• John Kerry Is a Man of His Times (and That’s Not a Good Thing)

    November 9, 2013

    Tags:
    Posted in: * Most Popular, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria

    In the 1960s, John Kerry was distinctly a man of his times. Kennedy-esque, he went from Yale to Vietnam to fight in a lost war. When popular sentiments on that war shifted, he became one of the more poignant voices raised in protest by antiwar veterans. Now, skip past his time as a congressman, lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, senator, and presidential candidate (Swift Boated out of the race by the Republican right). Four decades after his Vietnam experience, he has achieved what will undoubtedly be the highest post of his lifetime: secretary of state. And he’s looked like a bumbler first class.  Has he also been — once again — a true man of his time, of a moment in which American foreign policy, as well as its claim to global moral and diplomatic leadership, is in remarkable disarray?

    In his nine months in office, Kerry’s State Department has one striking accomplishment to its name. It has achieved a new level of media savvy in promoting itself and plugging its highest official as a rock star, a world leader in his own right (complete with photo-ops and sophisticated image-making). In the meantime, the secretary of state has been stumbling and bloviating from one crisis to the next, one debacle to another, surrounded by the well-crafted imagery of diplomatic effectiveness. He and his errant statements have become global punch lines, but is he truly to blame for his performance?

    If statistics were diplomacy, Kerry would already be a raging success. At the State Department, his global travels are now proudly tracked by the mile, by minutes flown, and by countries visited. State even has a near-real-time ticker page set up at its website with his ever-changing data. In only nine months in office, Kerry has racked up 222,512 miles and a staggering 482.39 hours in the air (or nearly three weeks total). The numbers will be going up as Kerry is currently taking a 10-day trip to deal with another NSA crisis, in Poland this time, as well as the usual hijinks in the Middle East.  His predecessor, Hillary Clinton, set a number of diplomatic travel records. In fact, she spent literally a full year, one quarter of her four years in office, hopscotching the globe. By comparison, Cold War Secretary of State George Schultz managed less than a year of travel time in his six years in office.

    Kerry’s quick start in racking up travel miles is the most impressive aspect of his tenure so far, given that it’s been accompanied by record foreign policy stumbles and bumbles. With the thought that frenetic activity is being passed off as diplomacy and accomplishment, let’s do a little continent hopping ourselves, surveying the diplomatic and foreign policy terrain the secretary’s visited. So, fasten your seatbelt, we’re on our way!

    We’ll Be Landing in Just a Few Minutes… in Asia

    Despite Asia’s economic importance, its myriad potential flashpoints, and the crucial question of how the Sino-American relationship will evolve, Kerry has managed to visit the region just once on a largely ceremonial basis.

    Diplomatically speaking, the Obama administration’s much ballyhooed “pivot to Asia” seems to have run out of gas almost before it began and with little to show except some odd photos of the secretary of state looking like Fred Munster in Balinese dress at the Asia-Pacific Economic Conference. With President Obama then trapped in Washington by the shutdown/debt-ceiling crisis, Kerry seemed like a bystander at APEC, with China the dominant presence. He was even forced to suffer through a Happy Birthday sing-along for Russian President Vladimir Putin. In the meantime, the economy of Washington’s major ally, Japan, remains sleepy, even as opposition to the U.S.-backed Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade pact grows and North Korea continues to expand its nuclear program seemingly unaffected by threats from Washington.

    All in all, it’s not exactly an impressive picture, but rest assured that it’ll look as fetching as a bright spring day, once we hit our next stop. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, the pilot now asks that you all return to your seats, because we will soon be landing…

    … in the Middle East

    If any area of the world lacks a single bright spot for the U.S., it’s the Middle East. The problems, of course, extend back many years and many administrations. Kerry is a relative newcomer. Still, he’s made seven of his 15 overseas trips there, with zero signs of progress on the American agenda in the region, and much that has only worsened.

