Group of Diplomats, Military Advisers Seeks Leadership Change Over Foreign Policy by Sean OíDriscoll Some commentators say it is unprecedented in the nationís history. Others say it is a publicity stunt orchestrated by the Democratic Party. At a June press conference held at the National Press Club, 27 former military advisers and diplomatsómany of them ambassadors and four-star commandersógathered to release a one-page criticism denouncing President Bushís foreign policy and calling for a change in leadership. Speaking independently, Richard Kohn, the Pentagonís chief Air Force historian in the 1980s and now chair of the University of North Carolinaís curriculum in peace, war and defense, said the prominence and seniority of the group was ìreally remarkableî in historic terms. The group calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, and it includes both Democrats and Republicans, some of whom had been loyal to the Reagan and first Bush administrations. The group argues that Bushís policies have severely isolated the country and alienated its allies as well as respected global institutions, all of which has undermined U.S. security efforts. ìInstead of building upon Americaís great economic and moral strength to lead other nations in a coordinated campaign to address the causes of terrorism and to stifle its resources, the Administration, motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, struck out on its own,î the groupís official statement said. ìIt led the United States into an ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain. It justified the invasion of Iraq by manipulation of uncertain intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, and by a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda and the attacks of September 11. The evidence did not support this argument.î Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking later that day to the Arab satellite television network al-Jazeera, said the diplomats and commanders were involved in partisan politics. The signers ìmade it clear what they wish to seeóthey wish to see President Bush not re-elected,î Powell said. ìI do not believe that will be the judgment of the American people,î he added. ìI disagree that the United States is as isolated as they say.î Prominent among the group is Alexander F. Watson, a former U.S. ambassador to Peru who was appointed in 1986 and who also served as assistant secretary of state for Inter-American affairs in 1993 and deputy permanent representative to the United Nations in 1989. Watson was keen to make it clear that the group had no formal structure, and joked when The Washington Diplomat asked him about the organization. ìI think youíre doing us an honor by calling us an organization,î he said, laughing at the idea that the group was a collective movement. ìWeíre just a group of folks.î According to Watson, the very idea of political protest was alien to many diplomats in the group, who were initially reluctant to put their names forward. ìItís not an easy decision to make because our whole culture is based on serving at the presidentís pleasure. So speaking out in what is clearly a political fashion is new to us. None of us had ever been involved in a political campaign,î he said. Inevitably, the group has its detractors, including John Tkacik, a 23-year veteran of the U.S. State Department and now a senior research fellow in Asian studies at the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation. Tkacik (pronounced TASS-ick) said that many in the group were merely making a stand to advance their own agenda within the Democratic Party. ìLooking at the list, so many of them appear to be making these comments for partisan reasons. One has to clock off five degrees for wind,î he said. Asked whether he was concerned about the fact that the group included very senior diplomats who served under previous Republican administrations, Tkacik said the U.S. Foreign Service has traditionally been overwhelmingly Democratic in bias. ìI spent 24 years in the Foreign Service, and a Republican Foreign Service officer was about as close to an oxymoron as you can get,î he said. ìI was there, but there werenít a whole lot of us, even through the Reagan and first Bush administrations. The Foreign Service is not what one would call a bastion of conservative thought or traditional values.î ìNot so,î countered Watson, who said his group came together across party lines because of a grave concern that decades of U.S. foreign diplomacy were being destroyed by the current administration. ìMany of us were people who had voted for George W. Bush and were basically Republicans, even registered Republicansósome not. There was great reluctance among us to say something as dramatic as ëWe need change in the administration before this situation gets even worse.íî Watson said it has taken ìa heck of a lot of workî to unify and build international institutions that at this point have been completely ignored by the Bush administration. ìYou donít blithely just ignore those institutions, be they the U.N. or NATO. You do not blithely ignore people with whom you have cooperated with in the past. You need to make sure you are working with them, and they are, at least, not opposed to you.î Watsonís comments are backed by James D. Phillips, who was appointed ambassador to Burundi by Ronald Reagan in 1986 and ambassador to the Republic of Congo in 1990 by the first President Bush. Phillips, who later served as the diplomat-in-residence at the Carter Center of Emory University, said that he became involved in the group after watching the collapse of U.S. diplomacy in Iraq. Phillips also noted that he has many friends who have seen the decline of U.S. prestige in Africa during the current Bush administration. ìI certainly have a lot of friends who go to Africa. The reaction in Africa is the same as in the rest of the world. We have lost the prestige we once had. People donít understand why we denigrated the United Nations,î he said. Phillips strongly denied that Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change was a front for the Democratic Party. ìMany [in the group] are Republicans. Our spokesperson was State Department spokesperson under [Secretary of State] George P. Shultz in the Reagan administration. Thatís not a Democrat.î However, Phillips did concede that some of the military leaders in the group would no longer be active after the groupís initial launch in Washington and would soon be joining the presidential campaign for John F. Kerry. The number of signups to the Kerry campaign is proof that the group is a partisan game, argues Tkacik. ìA lot of these people are looking for jobs in a Kerry administration. One tends not to take them seriously.î Tkacik did admit, however, that he was initially surprised by one or two of the names on the groupís roster. ìI thought, ëOne should pay attention to these guys.í But now that I think about it, I looked up to them with great admiration 20 years ago.î Tkacik also agreed that group members he knew personally were ìvery fine officersî but with a definite Democratic bent, citing Charles W. Freeman Jr., the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, as an example. Freeman is one of a number of experts on the Middle East who have signed on to the group. Another is Michael E. Sterner, who was appointed ambassador to the United Arab Emirates in 1974 after serving as deputy assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs during the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in the early 1970s. Sterner argues that Middle Eastern opinion of the United States has hit rock bottom at a time when we need Islamic countries the most to help in the war on terrorism. ìI think that all the polls showóand there is plenty of antidotal evidence to showóthat in Islamic countries everywhere our standing has never been lower,î he said. ìIn many of those countries, those are the governments we need most in the war of terrorism. The fact that our standing among the public is so low in these countries is undermining that fight.î Sterner flatly denied suggestions that he was being used by the Democratic Party. ìItís not true. Itís completely off the mark,î he said. When asked about Secretary Powellís remarks about the group, he said they were ìnot all that hostile.î ìIt didnít strike me as all that unfriendly. In any case, [the Bush administration hasnít] gone out of their way to criticize us, and I think thatís a very deliberate tactic. They decided that if they argue with us, it would give us more attention than if they ignore us.î However, according to Stephen Johnson, a Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst, Diplomats and Military Commanders for Chan ge has already failed. ìThis organization has sunk like a stone, and many are in it to get a job with Kerry or a consulting role with Kerry,î he said. Johnson accused members of ìtrying it onî in time for the Democratic National Convention, when much of the jostling for positions on the Kerry campaign will take place. ìThere is a lot of posturing going on, and that is why they call it silly season this time of year. These things donít tend to make a whole lot of sense outside of that.î For Watson, however, the group and the issues it raises are far from silly. ìLook at this failure we had in the U.N. We didnít have enough votes for exemption for American troops from the International Criminal Court,î he pointed out. ìThe loss of confidence is so great that the whole team needs to be changed. Thatís why we are hereóthis isnít about the Democratic Party.î Sean OíDriscoll is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat.