When we forget that big talk carries little weight outside of American politics, the savage murder of our ambassador in Libya reminds us otherwise. In the world at large, violence and hate don't evaporate at the sound of mellifluous words from politicians urging tolerance and deploring misunderstandings while sympathizing with attacker motivations. Thugs stop barbaric acts when you give them a compelling reason. Period.
Now, there are demonstrations and demonstrations. One kind of demonstration is a protest. It can range from a vocal expression of concern to a mob riot, or a thinly veiled assault on a Goliath whose penchant for restraint and obsession with looking like a nice guy assure he won't raise a hand against a mosquito let alone a David bent on felling him with any weapon at hand. At least, this Goliath, America, can be relied upon to keep his own hands tied when courting public opinion on the world stage. But there is another kind of demonstration, and Libya knows and respects it.
This other demonstration is about drawing lines. Libya proved a fast learner in 1986 -- not so long ago that its current citizenry could have entirely forgotten. America administered the lesson as a demonstration of cause and effect.
The Cause
Qaddafi or his surrogates, Libyans, caused the bombing of a disco American servicemen were known to frequent in Germany. Americans died. Confident they could strike and feel no consequences beyond trite expressions of outrage, the Libyans struck.
Insurance: Line of Death
Just to be sure no physical consequences attended the bombing, Qaddafi took the stage at the sign of a US military presence offshore. He proclaimed a "line of death," and announced that an American crossing of that line would lead to devastating consequences for any American who dared to cross.
What Happened
We dared. President Reagan wasted no breath trading broadcasts with Libya's dictator. America bombed Libya. One of Qaddafi's sons died, and Qaddifi himself had a very close call. Evidently, no one ever explained it to him this way before.
Effect
Libya backed down, and the line of death dissolved into a dotted line of rhetorical spittle. There may have been more other events, but Qaddafi was definitely chastened. Another under-reported and often forgotten demonstration of realpolitik from Libya came when the US invaded Iraq. Guess which traditional adversary was the first to renounce weapons of mass destruction and start currying favor with the West in general and America in particular? That's right, Libya. We saw that even the most ardent foe of doubtful sanity can still figure out when not to make the wrong enemies.
Application
We need to be the wrong enemy -- for Libya, for Eypt, and for any other state-sanctioned savage who presumes to threaten American sovereignty. After all, an embassy is supposed to be sovereign territory, and one of the first obligations of diplomacy is for a host country to make it safe for the embassies of foreign countries. Would America or any other civilized nation stand languidly by while self-styled protestors stormed a foreign embassy or fired on diplomats? Of course not.
Lines to Draw
There are many ways to react, but only a few that show we are serious and that reach the savages whose thirst for American blood embraces any pretext.
One is to immediately withdraw any funding that goes to Libya or Egypt. This communicates to the political leadership of those states that we do not accept their excuses for violating international obligations to defend embassies. Another serious subset of such a measure could be a blockade of Libyan oil tankers, just to get their attention.
Two is to forcefully make perpetrators pay. Exact a clear, visible price that makes it unquestionably too punitive to assassinate Americans the way Libyans did yesterday. Rhetoric not only falls flat. It makes us look weak and irresolute. Wake and unleash the sleeping giant. Involve American warriors and give Libyans an unambiguous demonstration of what Goliath can do. One example would be to establish a visible cordon sanitaire around our embassy, enforcing it with C-130 and helicopter gunships and US Marines and diplomatic security staff authorized to defend themselves by shooting back. It is an international language that even barbarians understand. Translations would be optional.
Any country with the might of the United States can arrange a show of force. But its value becomes inconsequential if the force is only for show. A demonstration is clearly in order.
-- Nick Catrantzos
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Cronies Like Barr Threaten ICE Competence
The security threat beneath the resignation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s chief of staff Suzanne Barr goes far beyond allegations of her cultivation of a frat-house milieu brimming with salacious humor and sexual harassment of subordinates. Media sound bites, of course, draw attention to the latter. (See for example a popular version of the announcement of Barr’s resignation in the wake of a civil suit brought against DHS Secretary Napolitano in http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/suzanne-barr-top-obama-administration-official-quits-post-ice-chief-staff-sex-harassment-allegations-article-1.1149734 )
To uncover the real story that relates to how ICE management went about harming the organization from within, one must examine the civil complaint filed May 21, 2012 in the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia (available in many news stories and often tracing to early online availability via inveterate DHS critic D. Schlussel on her web site, www.DebbieSchlussel.com). The real story is about elevating phonies and cronies while simultaneously driving out ostensibly capable career managers.
Now anyone with modest experience of hierarchies and organizational life knows that there is an accepted way to reward one’s loyal myrmidons without needless bloodshed that enfeebles the organization. Barr’s ouster from ICE flies in the face of such traditions. It points at a fatal flaw in exposing ICE and perhaps DHS to serious reversals in whatever competence the institutions could claim in the past. The less eye-catching but no less deplorable underpinnings of the civil suit trace a pattern of abuse whereby two Napolitano cronies ostensibly ill-prepared for senior leadership positions were elevated into them with blatant disregard for a plaintiff. The latter, one James Hayes, was by all accounts competently discharging an executive role until Crony 1, Dora Schriro, was inserted into the organization as a “Special Advisor” to DHS Secretary Napolitano before gradually supplanting Hayes for no objectively supported justification.