    The sole pluses came from diplomatic activity initiated by powers not exactly considered Washington’s closest buddies: Russian President Putin’s moves in relation to Syria (on which more later) and new Iranian President Rouhani’s “charm offensive” in New York, which seems to have altered for the better the relationship between the two countries. In fact, both Putin’s and Rouhani’s moves are classic, well-played diplomacy, and only serve to highlight the amateurish quality of Kerry’s performance. On the other hand, the Obama administration’s major Middle East commitment — to peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians — seems destined for a graveyard already piled high with past versions of the same.

    Meanwhile, whatever spark remained of the Arab Spring in Egypt was snuffed out by a military coup, while the U.S. lamely took forever just to begin to cut off some symbolic military aid to the new government. American credibility in the region suffered further damage after State, in a seeming panic, closed embassies across the Middle East in response to a reputed major terror threat that failed to materialize anywhere but inside Washington’s Beltway.

    Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia was once nicknamed “Bandar Bush” for his strong support of the U.S. during the 1991 Desert Storm campaign and the Bush dynasty.  He recently told European diplomats, however, that the Kingdom will launch a “major shift” in relations with the United States to protest Washington’s perceived inaction over the Syria war and its overtures to Iran. The Saudis were once considered, next to Israel, America’s strongest ally in the region. Kerry’s response? Fly to Paris for some “urgent talks.”

    Meanwhile, the secretary of state has made no effort to draw down his fortress embassy in Baghdad, despite its “world’s largest” personnel count in a country where an American invasion and nine-year occupation resulted in a pro-Iranian government. Memories in the region aren’t as short as at the State Department, however, and Iraqis are unlikely to forget that sanctions, the U.S. invasion, and its aftermath resulted in the deaths of an estimated 4% of their country’s population. Kerry would be quick to condemn such a figure as genocidal had the Iranians or North Koreans been involved, but he remains silent now.

    State doesn’t include Turkey in Kerry’s impressive Middle Eastern trip count, though he’s traveled there three times, with (again) little to show for his efforts. That NATO ally, which refused to help the Bush administration with its invasion of Iraq, continues to fight a border war with Iraqi Kurds. (Both sides do utilize mainly American-made weapons.) The Turks are active in Syria as well, supporting the rebels, fearing the Islamic extremists, lobbing mortar shells across the border, and suffering under the weight of that devastated country’s refugees. Meanwhile — a small regional disaster from a U.S. perspective — Turkish-Israeli relations, once close, continue to slide. Recently, the Turks even outed a Mossad spy ring to the Iranians, and no one, Israelis, Turks, or otherwise, seems to be listening to Washington.

    Now, please return your tray tables to their upright and locked position, as we make our final approach to…

    … Everywhere Else

    Following more than 12 years of war with thousands of lives lost, Kerry was recently reduced to begging Afghanistan’s corrupt president, Hamid Karzai, to allow a mini-occupation’s worth of American troops to remain in-country past a scheduled 2014 tail-tucked departure by U.S. combat troops. (Kerry’s trip to Afghanistan had to be of the unannounced variety, given the security situation there.) Pakistan, sporting only a single Kerry visit, flaunts its ties to the Taliban while collecting U.S. aid. As they say, if you don’t know who the patsy is at a poker game, it’s you.

    Relations with the next generation of developing nations, especially Brazil and India, are either stagnant or increasingly hostile, thanks in part to revelations of massive NSA spying. Brazil is even hosting an international summit to brainstorm ways to combat that agency’s Internet surveillance. Even stalwart Mexico is now lashing out at Washington over NSA surveillance.

    After a flurry of empty threats, a spiteful passport revocation by Kerry’s State Department, a bungled extradition attempt in Hong Kong, and a diplomatic fiasco in which Washington forced the Bolivian president’s airplane to land in Austria for a search, Public Enemy Number One Edward Snowden is settling into life in Moscow. He’s even receiving fellow American whistleblowers as guests. Public Enemy Number Two, Julian Assange, continues to run WikiLeaks out of the Ecuadoran embassy in London. One could argue that either of the two men have had more direct influence on America’s status abroad than Kerry.

