats somehow hate those "outsiders", like Marine Generals, that come in from the outside and scoop up their birthright, esp those military guys!!! Lets see here: "One Marine General bringing in another Marine General ......"; you get the picture.

 

[A4sForever]

... Immediately out of the box Clinton has shown the "troops" that she supports them and by going to the mat to get a career diplomat in that high profile slot she gained a lot of points...

It certainly beats the hell out of dodging imaginary snipers in the hills ...

 

[exhelodrvr]

Also, they bureaucrats somehow hate those "outsiders", like Marine Generals, that come in from the outside and scoop up their birthright, esp those military guys!!! Lets see here: "One Marine General bringing in another Marine General ......"; you get the picture.

"Also, they bureaucrats somehow hate those "outsiders", like Marine Generals, that come in from the outside and scoop up their birthright"

Yes, and we wouldn't want to change the culture at the DOS, CIA, etc. by bringing in anyone from outside.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

That shit happens all the time in the DOS. It seems like the majority of the ambassadors out there are political appointees (as opposed to the "homegrown" appointees), and the political appointees definitely get the cush posts.

It has got to suck to be a career diplomat, become the Charge D'Affairs at an embassy, and then have some political appointee show up as your boss because he is friends with some guy who is friends with some guy.

 

[wink]

That shit happens all the time in the DOS. It seems like the majority of the ambassadors out there are political appointees (as opposed to the "homegrown" appointees), and the political appointees definitely get the cush posts.

It has got to suck to be a career diplomat, become the Charge D'Affairs at an embassy, and then have some political appointee show up as your boss because he is friends with some guy who is friends with some guy.

The cushy Ambassadorships are the one that go to the political appointees. Where there is hard lifting the career Foreign Service guys reign. Many of those are not garden spots, but they knew that going into the career. That is always the way it has been. I do think it is interesting that it wasn't too long ago that State careerists revolted over the threat of involuntary assignment to Iraq as a virtual death sentence. What, they are lining up now? The involuntarily assigned military did a damn fine job so now it is safe for the career diplomats to return for the glory.