File 030211
Email Chain on Syria Policy and 'Blackberry Diplomacy' (File 030211)
Forwarded email chain containing an Atlantic Council article by Frederic C. Hof discussing US foreign policy decision-making regarding Syria, emphasizing the need for deliberative strategy over reactive 'Blackberry diplomacy' in the Obama administration.
Summary
Jeffrey Epstein forwards an article by Frederic C. Hof from the Atlantic Council discussing challenges in US national security policy-making under the Obama administration. Hof argues that reactive decision-making driven by 24/7 news cycles and email communication ('Blackberry diplomacy') prevents proper strategic deliberation on foreign policy matters like Syria. The article advocates for structured policy processes and suggests that President Obama and National Security Advisor Susan Rice should move beyond ad-hoc decision-making within small circles to leverage broader expertise across State Department, Defense, and intelligence agencies.
From: Jeffrey Epstein [jeeyacation@gmail.com]Sent: 7/11/2013 3:22:21 PMTo:Subject: Fwd: (s) 7/11, Atlantic Council (Hof): Syria: Blackberry Diplomacy----------Forwarded message----------From: Fabrice AidanDate: Thursday, July 11, 2013Subject: Fwd: (s) 7/11, Atlantic Council (Hof): Syria: Blackberry DiplomacyTo: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>You'll find it interesting. Warm regardsEnvoy& de mon iPhoneDebut du message transfer&:Expediteur: 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 Iwill not soon forget. "Fred, there's no time for policy deliberations about Syria or anyplace else. Welive in the era of Blackberry diplomacy. We react 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 USgovernment using the Blackberry?" Those who turned thirty long before the end of the last century—even those of us who try seriously not to be technological Luddites—wonder sometimes if thecommunications revolution and the 24/7 news cycle it has spawned will end up doing more harm thangood 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 establishmentare well-acquainted with how hard it is to find time to think. This was true long before the advent ofemail and other forms of electronic communication. Although there may have been times whenofficials could contemplate great matters of state at something approaching leisure, those days havebeen long gone. Even offices created expressly to explore policy options stretching beyond a twentyminute horizon—the State Department's Policy Planning Staff comes to mind—routinely get pulledinto the maelstrom of daily struggles to manage breaking developments through some combination ofHOUSE OVERSIGHT 030211strategic messaging and diplomatic demarches. Email makes it easy for officials up-and-down thechain to plunge into the fray, battling to mold language for use at a daily briefing; language that all-too-often mystifies or misleads foreign listeners who hang on words from the podium as if they aremeant to convey the results of deep, deliberative thought on the part of the world's only superpower.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 foreignpolicy contexts as well, to wrap the daily news cycle food fight in an insulated casing of objectives andstrategy clearly understandable to those charged with planning and executing foreign or nationalsecurity policy. There may be some who believe that objectives and strategy are just so 20th century;so Brent Scowcroft-like and so pre-Twitter. There may be some who actually handle affairs of state inways they would not dream of applying to their personal financial portfolios. Perhaps resistance tostructured, deliberative processes producing objectives and accompanying strategies is a function offewer and fewer people in the national security establishment ever having availed themselves ofmilitary service; an experience where matters of this nature become, through training and education,as natural as breathing. Perhaps in the specific case of Syria there has been a temptation to avoidthe hard choices such a process would serve up in the hope that the regime of Basher al-Assadwould just go away, thereby making hard choices someone else's problem.The arrival of a new assistant to the president for national security affairs is an ideal opportunity torestore best practices to the national security apparatus. To her credit, Susan Rice appears to bereaching out with this very much in mind. If changes are made that better serve the president byforcing people to think through policy options in the context of objectives and strategies, thosechanges should not reflect poorly on the stewardship of her predecessor. The president getsprecisely the national security system he mandates and deserves. He is, as JFK noted in theimmediate wake of the Bay 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 directionand processes of foreign policy and diplomacy. It is up to him to tell his national security advisor thathe wants the interagency to stop tweeting and start thinking; to tell him how he should be evaluatingUS national security objectives with respect to Syria (for example) and strategy options aimed ataccomplishing them. This kind of deliberative process will not require people to wear powdered wigsand 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 sheerbrainpower of the people sitting atop the bureaucratic pyramid. Barack Obama and Susan Rice areamong the very brightest people to serve in the US government. They may think they can figure Syriaout themselves, within a small circle of trusted political advisers. They may think they can handleSyria without reaching beyond their own national security staff, without probing deeply into theDepartments of State, Defense, the intelligence community, and elsewhere where additionalexpertise resides. 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 thisday and age, it is possible to figure out what one wants and how to go about getting it: even ingovernment work.Demons is an international legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. This email 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 or Legal Notices, including IRS Circular 230.HOUSE OVERSIGHT 030212--***********************************************************The information contained in this communication isconfidential, may be attorney-client privileged, mayconstitute inside information, and is intended only forthe use of the addressee. It is the property ofJeffrey EpsteinUnauthorized use, disclosure or copying of thiscommunication or any part thereof is strictly prohibitedand may be unlawful. If you have received thiscommunication in error, please notify us immediately byreturn e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, anddestroy this communication and all copies thereof,including all attachments. copyright -all rights reservedHOUSE OVERSIGHT 030213