    Now, please return to your seats, fasten your seat belts, and consider ordering a stiff drink. We’ve got some bumpy air up ahead as we’re…

    … Entering Syrian Airspace

    The final leg of this flight is Syria, which might be thought of as Kerry’s single, inadvertent diplomatic accomplishment (even if he never actually traveled there.)

    Not long before the U.S. government half-shuttered itself for lack of funds, John Kerry was point man for the administration’s all-out efforts to attack Syria. It was, he insisted, “not the time to be silent spectators to slaughter.” That statement came as he was announcing the recruitment of France to join an impending U.S. assault on military facilities in and around the Syrian capital, Damascus. Kerry also vociferously beat the drums for war at a hearing held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    His war diplomacy, however, quickly hit some major turbulence, as the British parliament, not eager to repeat its Iraq and Afghan misadventures, voted the once inconceivable — a straightforward, resounding no to joining yet another misguided American battle plan. France was soon backing out as well, even as Kerry clumsily tried to soften resistance to the administration’s urge to launch strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime with the bizarre claim that such an attack would be “unbelievably small.” (Kerry’s boss, President Obama, forcefully contradicted him the next day, insisting, “The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.”)

    Kerry had his moment of triumph, however, on a quick stop in London, where he famously and offhandedly said at a news conference that war could be avoided if the Syrians turned in their chemical weapons. Kerry’s own State Department issued an instant rejoinder, claiming the statement had been “rhetorical.” In practically the same heartbeat, the Russians stepped into the diplomatic breach. Unable to walk his statement back, Kerry was humiliatingly forced to explain that his once-rhetorical remark was not rhetorical after all. Vladimir Putin then arose as an unlikely peacemaker and yes, Kerry took another trip, this time to “negotiate” the details with the Russians, which seems largely to have consisted of jotting down Russian terms of surrender to cable back to Washington.

    His “triumph” in hand, Kerry still wasn’t done. On September 19th, on a rare stopover in Washington, he claimed a U.N. report on Syria’s chemical weapons stated that the Assad regime was behind the chemical attack that had set the whole process in motion. (The report actually said that there was not enough evidence to assign guilt to any party.) Then, on October 7th, he effusively praised the Syrian president (from Bali) for his cooperation, only on October 14th to demand (from London) that a “transition government, a new governing entity” be put in place in Syria “in order to permit the possibility of peace.”

    But, But…

    As for Kerry’s nine-month performance review, here goes: he often seems unsure and distracted, projecting a sense that he might prefer to be anywhere else than wherever he is. In addition, he’s displayed a policy-crippling lack of information, remarkably little poise, and strikingly bad word choice, while regularly voicing surprising new positions on old issues. The logical conclusion might be to call for his instant resignation before more damage is done. (God help us, some Democratic voters may actually find themselves secretly wondering whether the country dodged a bullet in 2004 when George W. Bush won his dismal second term in office.)

    In his nine months as secretary of state, Kerry, the man, has shown a genuine capacity for mediocrity and an almost tragicomic haplessness. But blaming him would be like shouting at the waiter because your steak is undercooked.

    Whatever his failings, John Kerry is only a symptom of Washington’s lack of a coherent foreign policy or sense of mission. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has been adrift, as big and dangerous as an iceberg but something closer to the Titanic. President Bush, the father, and President Clinton, the husband, had at least some sense of when not to overdo it. They kept their foreign interventions to relatively neat packages, perhaps recognizing that they had ever less idea what the script was anymore.

    Waking up on that clear morning of September 12, 2001, the administration of Bush, the son, substituted a crude lashing out and an urge for total domination of the Greater Middle East, and ultimately the planet, for foreign policy. Without hesitation, it claimed the world as its battlefield and then deployed the Army, the Marines, the Navy, the Air Force, growing Special Operations forces, paramilitarized intelligence outfits, and drone technology to make it so. They proved to be good killers, but someone seemed to forget that war is politics by other means. Without a thought-out political strategy behind it, war is simply violent chaos unleashed.

