What's to know?
Party Goes Poof

"My mother-in-law, a Brazilian diplomat stationed in Beirut, threw my wife and me a party to celebrate our recent wedding. Within half an hour, the subject turned to politics. Everybody at the party, we soon discovered, was Christian. "The Muslim neighborhoods here, they are all so dirty, full of trash," spat a young woman who had been sugar sweet until that point. "They're all like that, everywhere in the world. Why would you visit a Muslim country? They are awful!"

When I told another guest that we had driven to Baalbek, a site of spectacular Roman ruins deep in the Bekaa Valley, he was horrified. "Are you crazy?" he shrieked, nearly dropping his champagne. "That area is controlled by Hezbollah!" But that guy Nasrallah is my homey, I replied, not believing the hype." (Brian Winter)

dear equis,

i remember once taking the overland cab from beirut to damascus with a bunch of middle-aged leb ladies who went there to shop (you know, carpets & the like) ... and i learned that not only do THEY (upper middle class) not consume anything while there, but that the driver wouldn't do it either! the reason, of course, was that "the food isn't good, you could get sick, and they can't cook as good as lebanese anyway" etc ...

i just rolled my eyes and hoped they'd slip on a banana peel, break something & would be forced to spend a night @ a syrian public hospital.

cheers,

--raf*

"Due to work connexions, I have had the pleasure of getting absolutely fucked with plenty of US diplos and I have no small sympathy for their thankless, underfunded and stunningly badly conceived service."

Thankless and badly conceived - maybe; but underfunded?? Please. US diplos live like kings of the bush with hardship allowances and fancy digs in most capitals of the world, do not pay taxes, have their beloved frozen pizzas and beef jerky brought to them by diplomatic dispatch wherever they are and then whine about how no one speaks English/likes Americans/insert random silly whinge here. I have no sympathy for the poor dears.

The one truly screwy aspect of the US diplo service is the constant rotation. I can't believe they've held on to colonial ideas about Not Letting Our People Go Native. There are lots of intelligent, idealistic Americans who spend years studying Arabic and Middle East politics, and the State department could certainly use them, but why would anyone agree to be packed off to South America after a few years in Cairo and investing time in Arabic study?

The phenomenon is not, as you've noted, limited to diplos - foreign newspapers tend to have favourite local informants too...the Guardian has been obsessively quoting one Timur Goksel, ex-UN in Lebanon, over the last few days.

I was going to ask if khayali meant the same as meshuggah, though I'd expect the Arabic to be closer. I Google'd the word and found the Khayali Advertising Agency in Lebanon and Khayali Arabian Oil perfume, which had me giggling like the fool I am.
Sadly I figured out that Khayali meant 'fantastic' in the original sense of 'based on fantasy' as well as 'wonderful.'

The only person to upstage Mr Djerdjer in his loony antics is Israel's UN ambassador Dan Gillerman. In his speech to the UNSC emergency session at the beginning of the crisis, he went as far as addressing the Lebanese representative Nouhad Mahmoud, sitting across from him:

"You know deep in your heart that if you could, you would be sitting here right next to me right now because you know that we are doing the right thing and that if we succeed, Lebanon would be the beneficiary."

Now, can anybody find something more taste less and delusional in the annals of world diplomacy?

Or may be is it that Dan has something for Nouhad?

I have no doubt that a number of Israelis, like a number of Right Bolshys in the US, honestly believe that really they are doing Lebanon a favor. It would certainly make it easier to look at themselves in the mirror in the morning. Mr Grossman may be included in their number (no record of Mr Mahmoud's reaction?).
Oh, Greg Djerejian, though pompous, is quite sane. He was not engaging in loony antics; rather, he was pointing out that the Weekly Standard/NRO crowd has now completely lost their freaking minds.
Oddly, I wonder if there was not a form of Israeli military retaliation that the Lebanese government would have welcomed. One that didn't kill quite so many civilians or blow up so much expensive and only-recently-restored national infrastructure, for instance. One that would have been more likely to leave Lebanese army troops in charge of a forcibly-disarmed South in the end...

Having been a US diplomat in the Middle East for the better part of 25 years, I take exception to many of your remarks (and some of the comments).

