JAD_333

I've relented; I'll read it.


Well, we had the Peace Corp. That was supposed to deal with nitty gritty.


In retrospect, to the extent that it led to dissolving the army, it was probably a pretty dumb thing to do; I don't entirely blame Bremmer, but that's beside the point. The original impetus was to show common cause with the much-maligned Shiites by crippling their long-time nemesis and getting their support for reconstruction. I thought it was a dumb idea at the time because I tend to be practical. I mean here you had this huge force already organized. Why not use it to get things under control? But I take your point.




I think the UN sets the gold standard for cushy duty. But, once again, point taken.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Shek

S-2,

From the perspective of the book, the examples of your friends existed then as well - the critique is the face of the US - the diplomatic corps - often ran counter to actions of those on the ground making it happen. Instead of funding the chump change projects of those on the ground making a difference, the diplomats listened to what the elites wanted and supported those big ticket projects, projects with long lead times with little to nothing to show in the interim.

One of the most interesting chapters in the book is when the celebrated Asian journalist speaking in American exalts the spirit of America and Americans that she would meet in the US, while at the same time criticizing the Americans that she would meet outside the US in official capacities for not embodying the same spirit.

I'll let Ray define whether his post was broader in scope than the message of the book, but I suspect that it's not.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Ray

[quote]True,

But difference the US has from others, is that the US is the leader of the world and leaders have to ensure that nothing comes in the way that prevents this leadership.

Others can sink into a morass and none will be bothered.

How many are concerned, except maybe India, whether the monarchy in Nepal is to be abolished or not?

But the world is surely looking very closely at the US Presidential race.

I am not wrong.

Your next door neighbour is the rare exception that the book Ugly American wants to be the "face" of the US and not the cocktail circuit, flashy vehicle, 5 star hotel, hobnobbing with only the English speaking elite and filing reports to the State Dept as the "voice and opinion" of the country where they are posted.


Indeed you are a country that has no hesitation to criticise yourself. Your Congress lambastes all in power. Very laudable and that is why we like the US. But your foreign policy and your diplomats and others in foreign country belies this unique phenomenon that makes the US likeable. That is what surprises all. A different America at home and a different America abroad.

If your read this book Ugly American you will realise what I am saying and what many other non Americans say or feel about America and you will realise why you feel that we are not grateful to the US, inspite of their coming to our aid most of the time.

Look at the amount the US is doing for Pakistan. The US aid is actually arming Paksitan not against the terrorists but against her external threat (newspaper report) and yet if you visit Pakistani forums, you will realise the bitterness they have against the US. Why? This book shall show some of the reasons. I used this example since it is current and the facts are still fresh for introspection.

Indeed they feel that the US is running the country and that Bhutto and Musharraf is being backed by the US openly because Bhutto would have given the "democratic" face to Pakistan being the PM and Musharraf would have given the "military clout" to fight the terrorists as per US requirements.

Maybe flawed a surmise by them, but nonetheless, a real belief for Pakistanis!!

It has to unlike others since it wants to be, and is, the leader of the world!

Nothing unusual.

Others have the luxury not to do its best.

The US doesn't. That is, if it wants to lead the world!

That is the unpleasant truth.

As a Commanding Officer, notwithstanding my age, I had to be be equal, if not better, that all ranks, be they officers, Junior Commissioned Officer or Other ranks. I can say honestly, it demand a lot from me and was taxing when compared to the effort I made when I was not a Commanding Officer.

That is the Cross a leader has to bear.

Anything less, I would not have the unstintingly loyalty and faith that I had during my command.

And a leader has to accept it or stop being a Leader!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Shek

JAD,

I think you'll find that the irony in the book is thick. The hero of the book is actually the ugly American. When you do read it, make sure that you read the epilogue (or afterword - can't remember how it's titled), as it explains the motivation of the authors for penning the book.

S-2

I'm having difficulty confusing Chinese "aid" with altruistic intent. Can somebody help me access the numbers of simple chinese citizens working on behalf of NGOs worldwide but not the U.N. nor China? You know, those who've forsaken monetary gain or promoting the inexorible march of the internationale (boy is THAT an oxymoron) to serve mankind, even if briefly.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

Ray

Yes, read that first since you are bitter about the title!

Shek

S-2,

I suspect the # of volunteer Chinese is slim to none. However, people on the ground want to see results, and so perception will trump reality. The Chinese worker advancing purely selfish Chinese interests, sensitive to local customs and conversant/fluent in the local language is just as much an asset to China as the altruistic American there to serve humanity is to the US. Throw in more Chinese than Americans and the occasional bumbling American official, and you have the US behind in the race to win African loyalties.

Ray

S2,

You are being defensive and reading my post in a negative manner.

I am speaking the same language as the authors of the Book Ugly American. I have the same pain as the authors had when they wrote this book - that inspite of doing so much for so many, the US was and is not getting her due.

Like the authors, I, too, am pointing out why. My points may not be perfect, but I, as a well wisher of the US and seeing the ground realities as perceived by us in our countries, am just giving our anguish and hoping that someone of authority can change the situation wherein the US gets its due and her aid and money benefits those who are receiving it.

Developing countries want things that affect their lives immediately and uplift their population for the poverty, squalor and despondency. They do not want massive projects, which may be great in the long run, but do not really touch the misery of the population as such in the immediate reality.