    Diplomacy had little role in such a black-and-white world. No time was to be wasted talking to other countries: you were either with us or against us. Even our few remaining friends and allies had a hard time keeping up, as Washington promoted torture, sent the CIA out to kidnap people off the streets of global cities, and set up its own gulag with Guantanamo as its crown jewel. And of course, none of it worked.

    Then, the hope and change Americans thought they’d voted into power in 2008 only made the situation worse. The Obama administration substituted directionless-ness for idiotic decisiveness, and visionless-ness for the global planning of mad visionaries, albeit with much the same result: spasmodic violence. The United States, after all, remains the biggest kid on the block, and still gets a modicum of respect from the tiny tots and the teens who remember better days, as well as a shrinking crew of aid-bought pals.

    The days of the United States being able to treat the world as its chessboard are over. It’s now closer to a Rubik’s Cube that Washington can’t figure out how to manipulate. Across the globe, people noted how the World’s Mightiest Army was fought to a draw (or worse) in Iraq and Afghanistan by insurgents with only small arms, roadside bombs, and suicide bombers.

    Increasingly, the world is acknowledging America’s Kerry-style clunkiness and just bypassing the U.S. Britain said no to war in Syria. Russia took over big-box diplomacy. China assumed the pivot role in Asia in every way except militarily. (They’re working on it.) The Brazilian president simply snubbed Obama, canceling a state visit over Snowden’s NSA revelations. Tiny Ecuador continues to raise a middle finger to Washington over the Assange case. These days, one can almost imagine John Kerry as the wallflower of some near-future international conference, hoping someone – anyone — will invite him to dance.

    The American Century might be said to have lasted from August 1945 until September 2001, a relatively short span of 56 years. (R.I.P.) John Kerry’s frantic bumbling did not create the present situation; it merely added mirth to the funeral preparations.




    Related Articles:




    Copyright © 2014. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity. Follow me on Twitter!

  • Recent Comments

    • pitchfork said...

      1

      Fantastic observations Peter. Best post ever. Your diplomatic experience insight really helps me understand the bigger picture. I don’t even have one single idiotic thing to comment.

      Well, on second thought. :)

      Seeing as no one else seemed to have anything to comment on in your last post, which seems rather odd to me, I do have one observation. Benghazi. Now that CBS just retreated from it’s interview with ..what’s his name?, I wonder what Kerry will come up with in regards to State hiring Blue Mountain(or whatever company really fucked up). This story is getting more bizarre by the moment, and I’m really looking forward to another Kerry/foot in mouth episode. I need a laugh today.

      http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/11/08/morgan-jones-blue-mountain-whitewash/#more-39213

      11/9/13 12:44 PM | Comment Link

    • wemeantwell said...

      2

      I think that Blue Mountain was “hired” by the CIA, who really ran the Benghazi operation. Payment was made through State to create the cover paper trail, and State is all smug with itself claiming that technically speaking it never “hired” Blue Mountain.

      Also, thanks for the kind words.

      11/9/13 12:55 PM | Comment Link

    • pitchfork said...

      3

      Hahahahahahahahaha..unbelieveable. While I don’t really understand WHY the WAPO would do this, for some reason, WAPO published the CBS fuck up story under the STYLE section. Weird.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/60-minutes-apologizes-for-benghazi-report/2013/11/08/6e7b6b9a-487e-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_allComments.html?ctab=all_&

      11/9/13 1:14 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...

      4

      11/9/13 1:16 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...

      5

      “Seeing as no one else seemed to have anything to comment on in your last post, which seems rather odd to me…”

      We are waiting for Laura Logan’s investigation after Blue Balls Mountain of lies.

      11/9/13 1:29 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...

      6

      “The network spoke to many people about Davies’ credentials. “He wasn’t some rogue operator,” Fager said. “He was the State Department’s security guy.”

      Oh DS, you’ve done it again. Steven didn’t stand a chance.

      11/9/13 1:46 PM | Comment Link

    • pitchfork said...

      7

      quote:”I think that Blue Mountain was “hired” by the CIA, who really ran the Benghazi operation.”unquote

      Naw? Really? Whudda thunk.