My work was in Public Diplomacy. That required me to be not behind a desk, but out on the street and in the offices, studios, and cafes, talking with people about a wide range of subjects. It also meant that I had to learn several dialects of Arabic (Maghrebi, Misri, Shami, and Khaliji). Though there's no way I could be confused with an educated native speaker, I could speak fluently enough to get the job done.

My contacts ranged from educators and students, to artists and musicians, editors and journalists, taxi drivers and businessmen.

I didn't feel particularly isolated except when within fortress-style embassy buildings. But I understood that a compromise had to be made between security and access. After the US Embassy in Beirut was bombed twice, the US government opted to weight security more highly.

You can thank the bombers of the embassy (as well as those in Pakistan, Nairobi, etc.) for more difficult access. Various parts of the embassy staffs argued for the access side of the equation, but realized that institutional damage, as well as death, were the consequences of being wrong.

US diplomats most certainly do not receive tax-free salaries. Every penny is taxed, as is property in the US. They don't pay certain local taxes--this is the subject of bilateral treaties--but do pay others, like VAT.

My job required me--by regulation--to live within a 15-minute walk of the embassies in which I worked. I had to be able to get to the office despite local transport strikes and road closures. Embassies tend to be in expensive parts of town, so rents tend to be on the high side as well. And it's a damn good thing that those rents were covered, because there's no way I could have managed them out of pocket.

I also agree with the Lebanese women's assessment of Syrian health care. I came down with acute appendicitis in Damscus. The surgery was excellent, but the after-care was wanting. I left the (private) Syrian hospital with a complete digestive shut-down, food poisoning, and a punctured lung. I had to provide my own antibiotics, too. Eventually, I was evacuated to a hospital in Europe. Given a choice, I'd just as soon avoid Syrian hosptials, though the doctors are generally very competent.

My sense, from the limited contact I've had with Americans of embassy stripe here in Cairo, is that the ones who know what is going on aren't necessarily the ones in charge. But there are definitely people who know what's up in there somewhere.

That said, the current Ambassador speaks Arabic and was ballsy enough to go on Egyptian TV and defend American policy. But I think the "right Bolsheviks" would consider him someone who has gone native and is too accomodating toward the Egyptian government's viewpoint on things.

Antiquated,
I stand corrected; my mistake; it should've been Rich Lowry and not poor good old Djerejian. As a matter of fact, and to his credit, he calls Rich ignorant and gullible. For me, another lesson in reading to the very last word before I open my mouth; for him, well, why couldn't he have said that about Rich at the very beginning?

(BTW, I tried to post this earlier, but for some reason it didn't get through).

Well, interesting, apologia.

Having been a US diplomat in the Middle East for the better part of 25 years, I take exception to many of your remarks (and some of the comments).

Tough, I ain't known for me tender regard for sacred cows, gored or otherwise.

If you want to argue I am wrong, in the aggredate, not re yourself specifically feel free but we both know otherwise, eh mate?

My work was in Public Diplomacy. That required me to be not behind a desk, but out on the street and in the offices, studios, and cafes, talking with people about a wide range of subjects. It also meant that I had to learn several dialects of Arabic (Maghrebi, Misri, Shami, and Khaliji). Though there's no way I could be confused with an educated native speaker, I could speak fluently enough to get the job done.

And if you want to be honest, you were and your profile remains vanishingly rare. Again, vanishingly rare as in the past decade I can only recall a mere handful of US diplos I've met (although to be fair I never deal with Public Diplomacy whanking, my dealings are biz related).

My contacts ranged from educators and students, to artists and musicians, editors and journalists, taxi drivers and businessmen.

Moumtaz. Et alors?

I didn't feel particularly isolated except when within fortress-style embassy buildings. But I understood that a compromise had to be made between security and access. After the US Embassy in Beirut was bombed twice, the US government opted to weight security more highly.

emphasis added.

Well that's the bloody fucking point, isn't it? Again, engaging in a bit of honesty, why not admit that a good fucking number of your comrades have a bloody hard time getting out of the bloody fortress and lacking languages etc. depend on your local agents....?

Or you can whinge on about your perso strengths.

You can thank the bombers of the embassy (as well as those in Pakistan, Nairobi, etc.) for more difficult access.

I'll thank your government's whinging reaction.

London lived with years of bombing without going so utterly knock-kneed about security.

Various parts of the embassy staffs argued for the access side of the equation, but realized that institutional damage, as well as death, were the consequences of being wrong.

