Quote:
Originally Posted by S-2
Meanwhile, let's all go over to the German tent up there in Mazur-I-Sharif and pour ourselves a Pilsner on them.
|
I'm with ya, but can I make mine a doppelbock?
In the morass of the initial time after the "cease-fire" that we found our military in in Iraq, someone eventually re-learned a lesson from long ago--we needed to win the Iraqi people's "hearts & minds." It's been my thinking that this is where we SHOULD find the transition from primarily-military involvement to primarily-diplomat involvement in such a scenario--where eventually the need to win their hearts & minds is so great (& the need for active military involvement is reduced to security functions) that our State Department representatives should step to the fore. In situations where the military isn't required (as in "peacetime") but we already have US Diplomats on-site, this same "winning their hearts & minds" philosophy applies, in my humble opinion. & as we've re-learned, this effort is made infinitely easier when one has a greater grasp of the local language, customs & religion(s). Then, being able to discover what the locals truely need is also made much easier. At this point, ulterior motives will still play a part (& always will, in my opinion), but as long as the local people's needs are being addressed, those ulterior motives (regardless of their transparency) are much easier to accept.
I feel its when mis-guided attempts at assistance are made, without a firm grasp of what's really "needed" by the local folk, that our ulterior motives help frame us as the "ugly Americans."
I have friends, County & State "extension agents" (agricultural advisors), who have traveled overseas to advise others on some of the "innovations" we've made in regards to how, when & what species to plant, how to store & market the harvested crops, etc. To a person, they've told me that their focus is to aid the people they've traveled to with advice via knowledge & education much more so than throwing more money around. Sure, we could probably go into those regions & do the work ourselves. But the old adage of "give a man a fish & he eats for a single day--TEACH him to fish & he eats every day" is still true.
Our diplomats aren't US ambassadors to a certain country, but are ambassadors to that country's people, in my opinion. This is why I appreciate Ray's example so much. Certainly they can (& should) act as intermediaries between the two governments, but if they aren't also attempting to learn the best way to support that country's people at the same time (& then trying to act on this knowledge), we've wasted our money in sending them "over there," in my humble opinion.