      I smell a rat, and I bet his name is..ummm.. nevermind.

      quote”Payment was made through State to create the cover paper trail, and State is all smug with itself claiming that technically speaking it never “hired” Blue Mountain.”unquote

      Yeah..technically speaking of course.

      Speaking of the Cee Eye Eh, and “COVERS”, ya know Peter, day after day, I try to dig deeper to understand how we’ve arrived where we are, especially in regards to the NSA. Yesterday, after reading about the latest Congressional attempt to “reign in” the NSA, jokes notwithstanding, there was something in the language in the bill that was so mindboggling, I decided to look up the original “Acts” that created the NSA and CIA. Ha!(insert rolling eye smiley). Little did I know.

      I started with the Central Intelligence Act of 1947. I wish I would have had access to this information 40 years ago. Shame on me. NOW, I’m beginning to understand. Holy Mother of James Bond.

      If anything, I believe now a legal “coup” of some kind has taken place.

      Reason is..how Congress could actually write a law that says things like this….(excuse the long post please)

      (snip)…….
      quote”
      (g) Exemption from certain requirements

      The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency may exempt a designated employee from mandatory compliance with any Federal regulation, rule, standardized administrative policy, process, or procedure that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency determines—

      (1) would be inconsistent with the nonofficial cover of that employee; and

      (2) could expose that employee to detection as a Federal employee.
      (h) Taxation and social security
      (1) In general

      Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a designated employee—

      (A) shall file a Federal or State tax return as if that employee is not a Federal employee and may claim and receive the benefit of any exclusion, deduction, tax credit, or other tax treatment that would otherwise apply if that employee was not a Federal employee, if the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency determines that taking any action under this paragraph is necessary to—

      (i) protect from unauthorized disclosure—

      (I) intelligence operations;

      (II) the identities of undercover intelligence officers;

      (III) intelligence sources and methods; or

      (IV) intelligence cover mechanisms; and

      (ii) meet the special requirements of work related to collection of foreign intelligence or other authorized activities of the Agency; and

      (B) shall receive social security benefits based on the social security contributions made.
      (2) Internal Revenue Service review

      The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shall establish procedures to carry out this subsection. The procedures shall be subject to periodic review by the Internal Revenue Service.”unquote

      As if those tidbits weren’t enough to boggle my mind, to make a long story short, after 2 hours of burning my brain, I finally reached the final sentence in the Act. This is beyond unbelievable.
      (snip)…
      quote:
      “(j) Finality of decisions

      Any determinations authorized by this section to be made by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency or the Director’s designee shall be final and conclusive and shall not be subject to review by any court.”unquote

      SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY ANY COURT!!

      And here I’ve spent nearly 60 years believing we have a Constitution that enumerates the powers of the three branches of government. My bad.

      Now I understand.

      bartender..leave the bottle.

      11/9/13 1:58 PM | Comment Link

    • pitchfork said...

      8

      ps..this shit makes “Homeland” look like an utter joke.

      11/9/13 2:05 PM | Comment Link

    • pitchfork said...

      9

      I’m sorry..I just can’t get over this…
      (snip)…
      quote:
      “The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency may EXEMPT a designated employee from MANDATORY COMPLIANCE with ANY Federal regulation, rule, standardized administrative policy, process, or procedure that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency determines—…”(snip)
      (my bolding)

      No wonder. This story is gonna get weirder by the day. It’s been going on since 1947.

      11/9/13 2:17 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...

      10

      “John Kerry’s frantic bumbling did not create the present situation; it merely added mirth to the funeral preparations.”

      The daily revelations of our incompetence is staggering. We are “The Dumbest Country on the Planet.”

      11/9/13 2:37 PM | Comment Link

    • pitchfork said...

      11

      Ok, I promise this is the last thing I’ll post.. today. :)
      Peter said…
      quote” (Kerry’s boss, President Obama, forcefully contradicted him the next day, insisting, “The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.”)