Therefore, there should be a mix of these type of aid. Long term and short term immediate effect. The US normally does long term projects and it is believed that that is so because it allows big firms of the US a finger in the pie.

Small projects like improving agriculture and poultry or village amenities does not attract corporate munificence for the Administration, US and the benefiting country, and hence the interest is less.

A fact of life!

I wonder if the Chinese have any NGOs. Their country acts as the NGO!

S-2

Brigadier/Shek,

Having participated in this thread from the beginning I know that you're aware that I've, indeed, read the book and seen the movie. The lessons applicable have been absorbed by this boy-born in Taiwan and lived in Germany for six years. I'm not at all unusual in this regard.

My small town in Wisconsin has produced that GE engineer and my friend in Laos. It also produced a classmate recently the deputy managing editor of TIME. Brigadier, your own local example of a nuanced diplomat living near you in India suggests not all is as it seems.

Finally, Brigadier, you know that I've recently been visiting to Neo's board and did so BEFORE Bhutto's assassination. So too, I note, Texas John and Zraver. Frankly, Brigadier, it flat-out cuts both ways- leadership obligations by America or otherwise as each interaction imposes requirements of sensitivity and understanding on both parties.

Shek, your point's understood however it ignores the targeted application of Chinese state resources on limited objectives under far more optimal circumstances than America routinely faces. Too, it ignores the transparent self-interests behind the Chinese gov't's objectives as ultimately self-serving and harmful to the greater good.

Nonetheless, gentlemen, I appreciate that perfection remains the goal and that the light shines most brightly upon America by virtue of our primacy-desired, unwanted, or otherwise. I'm very well-versed in the arguments against our efforts and understand FULLY that serious flaws exist even today. Shek, in particular, you KNOW that to be the case as I've been clearly disparaging of U.S. governmental agencies detachment from our core issues overseas and the educational/language preparation that I pray to attain within our diplo/military community.

I won't argue further as I've made my case as best I can and refuse to accept trite and pat overgeneralizations. Solutions for any nation's self-improvement with respect to external relations/contacts are clear and easily had with proper intent.

I just hope that they're pursued with greater introspection and altruism by all because we can ALL stand considerable improvement.

Ray

S2,

There are great chaps in the US diplomatic corps too and maybe the US has realised the issue.

Our last Consulate General of US in Calcutta and his wife are a great example of what can be done, if the American identify with the locals.

And remember, my State has been ruled by the Communists for a long time and their cadres are real yahoos!

This Consul General and his wife, would wear Indian dress and were seen all over the city and State not only in high class social dos, glittering receptions etc, but also mingling with the hoi polloi.

They were the the darlings of all.

When the USIS or whatever it is called now, was bombed, the same Commie govt of my state moved heaven and earth to unmask the terrorists. A rare honour bestowed by Commies to the US when the same Commies were going hammer and tongs about the US involvement in Iraq.

Let there be more of this type of Consul General and his gracious wife so that there is victory over the Communist who are still around even if they pretend to be turning capitalists!

They, teh Communists, are a repressive lot!

I say all power to the "Ugly American" and may he win!

Shek

S-2, I think we're in agreement but talking to different points. I agree that Chinese interests are self-serving and more than likely not value added in the end. However, we need to do a better job of not mirror imaging and instead look at the problem from the other end of the straw.

For the poor African without television access or internet access, it is what happens on the ground that matters, and a well dug by an American or Chinese is just as well. While our hearts may in the right place, how are our actions perceived? Do the Chinese explain it away as capitalism willing to do anything for a price, just as the Soviet agent explaining that American ships were willing even to transport Soviet rice gifts to the Sarharkanian people?

That's why I like the book so much is that it forces one to question from what perspective to analyze. You cannot simply mirror image, but instead must truly place yourself in another's shoes.

S-2

Thanks. I get it. Really, on your point, I do. A well is a well is a well. We're not talking to different points if you clearly know that I already understand that our faux pas are the only relevance necessary from the world's perspective. Instead, it's circles.

No doubt we've massive issues and that's my primary and enduring concern because, as an American, I have a "tres' petite" influence there. Nowhere else.

Just tired of the drumbeat. It's not the perfect truth. It's just "PRAVDA" being "PRAVDA"-if not necessarily strictly from Moscow. Look. It's convenient for the rest of the world to use us so long as we continue to try- fail, succeed or otherwise. Because, in trying, we inevitably expose freely our foibles. Until others are prepared to expose themselves to the full impact of foreign engagement, we'll continue to hear the smug sideline views.

Meanwhile, let's all go over to the German tent up there in Mazur-I-Sharif and pour ourselves a Pilsner on them.

Skull6

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.

__________________
If you know the enemy and yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles. - Sun Tzu

Shek

JAD,
Have you had a chance to pick up a copy and read it?

JAD_333

No. But I am glad you reminded me. Right now I am reading Six Frigates. Excellent read.

Off topic. I've been meaning to get your view on the economic stimulous payment. I was thinking about the effect it would have when it dawned on me that the brains behind it may have had something else in mind other than an economic stimulous. I don't mean the obvious political benefit. It's capped so people earning $75K and up don't get it. That almost seems like an acknowledgement of some weakness in the buying power of lower middle income earners. I would like to know your take on it.