File 030209
Email Forward: Atlantic Council Article on Syria and Blackberry Diplomacy (File 030209)
Email from Fabrice Aidan forwarding an Atlantic Council article by Frederic C. Hof to Jeffrey Epstein discussing US foreign policy decision-making processes regarding Syria and critiquing rapid-response 'Blackberry diplomacy' under the Obama administration.
Summary
Fabrice Aidan forwards a July 11, 2013 Atlantic Council article to Epstein that discusses concerns about the Obama administration's approach to Syria policy. The article by Frederic C. Hof criticizes the prevalence of rapid-response 'Blackberry diplomacy' and argues that the administration, despite the intellectual capabilities of Barack Obama and Susan Rice, risks outsmarting itself by failing to engage in deliberative strategic planning with broader interagency input. Hof advocates for structured decision-making processes that incorporate expertise from the State Department, Defense Department, and intelligence community rather than relying on quick reactions to daily news cycles.
From:Sent:To:Subject:Fabrice Aidan7/11/2013 2:44:31 PMJeffrey Epstein [jeeyacation@gmail.com]Fwd: (s) 7/11, Atlantic Council (Hof): Syria: Blackberry DiplomacyImportance: HighYou'll find it interesting. Warm regardsEnvoy& de mon iPhoneDebut du message transfer&:Expecliteur: GBIU-MideastNews <GBIU-MideastNews@dentons.com>Date: 11 juillet 2013 16:43:09 UTC+02:00Destinataire: "Cheves, Belle""Gray, Alex" <B." <Objet: (s) 7/11, Atlantic Council (Hof): Syria: Blackberry DiplomacyAtlantic CouncilSyria: Blackberry DiplomacyBy Frederic C. HofJuly 11, 2013, "Mahle, Melissa, "Seche, Stephen A."'Dixon, Timothy"A friendly discussion about Syria with a former US State Department colleague gave rise to a point I will not soon forget."Fred, there's no time for policy deliberations about Syria or anyplace else. We live in the era of Blackberry diplomacy. Wereact and we improvise as best we can."Anyone under the age of thirty reading the above would probably think, "Why in the world is the US government using theBlackberry?" Those who turned thirty long before the end of the last century—even those of us who try seriously not to betechnological Luddites—wonder sometimes if the communications revolution and the 24/7 news cycle it has spawned willend up doing more harm than good to the progress of civilization and well-being of the republic.Those who have had the privilege and burden of working in the US national security establishment are well-acquaintedwith how hard it is to find time to think. This was true long before the advent of email and other forms of electroniccommunication. Although there may have been times when officials could contemplate great matters of state at somethingapproaching leisure, those days have been long gone. Even offices created expressly to explore policy options stretchingbeyond a twenty minute horizon—the State Department's Policy Planning Staff comes to mind—routinely get pulled intothe maelstrom of daily struggles to manage breaking developments through some combination of strategic messagingand diplomatic demarches. Email makes it easy for officials up-and-down the chain to plunge into the fray, battling to moldlanguage for use at a daily briefing; language that all-too-often mystifies or misleads foreign listeners who hang on wordsfrom the podium as if they are meant to convey the results of deep, deliberative thought on the part of the world's onlysuperpower. Yet email neither created the problem nor prevents its solution.The problem is the failure of government, certainly in the context of Syria and likely in other foreign policy contexts as well,to wrap the daily news cycle food fight in an insulated casing of objectives and strategy clearly understandable to thosecharged with planning and executing foreign or national security policy. There may be some who believe that objectivesand strategy are just so 20th century; so Brent Scowcroft-like and so pre-Twitter. There may be some who actually handleaffairs of state in ways they would not dream of applying to their personal financial portfolios. Perhaps resistance tostructured, deliberative processes producing objectives and accompanying strategies is a function of fewer and fewerpeople in the national security establishment ever having availed themselves of military service; an experience wherematters of this nature become, through training and education, as natural as breathing. Perhaps in the specific case ofSyria there has been a temptation to avoid the hard choices such a process would serve up in the hope that the regime ofBasher al-Assad would just go away, thereby making hard choices someone else's problem.HOUSE OVERSIGHT 030209The arrival of a new assistant to the president for national security affairs is an ideal opportunity to restore best practicesto the national security apparatus. To her credit, Susan Rice appears to be reaching out with this very much in mind. Ifchanges are made that better serve the president by forcing people to think through policy options in the context ofobjectives and strategies, those changes should not reflect poorly on the stewardship of her predecessor. The presidentgets precisely the national security system he mandates and deserves. He is, as JFK noted in the immediate wake of theBay of Pigs fiasco, "the responsible officer of government."In the end it is the president, and not the Blackberry or some other device, who will drive the direction and processes offoreign policy and diplomacy. It is up to him to tell his national security advisor that he wants the interagency to stoptweeting and start thinking; to tell him how he should be evaluating US national security objectives with respect to Syria(for example) and strategy options aimed at accomplishing them. This kind of deliberative process will not require peopleto wear powdered wigs and inscribe talking points on parchment with quill pens. It will not even oblige them to disconnectelectronically.Perhaps the biggest obstacle to an orderly national security process that is deliberative is the sheer brainpower of thepeople sitting atop the bureaucratic pyramid. Barack Obama and Susan Rice are among the very brightest people toserve in the US government. They may think they can figure Syria out themselves, within a small circle of trusted politicaladvisers. They may think they can handle Syria without reaching beyond their own national security staff, without probingdeeply into the Departments of State, Defense, the intelligence community, and elsewhere where additional expertiseresides. They will outsmart themselves if that is the approach they choose.Blackberry diplomacy is a choice, not a device decision and certainly not a fact of life. Even in this day and age, it ispossible to figure out what one wants and how to go about getting it: even in government work.an intu...ational legal „aviding tr..-ugh its met....-ff firms -id affiliates. Thk .maiI may be confidential and protectedby legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, distribution and use are prohibited; please notify us immediately and delete this copyfrom your system. Please see dentons.com for Legal Notices, including IRS Circular 230.HOUSE OVERSIGHT 030210