Does the State Department have any competent Russian linguists?

By Rick Francona
Does the State Department have any competent Russian linguists?

Evidently not. Last week's debacle in Geneva was proof of that. If you have not seen any of the late night talk shows or haven't seen the news for a few days, here is what happened. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who speaks no foreign languages herself, met with her Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov, who is fluent in English, French, and Sinhala (Sri Lankan) as well as his native Russian.
Clinton: "I would like to present you with a little gift that represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is: 'We want to reset our relationship and so we will do it together.' We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?" Lavrov: "You got it wrong."

The word over the button is peregruzka - Russian for "overcharge. The word they wanted is perezagruzka. It gets even better. The Russian word on the button is written in the Roman alphabet. Russian is written with the Cyrillic alphabet - it should read have read перегрузка for "overcharge" or перезагрузка for "reset."
Okay, it was a small gaffe. Mr. Lavrov laughed it off and did not embarrass Mrs. Clinton further. Mrs. Clinton should take this as a symptom of the incompetence that is rampant at State Department. These are the same people that I pilloried a few years ago when they complained that they might be sent to Iraq. See my article, What is the favorite wine over at State Department? Mrs. Clinton needs to clean house over at State. The State Department is located in the area of Washington called Foggy Bottom - aptly named, sitting around on their butts in a fog. First up would be the chief of the interpreters. How can the world's only superpower be taken seriously if it cannot translate a few Russian words? This is not simultaneous translation, which - trust me - is intense. This is merely using a dictionary. Language training needs to be a bit higher on the priority list over there at State.

Leon Panetta - Nominee for CIA Director

by Emily Francona

The local Monterey Peninsula community is all atwitter with the news of President-Elect Obama's nomination of local favorite Leon Panetta for the directorship of the Central Intelligence Agency. Local personalities and various self-appointed spokespersons, qualified or not, have already made statements for the record about the nomination. While most are justifiably proud of having a "local boy" potentially ascend to this highly responsible national position, it also reveals a lamentable lack of understanding of our intelligence community by these very same fans.

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458) established the position of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) as the head of the U.S.intelligence community and as the principal advisor to the President. The Act directs that a nominee to this position "shall have extensive national security expertise" and prohibits the director of CIA from being dual-hatted as the Director of Central Intelligence, as was the case before this new law.

Let's review Panetta's qualifications: a legal background with extensive government experience, both in the legislative and executive branch, however little directly related to national security. While some of his experiences may well have brought him into passing contact with intelligence information and national security issues, such as when he was chief of staff for President Clinton, it is far short of the serious professional credentials needed to guide and direct the CIA, or any intelligence agency for that matter. While his public policy credentials are impressive, the CIA supports national security policy - these are two entirely different arenas.

Given the complexity of intelligence issues and the many real or perceived intelligence failures in the history of that agency, a thorough professional understanding of the intelligence profession is indispensable for effective leadership of the CIA. It is precisely because this agency needs reforms to produce more timely and actionable intelligence for U.S. national security decision-making, that its director must understand the capabilities and limitations of the intelligence business, and not be fooled by insiders’ ability to “wait out one more director.”

Some of the very qualifications touted by Panetta's fans are not desired or needed by a director: he does not need “the ear of the president” since that is the function of the DNI. Nor does this position require political savvy, since that is not a function of any intelligence agency director. In fact, it would be downright counterproductive, given repeated criticism of the “politicization of intelligence” in recent years. Similarly, the legal framework for the conduct of intelligence activities is provided by appropriate legislation, overseen by the DNI and checked by the legislative oversight committees.

It is surprising that President-Elect Obama apparently did not consult in advance with the leadership of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the very body who will grant or not grant Panetta’s confirmation. If anything, the very advantages Panetta supporters recite are more suited for the office of DNI: this position does require considerable political savvy and direct access to the presidential, but also a thorough understanding of national security issues. It remains to be seen if Admiral Blair is that person, if confirmed.

Mr. Panetta: with all due respect to your fine public policy credentials, decline this appointment for the good of the intelligence community and the decision makers it serves. You would make an effective governor of California!

Guest Commentary by Karin Dragoo

We enjoyed reading your blog about your call for the Return of the Warrior! Not that I have ever been a real fan of McCain's, but at this time his attributes certainly outweigh those of his opponent! With the added bonus of Gov. Palin it looks as if this team should be able to get something good going for at least the next four years. If they are not elected, I very strongly hope that Palin will start carving out a path that will take her to the top of the next national election. She is such a breath of fresh air and appears to have this armor from which all the petty and vicious attacks just bounce away. She impressed me enormously when I read about her accomplishments as a young governor, even before she was asked to join the ticket. If she's willing to participate in the wild and potentially destroying life as a national candidate, I'll be there to support her. Just hope she won't get discouraged by the scoundrels!
You mentioned term limits - yep, that's a sore point with me. We do not need career politicians with huge networks of buddies and cronies. Let them come on in, do their stint for one term, and even a second one if the voters agree. Then it should be curtains and back home.
I, in particular, identify with your observations and feelings about the differences between Europeans and Americans in relation to the socialistic points of view. I first left Denmark in the 1960s - via Germany to the US. A few years gave abroad gave me a different view of the world than what been offered in DK during my school years. I was dumbfounded to discover the leftist currents and anti American feelings in Germany. It was even worse in the early 1970s when in DK. It bothered me that more than 50% of Danish workers were employed by the government; that families with children received monthly assistance for the children whether it was needed or not; that the citizens had no choice of physician; that you had no choice whether or not to participate in the national health insurance. When I asked a dear friend how she felt about paying 50% of her income in taxes she answered that "...it's OK because somebody else needs it more than I do". I tried to figure out what I was missing. Another friend, a dentist, decided that he'd rather not be bothered working on people's teeth (in Denmark dentists make very good money!) and planned his life as a recipient of public assistance (occasionally he had to accept a menial short term job just to keep the benefits going). I also tried to understand that one.
But in today’s Denmark things are coming to a head: there are too many at the receiving end and not enough workers to supply the fountain at which the others drink. The added burden of immigrants has accelerated the development. My grandparents were very poor (she a maid, he a tailor), but they worked very, very hard and were constantly worried that they might lose their jobs and have to accept public assistance. To them that would have been the ultimate disgrace. That was only two generations ago; but the perception of public assistance has made a 180 degree change since then. Now people are standing in line and making up stories to get that assistance. That's in Denmark's welfare society. And, sorry to say, I see a complete parallel in this country.
Here in the US, this election is so very important. With the Democrats' choice, we'll be moved way out left, from where it will take a long time to recover, even after just one four-year term. I just do not understand where all these naive, adoring masses are coming from. OK, so Bush was not everyone's choice, but to ignore all the negatives of the D-thugs just to "get even" with GWB is sheer ignorance and stupidity. What has happened to the many good people of this country? Can't they see what is ahead? And who are the real powers behind this???
I have a rather small circle of friends and acquaintances here. But looking around, I see mostly bleeding-heart liberals and unrealistic, well-meaning, naive, indoctrinated/brainwashed people. Where are those individual thinkers? We are being taken over. In Denmark last year I met one person involved (by marriage) in a conservative think tank. All the other friends from my class reunion asked gentle questions so as not to offend me with their liberal ideas. My family is way over on the left: one sister believes in communist and anarchist ideas; the other one ran for office for a leftist socialist party. When she was here for a visit and saw all the open spaces of national and private lands in southern Arizona, she asked why we couldn't just invite the poor people from south of the border to come up here and establish communities. They are both products of the Danish press' biased coverage (must rush to say that I love 'em anyway). It hurts me to admit this, since I was once a member of the press over there. But, you see, the same has happened here: the liberal press has an agenda different from what we used to call "unbiased reporting".
So, I hope the "old warrior" does offer a last minute fight. It still looks as if about half this nation is on board - that just leaves the other half... Hope the "old warrior" gets to read it!

We want our warrior back!

Eleventh hour developments with both presidential campaigns have raised grave concerns with this citizen. Senator Obama's recent focus on redistribution of wealth, or variations of such notions, concern me greatly. As one who experienced a people's paradise and two socialist-style societies directly and personally for extended periods of time, I am appalled at the notion that the citizens of MY adopted country would even entertain such options.

The long-standing promises of the "land of opportunities" - based on the pursuit of happiness and the implied and proven potential of success through hard work and perseverance were to me and remain to countless would-be immigrant the ultimate reason for desiring American citizenship. The idea of being responsible for one's own destiny - rather than having government dictate the parameters of happiness and success - has a timeless appeal. It is this ideal that I perceived in American values as a child and I ultimately found in my country of choice. There is simply no way to express adequately the feeling of exhilaration at the ability to choose one's own destiny.

In a government-controlled society, be it communist, socialist or some light version thereof, the idea of controlling your own fate is largely a fantasy. At best you are labeled into a certain category of citizen or profession, without a realistic chance to reach higher. At worst you are relegated to doing the "people's" work, meaning the government officials' work, based on largely inscrutable reasons, save for "sucking up" to all-powerful party hacks (read those who know what is best for the masses), inevitably requiring casting aside any principles of integrity and fostering a culture of deceit and sycophancy.

Social justice and a fair distribution of income sounds laudable, but it favors those who choose destructive or less productive life styles, while punishing those who choose self-reliance, perseverance and the pursuit of happiness. The concept of personal charity and generosity to others is largely non-existent in socialist systems, because it is assumed to be the government's role, like everything else.

I fell supremely privileged to be an American, so much so that I felt compelled to give back by serving my country in the military. I find the spirit of generosity of my fellow citizens admirable, something I experience constantly even in my small community, but something I never experienced in Europe, where I lived in several countries for many years. Thus I predict with dread that charity will decline considerably under an Obama administration fostering wealth redistribution policies. We are a generous people, but we like our freedom of charity choice and we do not like someone's choice of life style to become our responsibility.

After watching all the debates, many interviews, news analyses, commentaries, etc., I am convinced that an Obama-style government will be counter to our dearly-held American values. Most of us want and need a smaller government focused on the basic needs of the people - safety and security - and more personal responsibility from citizens. While there is no doubt that Senator Obama is a charismatic and probably well-intentioned American, this citizen will not be able to to face the misguided prospect of his presidency without one last appeal:

Warrior McCain: you promised to fight - now come back this very instant with guns blazing!

Put the corporate crooks on notice by promising to appoint a Rudy Giuliani (or someone like him) to pursue and prosecute them as Attorney General! And promise to have someone like Mitt Romney set to work on fixing the economy!

Put the terrorists on notice by promising a Duncan Hunter as Secretary of Defense with the mandate to hunt them down and kill them! Then consider appointing a Tom Tancredo as Secretary of Homeland Security to contain the economic and security drain of illegal immigration.

Appoint a Mike Huckabee/Joe Liebermann as Secretary of State to take a new look at American aid to ALL countries and reassess them in the light of our new economic situation, with consideration for American needs first!

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, task Governor Palin to design a comprehensive, practical and long term U.S. energy policy by the end of your first year!

Senator McCain: do this now and and let everyone know it! We will fight with you, but you have to lead decisively!

I confess - I am prejudiced!

The current election campaign brought it to the surface and I finally have to admit to myself that I am prejudiced. I measure people's character in part based on their history of service, military service or some other civil service, to our country.


For years it has been in the back of my mind - unconsciously evaluating someone based on what they have contributed to their country. In casual or deep conversations with old friends of draft-era age, I usually assumed some kind of military service background. More and more often I discover that that assumption is faulty and I remain surprised and puzzled. I can't help wondering if many people's current attitudes about national and foreign policy are limited by this lack of experience. This is precisely the kind of background our parents, the silent generation, relied on for their perspectives on politics and our national leaders brought to their decision-making process.

When I worked for the US Senate, newly retired from the US Air Force, I found more of my colleagues without military service experience than those who did. Since many of them were considerably younger, I assumed that was a direct result of their coming of age in the post-draft era. When I started tracking senators with actual military service, I was taken aback by lack of any military experience by so many members of Congress and suspect their overall judgement in national security and foreign policy is affected by that gap.

Applying this to the current national elections scene, I can only admit that service experience, military or civil, is something I look for and expect from our leaders. Granted, traditionally you find it somewhat less often with women, but nevertheless, I look for it and it affects my assessment of a candidate. And let me hasten to add, a longtime member of Congress with little other experience does not cut it for me. I want my politicians to serve the people (of the country, not necessarily only those of their district) for a period of time, then go back to other pursuits to continue becoming well-rounded citizens, not remain permanent politicians. Yes, I also confess to being an insistent fan of term limits.

And now you know!

Obama and the troops – can you spell C-L-I-N-T-O-N?

by Rick Francona

Senator Barack Obama was having a great overseas trip, you know, criticizing a sitting president in front of the star-struck and enamored Europeans. Surprisingly, he did not get much applause as he told the Germans that he wanted them to increase their commitments to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. I’m not sure why – the Germans don’t shoot at the bad guys anyway. (German soldiers in Afghanistan - don't shoot the bad guys!)

The senator got the most applause when he vowed to end the war in Iraq – not that Germany has a stake in that conflict. The inexperienced candidate continues to use the wrong word – he needs to be vowing to “win” the war in Iraq, and only then withdraw American troops from the country. Simply ending the war – like taking my toys and going home – is exactly the wrong thing to do.

However, the most telling part of this trip is his decision not to meet with wounded members of the U.S. armed forces recovering in an American military hospital in Germany. After his love-fest with the Germans in Berlin, Obama was scheduled to travel to Landstuhl Army hospital, about an hour flight. There he was to meet the wounded soldiers that just might allow him to withdraw American forces without crating a power vacuum, a power vacuum sure to be filled by the Iranians.

Obama was told by the Pentagon that neither the press nor his campaign staff were permitted in hospital, as political campaign activities are not permitted on military installations. Of course, as a sitting United States senator, Mr. Obama was always welcome to visit the troops. The Pentagon even waived the prohibition on the senator’s campaign aircraft landing at nearby Ramstein Air Base to facilitate the visit.

Senator Obama canceled the visit. The message to the troops: no photo op, no visit. I’d rather go work out at the gym in the swank Ritz Carlton hotel.

The bad decision should haunt Obama. As a senator, not only does he have the right to visit wounded American troops, he has a duty. Obama can speak to 200,000 Germans but he can't spare a couple of hours for U.S. troops.

This reprises the specter of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their no-uniform policy for members of the U.S. armed forces at the White House. It shows the same disdain for the men and women who have volunteered to serve their country.

Shame on you, Senator. Given this display of disrespect to the troops, you have shown yourself not fit to command these patriots.

End the war or win the war?

by Rick Francona

Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is committed to withdrawing American military forces from Iraq. He plans to have this action completed within 16 months of taking office.

That time line, through no prescience on his part, is probably achievable. It is achievable because of the surge - which he said would not work, by the way. Thanks to the increase in the number of troops, changes in tactics and increased capabilities of the Iraqi military and security forces, we may be able to bring most of the troops home even before his artificial deadline.

The time line is really not the issue - it is his characterization of what he hopes to accomplish. Let's look at his words (taken from his official campaign website).

“So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden- as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.”

The problem is not the plan to withdraw American forces - the senator has said he will consult with the military commanders and assess the security situation in Iraq. That's pretty much what the President and Senator McCain have been saying without adding artificial time lines.

The problem is his choice of words. The senator, as we all know, is a gifted orator and talented speechwriter, so we have to assume he has chosen his words carefully. The offending phrase is "end the war."

We should not "end" the war, we need to "win" the war. Packing up and going home is not a good idea unless we have accomplished some key objectives. Just because we can leave on a a particular date does not mean that we should. Although the "security situation" may allow us to safely withdraw, the assessment should be based on making sure we do not leave a failure waiting to happen.

I guess the question the senator needs to answer is, "Do you want to win in Iraq?" If you think that is not as important as merely "ending" the war, you do not deserve to be the commander in chief of the fine young men and women who want to win in Iraq.