A 15-year employee who worked his way up in the immigration and customs enforcement field, Hayes found himself marginalized and pressured to accept demotion or relocation to make room for Shriro. Approached by the senior in his chain of command, ICE Director John Morton, to negotiate his voluntary departure from the scene, Hayes agreed to take a reassignment back to a field office from which he came, asking for the kind of relocation assistance that would keep him whole, since he had moved to Washington D.C. relatively recently to accept his last promotion. Morton apparently began by agreeing to work with Hayes to this end but ultimately turned on him. What followed were a series of unprofessional actions against Hayes, ranging from pushing him out of business meetings to make way for Shriro to imposing financial hardship by forcing an out-of-town transfer without financial assistance. This caused substantial financial hardship for Hayes, who had to sell his home at a loss. Meanwhile, as he tried to appeal such actions within the system, he evidently encountered threats to be transferred farther still and had several punitive investigations opened or reopened against him, apparently as a way of dissuading him from pursuing his grievances more formally. In the end, all these investigations closed without finding Hayes culpable of any of the alleged misdeeds. Some of the investigations had already been closed out or rejected previously, but they were reopened and reinvestigated again, thus apparently supporting Hayes’ claim that these were retaliatory rather than substantive.
Here is where Suzanne Barr comes into the fray. She was Crony 2. Like Crony 1, Barr’s principal qualification for a senior position in ICE appeared to be previous work for Janet Napolitano when the latter was a politician in Arizona. Crony 2 was junior to Crony 1, so why is Crony 2 resigning under pressure? As it happens, Crony 1 is already gone from ICE and DHS. New York’s current mayor found her a sinecure. So, Crony 2 was still in place to absorb the heat. More importantly, though, acts of blatant professional misconduct trace more indelibly to Crony 2 than to Crony 1. You see, Crony 2 was the one who threatened to transfer Hayes to San Juan, Puerto Rico, from D.C. if he did not stop making a fuss. She was also overheard probing for ways to force him out of the organization. Consequently, in addition to her callow high jinks involving bawdy humor, sexual innuendo, and puerile bully tactics targeting male subordinates, Ms. Barr, Crony 2, is identifiable in taking a hand in a number of ethically challenged maneuvers calculated at forcing an otherwise competent civil servant out of office. Meanwhile another patron, ICE Director Morton created two senior-level positions to fill with his own cronies while denying Hayes such a position for a lateral move. Morton also gave these cronies generous relocation bonuses at the same time that he was denying Hayes’s requests for cost reimbursements to offset the costs of his own forced relocation.
The Security Ramifications
As wasteful as a traditional spoils system may be, at least it generally stops short of stripping the organization of its competence. By keeping credentialed talent whole and on board, even if sidelined, one at least retains the capacity to call such talent to action when the hour sounds. By contrast, ham-handedly forcing out such talent to make room for inexperienced, bullying cronies inflicts double harm. If there is an emergency, the organization will falter because it has neutered itself by gutting its talent pool. At the same time, with the career catapulting of callow crony corporals over credentialed captains, the organization tells its employees that it holds high positions in relative disregard. Otherwise, competence would not count so little when qualifying for high office. Thus, in the long run, patronage becomes the sole path to advancement.
Is this unique to Secretary Napolitano? Hardly. One may argue that Rudy Giuliani succumbed to the same weakness in promoting as a candidate for Napolitano’s job Bernard Kerik, whose main if not only credential traced to having a history of working for America’s mayor. (A colleague who once spent time in a combat zone to assist with teaching American policing to interested Iraqis recalled how Kerik, on a similar assignment, was disinclined to leave his limousine or quarters, and was just going through the motions of foreign assistance for whatever resume value this brought. But perhaps there is more to the story.) Similarly, in the private sector, one need look no further than to Jack Welch to wonder whether his hand-picked successor, Jeffrey Immelt, ever approximated or will even approach the competence of his patron.
All that the Shriro, Kerik, Immelt, and Barr examples repeatedly establish is that hand-picked henchmen and sycophants seldom deliver the same value as their more powerful patrons. Indeed, if there is anything these beneficiaries of patronage do consistently, it is to let down the people and institutions promoting them.
As the French intone, plus ça change plus c'est la même chose.
-- Nick Catrantzos
To uncover the real story that relates to how ICE management went about harming the organization from within, one must examine the civil complaint filed May 21, 2012 in the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia (available in many news stories and often tracing to early online availability via inveterate DHS critic D. Schlussel on her web site, www.DebbieSchlussel.com). The real story is about elevating phonies and cronies while simultaneously driving out ostensibly capable career managers.
Now anyone with modest experience of hierarchies and organizational life knows that there is an accepted way to reward one’s loyal myrmidons without needless bloodshed that enfeebles the organization. Barr’s ouster from ICE flies in the face of such traditions. It points at a fatal flaw in exposing ICE and perhaps DHS to serious reversals in whatever competence the institutions could claim in the past. The less eye-catching but no less deplorable underpinnings of the civil suit trace a pattern of abuse whereby two Napolitano cronies ostensibly ill-prepared for senior leadership positions were elevated into them with blatant disregard for a plaintiff. The latter, one James Hayes, was by all accounts competently discharging an executive role until Crony 1, Dora Schriro, was inserted into the organization as a “Special Advisor” to DHS Secretary Napolitano before gradually supplanting Hayes for no objectively supported justification.
A 15-year employee who worked his way up in the immigration and customs enforcement field, Hayes found himself marginalized and pressured to accept demotion or relocation to make room for Shriro. Approached by the senior in his chain of command, ICE Director John Morton, to negotiate his voluntary departure from the scene, Hayes agreed to take a reassignment back to a field office from which he came, asking for the kind of relocation assistance that would keep him whole, since he had moved to Washington D.C. relatively recently to accept his last promotion. Morton apparently began by agreeing to work with Hayes to this end but ultimately turned on him. What followed were a series of unprofessional actions against Hayes, ranging from pushing him out of business meetings to make way for Shriro to imposing financial hardship by forcing an out-of-town transfer without financial assistance. This caused substantial financial hardship for Hayes, who had to sell his home at a loss. Meanwhile, as he tried to appeal such actions within the system, he evidently encountered threats to be transferred farther still and had several punitive investigations opened or reopened against him, apparently as a way of dissuading him from pursuing his grievances more formally. In the end, all these investigations closed without finding Hayes culpable of any of the alleged misdeeds. Some of the investigations had already been closed out or rejected previously, but they were reopened and reinvestigated again, thus apparently supporting Hayes’ claim that these were retaliatory rather than substantive.
Here is where Suzanne Barr comes into the fray. She was Crony 2. Like Crony 1, Barr’s principal qualification for a senior position in ICE appeared to be previous work for Janet Napolitano when the latter was a politician in Arizona. Crony 2 was junior to Crony 1, so why is Crony 2 resigning under pressure? As it happens, Crony 1 is already gone from ICE and DHS. New York’s current mayor found her a sinecure. So, Crony 2 was still in place to absorb the heat. More importantly, though, acts of blatant professional misconduct trace more indelibly to Crony 2 than to Crony 1. You see, Crony 2 was the one who threatened to transfer Hayes to San Juan, Puerto Rico, from D.C. if he did not stop making a fuss. She was also overheard probing for ways to force him out of the organization. Consequently, in addition to her callow high jinks involving bawdy humor, sexual innuendo, and puerile bully tactics targeting male subordinates, Ms. Barr, Crony 2, is identifiable in taking a hand in a number of ethically challenged maneuvers calculated at forcing an otherwise competent civil servant out of office. Meanwhile another patron, ICE Director Morton created two senior-level positions to fill with his own cronies while denying Hayes such a position for a lateral move. Morton also gave these cronies generous relocation bonuses at the same time that he was denying Hayes’s requests for cost reimbursements to offset the costs of his own forced relocation.
The Security Ramifications
As wasteful as a traditional spoils system may be, at least it generally stops short of stripping the organization of its competence. By keeping credentialed talent whole and on board, even if sidelined, one at least retains the capacity to call such talent to action when the hour sounds. By contrast, ham-handedly forcing out such talent to make room for inexperienced, bullying cronies inflicts double harm. If there is an emergency, the organization will falter because it has neutered itself by gutting its talent pool. At the same time, with the career catapulting of callow crony corporals over credentialed captains, the organization tells its employees that it holds high positions in relative disregard. Otherwise, competence would not count so little when qualifying for high office. Thus, in the long run, patronage becomes the sole path to advancement.
Is this unique to Secretary Napolitano? Hardly. One may argue that Rudy Giuliani succumbed to the same weakness in promoting as a candidate for Napolitano’s job Bernard Kerik, whose main if not only credential traced to having a history of working for America’s mayor. (A colleague who once spent time in a combat zone to assist with teaching American policing to interested Iraqis recalled how Kerik, on a similar assignment, was disinclined to leave his limousine or quarters, and was just going through the motions of foreign assistance for whatever resume value this brought. But perhaps there is more to the story.) Similarly, in the private sector, one need look no further than to Jack Welch to wonder whether his hand-picked successor, Jeffrey Immelt, ever approximated or will even approach the competence of his patron.
All that the Shriro, Kerik, Immelt, and Barr examples repeatedly establish is that hand-picked henchmen and sycophants seldom deliver the same value as their more powerful patrons. Indeed, if there is anything these beneficiaries of patronage do consistently, it is to let down the people and institutions promoting them.
As the French intone, plus ça change plus c'est la même chose.
-- Nick Catrantzos
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