      Hey..speaking of pricks..er..pinpricks, I couldn’t help but shake my head at one of Obut’s statements in that article …

      quote:”The president, arguing a moral case to a country wearied by a decade of war, invoked gruesome images from the Aug. 21 attack outside the Syrian capital. He spoke of fathers clutching lifeless children, dead bodies lined up in rows and people left foaming at the mouth.”unquote

      right. Fathers clutching lifeless children. Of all the goddamned fucking nerve of this asshole.
      I wish I could SLAM his face into pool of blood created by HIS kill list command. Lifeless children indeed. The hubris of this psychopath is beyond comprehension.

      11/9/13 2:48 PM | Comment Link

    • Kyzl Orda said...

      12

      Mrs Clinton seemed just like a traveler, but as Secretary, Kerry seems to accomplished more than Clinton could. There were many opportunities for Clinton to tackle but she avoided the challenges.

      The Mid East peace process certainly languished, and what a disappointment. I guess the idea was if we ignored the crisis then one could legitimately say “what crisis??” Just like how whistleblowers are treated at State. Think globally, (fail to) act locally. Or is it think locally, (don’t) act globally? Especially if it could affect one’s future presidential campaign

      11/9/13 3:58 PM | Comment Link

    • Kyzl Orda said...

      13

      It’s another case where the “change” slogan was sacrificed in order to protect the status quo. The curious and pathetic irony is the processes and culprits the Clinton and Obama team should have reformed, they instead protected and those very folks hate Clinton and the President. Class interests trumped reform.

      Mrs Clinton is not likely to secure the party nomination when the time comes, especially if the economy keeps tanking. Benghazi is really the CIA’s baby, and General Petreaus, and his people at the CIA, really escaped the boom, didnt they? But there will be other hypocritical things that occurred that will come out Mrs Clinton was a party to, thanks to her inattention to key matters

      Too bad Bill deBlasio was just elected. Governors as presidential candidates may fare better in the next presidential elections

      11/9/13 4:16 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...

      14

      By 2016, Hillary will be over the hill. The Dems should run Charlie Crist vs the anti-Crist, Chris Christie.

      11/9/13 4:25 PM | Comment Link

    • pitchfork said...

      15

      ok, it’s another day in the Land of the brainwashed…

      Speaking of which..

      http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/5829/CIA-RDP80B01676R002600130048-0.pdf

      These people are truly despicable. Also, note who this was sent to. Our wunnerful brainwashing DoS. No doubt they’re experts by now.

      11/10/13 4:11 PM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...

      16

      Pitch- Barack Obama needed to downplay his clueless Libyan regime change decision and opted for minimum security in the Benghazi area. It is as clear and simple as that. If the Republicans in the 2012 election had been able to point out that the USA needed massive amounts of security in a country which had just been “liberated” via Obama’s order to NATO it wouldn’t have boded well for the Democrats. In a strange way Stevens was a martyr for Obama’s reelection.

      11/10/13 11:56 PM | Comment Link

    • Lafacadio said...

      17

      If you can’t measure output, measure input. So if you know your not going to accomplish anything, then run around the world looking like yout on the verge of accomplishing things.

      Secretary of State is essentially a useless position. It’s a way for has been’s (Kerry), wanna be’s (Clinton) and never were’s (Rice, Albright) to pad their resume.

      11/11/13 12:23 PM | Comment Link

    • R.L. J. Maguire said...

      18

      What an odd premise. What were you smoking when you came up with it? Dope? Crack? Crystal Meth? And you present even odder innuendo from someone who is obviously so far out of the loop that he seems to think that by grabbing at straws to equate amount of time spent traveling abroad is some sort of indicator of effectiveness in dealing with the increasingly complex world of international diplomacy. You are stupid, right?

      Next, you will be writing alarmingly revelatory pieces comparing the number of suitcases checked per trip …by the way, did you investigate how many of George Schultz’s trips were on private jets, or oil-industry-owned jets ? Probably not, because you are stupid. How sad.

      New insights into journalism as revealed by air travel. … WOW

      You seem to be stupid, or do you work for the Koch family? Same thing. Give it up.

      12/7/13 5:28 AM | Comment Link

    Leave A Comment

    Mail (will not be published) (required)