Risk.

Yes, I fucking work here too, well aware of the risk, mate.

Doesn't mean I buy the whinging over-protective reaction.

US diplomats most certainly do not receive tax-free salaries. Every penny is taxed, as is property in the US. They don't pay certain local taxes--this is the subject of bilateral treaties--but do pay others, like VAT.

Not my argument mate, but as far as I am aware you don't pay VAT in at least certain jurisdictions; spent enough time around your colleagues whinging on about the problems recovering VAT (often not worth the trouble it would seem).

But again, not my argument.

My job required me--by regulation--to live within a 15-minute walk of the embassies in which I worked. I had to be able to get to the office despite local transport strikes and road closures. Embassies tend to be in expensive parts of town, so rents tend to be on the high side as well. And it's a damn good thing that those rents were covered, because there's no way I could have managed them out of pocket.

Now this I agree and the criticism supra is just plain stupid.

In priv sector my housing is covered, should expect nothing less in diplo service.

My point is that generalizations don't always hit the mark. I worked with excellent officers who were as engaged--if not more--than I. Sure, there were duds, too; what business doesn't have them? Having worked both in public and private sectors, I think the diplomatic side is rather more bold in accepting the risks.

The choice of how to build embassies isn't up to State Dept. It's controlled (and funded by) Congress. Congress is singularly not attuned to (nor interested in) what "foreign people" think. They are concerned that they, ultimately, will be blamed for the deaths of Americans and therefore throw money at problems, entangle the money in detailed issues of micro-management, then wash their hands. It is Congress that requires a 500-foot setback from streets. How many center cities have that sort of space? It's Congress that requires the bunker-like construction (See the Inman regulations.)

But the threats aren't the odd car bomb or two. They are the direct targeting of American officers and their workplace. Beirut, Dar Es Salam, Nairobi, Karachi, Mumbai, Taegu, Khartoum, Sanaa....

US gov't offices in vulnerable locations, which is another way of saying "accessible to the general public," are under constant pressure to relocate. Whether it's the American Center in New Delhi or the Foreign Commercial Service offices in Jeddah, they are easily taken out. Regardless of the risk foreign service officers might be willing to take, and they argue vehemently to keep their facilities, Congress and State management will not permit them to take that risk. The risk of bad publicity outweighs the risk of bad access. But there are also people working for the US--particularly local employees--who don't see dying as part of their job descriptions. So, it's not balls of brass, but it's not entirely unreasonable, either.

dear john,

that lebanese woman & the cabbie i quoted did not talk about syrian public healthcare (which is shitty & i would only wish it upon my worst enemy) but about ANY and EVERY food in the whole country of syria. and they did it from a culturalist point of view.

i do like your blog & value your input re: u.s. diplomats, but please do read the comments before you react to them.

cheerio AND tata,

--raf*

Bah.

My point is that generalizations don't always hit the mark.

No fucking kidding.

That's the thing about generalisations, you whinging whanker, they're fucking generalisations which will never be true of all folks at all places at all times, even in the context of a particular category.

Rather obviously I can not comment on the entire US diplo service by bloody individual, ergo some generalisations.

Moreover, if you read for comprehension, joined up reading and all that, you'll note that I am not blaming the service as such, but the structure which you bloody have to work with.

I worked with excellent officers who were as engaged--if not more--than I.

And?

Again, read for motherfucking comprehension you whinging yankee git. Lack of appropriate language skill has fuck all to do with the quality of the officer as such and as I think I made bleedingly clear, everything to do with your absolutely fucked system.

Sure, there were duds, too; what business doesn't have them?

Never mentioned duds, so do not know what the bloody fuck you are whinging on about.

Having worked both in public and private sectors, I think the diplomatic side is rather more bold in accepting the risks.

Bollocks.

The choice of how to build embassies isn't up to State Dept. It's controlled (and funded by) Congress. Congress is singularly not attuned to (nor interested in) what "foreign people" think.

Yes, well that was my bloody point, now wasn't it?

Do you still learn to read in the United States, or is it all utterly remedial?

Regardless of the risk foreign service officers might be willing to take, and they argue vehemently to keep their facilities, Congress and State management will not permit them to take that risk.

Whinge, whinge, whinge. Bloody hell, read for comprehension next time.

I'm actually on your side, you fool.

L.,

You remind me of Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange.