TedLipien.com, SAN FRANCISCO — One group of U.S. Government employees that has not received much media scrutiny in the aftermath of the failed terrorist attack are U.S. diplomats who had issued and failed to cancel Mr. Abdulmutallab’s U.S. visa.
U.S. Consular Officers at the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria Robin R. Sanders, and Foreign Service Officers responsible for security had a professional duty to immediately cancel Mr. Abdulmutallab’s U.S. visa after his father warned the Embassy officials of his son’s likely radicalization.
No dots with the vague CIA information from Yemen on Mr. Abdulmutallab needed to be connected by anti-terrorism experts. The whole problem could have been easily averted at the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, if American diplomats had simply used common sense that most Americans would use in a similar situation.
These highly paid U.S. officials should have erred on the side of caution, not on the side of protecting the rights of individuals who are not U.S. citizens and have no automatic right to a U.S. visa.
After being told of the father’s concerns about his son, the first question from Ambassador Sanders should have been: does he have a U.S. visa? And if he does, let’s cancel it immediately.
Any of the Foreign Service Officers and other officials at the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria who knew about the case should have asked the same question. They are some of the best paid U.S. government employees and supposed to be some of the smartest.
We wish the latter were really true. If they were as smart and dedicated as they should be, Americans could feel safe about their borders being protected and there would be no need to spend extra billions of dollars on airport security. Unfortunately, a culture of careerism and political correctness makes it impossible for most U.S. Foreign Service Officers to think and act primarily in the interest of the American people.
U.S. diplomats in Nigeria did nothing to prevent the most recent incident because that would have required them to make a difficult decision that could have been viewed by their bosses at the State Department in Washington as a violation of Mr. Abdulmitallab’s rights. A decision to cancel his visa might have also exposed them to criticism of engaging in profiling and undermining President Obama’s new policy of reaching out to the Muslim world.
Let’s not forget that all of the 9/11 terrorists also received American visas from U.S. Foreign Service Officers.
Each U.S. diplomat stationed abroad costs U.S. taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. But today’s U.S. Foreign Service Officers are mostly interested in protecting their considerable salaries and perks. They lack both status and courage to challenge official policies and behavior, often dictated by misguided political correctness.
It does not help that the standards for recruiting Foreign Service Officers have greatly declined over the last few decades. A U.S. diplomat who dares to make a difficult decision that could ruin his chances for career advancement is a rare exception.
If U.S. Foreign Service Officers used the right judgement and did their professional duty of protecting U.S. citizens rather than pleasing the political correctness crowd at the State Department and the White House, the 9/11 terror attack and the attempted airplane bombing over Detroit could have been prevented.
The CIA is also not off the hook. As with Foreign Service Officers, keeping a single CIA officer abroad also costs U.S. taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in salary, free housing, free education for children and freequent free travel to the U.S. The CIA station chief in Nigeria should have insisted that a Consular Officer at the Embassy or the Ambassador herself cancel Mr. Abdulmutallab’s U.S. visa. Without a U.S. visa, he would not have been able to get on the plane.
Ultimately, however, it’s not the CIA but the U.S. Ambassador who is responsible for what goes on at a U.S. embassy.
It is unlikely that the quality of U.S. Foreign Service Officers can be quickly improved in the current political environment in Washington. Intensive retraining of U.S. ambassadors, political officers, and consular officials at U.S. embassies might offer some help in the future if it is done correctly. But such retraining would certainly clash with the Obama administration’s policy assumptions about the world and the Foreign Service culture that promotes conformism.
Of course, much of the blame goes directly to President Obama and his administration’s top officials who have set the political agenda of granting people suspected of terrorism the benefit of the doubt in an naive hope that by being nice to them they would be nice to us. U.S. diplomats in Nigeria should have shown their respect for the local customs and culture by taking seriously the concerns expressed to them by Mr. Abdulmutallab’s father. They should have been nice to him. Instead, they behaved like typical Americans, assuming that the young man had the right to do what he wanted. Perhaps they thought that if they had cancelled his U.S. visa he might become anti-American and turn into a terrorist. That, after all, seems to be the essence of President Obama’s approach to the problem of terrorism.
U.S. diplomats in Nigeria were more than eager to implement this misguided agenda. The attempted airplane bombing over Detroit was a major failure of both the Obama administration and the culture of the U.S. diplomatic service. The American people deserve better than that.
Loading ...
15 users commented in " The culture of U.S diplomatic service failed to stop the terrorist attack "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackEven if the visa was revoked the actual visa would still have been in his passport and the airlines would have looked at it and let him on the plane It would not have shown up that it was revoked until he tried to get through customs at the Port of Entry-Detroit airport in this case.
Airlines do not check with the governments to validate visas.
Revoked or not he would have gotten on the plane.
Wow - the only things that the blogger gets right is that yes, there is a US Embassy in Nigeria, there is a U.S. Foreign Service and that there is a CIA. Everything else is mishmash of bia and opinion masquerading as some authoritative statements. Obviously, the blogger has major sour grapes about “high salaries” enjoyed by FSOs. Sorry dude - its akin to the normal GS level, nothing atmospheric about it. I love the touch of blaming them for the 9-11 attacks. If only we fix the Foreign Service, then the U.S. can prosper. WHY is the Foreign Service killing America!!! What a moron!
In my day in the US foreing service even before 9/11 counselor officers who issued visas were strict to the point of tolerating no second guessing by Ambassadors, politcal or career. Even one of my Foreign Service colleagues had great difficult getting a visa for his foreign born wife.I don’t know if the culture of political correctness played a role in the Nigerian case, but the visa certainly should have been denied per the Brits with fewer layers of bureaucracy. and political appointees. It is a stretch, however, to blame President Obama for a foreign service system that greatly eroded under the years of the Bushmen.
This piece is mostly non-nonsensical. For starters, consular operations, including visa issuance and all of the of the related bureaucratic machinery is fully funded by fees paid by the applicants and petitioners, in the case of immigrant visas. That funding covers all aspects of consular presence abroad down to the housing that consular officers live in. Indeed these fees even subsidize other aspects of the U.S. presence abroad. Secondly, the few consular officers I know take glee in upholding U.S. immigration law and are very thorough and careful. They operate with the information they have at hand. This underwear bomber fellow, at the time of his visa interview, probably came across as a well-qualified applicant. Son of a banking tycoon with a good travel history, schooling in the UK, with previous travel to the US. Why wouldn’t anyone issue this kid a visa? Things can change after a visa is issued and the U.S. can’t keep tabs on everyone holding a U.S. visa, especially considering that they can often go a period of years without expiring. I think many of the terrorists of tomorrow are going to have clean backgrounds at the time of visa issuance, just like the underwear bomber and 9/11 highjackers did. I think that, fundamentally, the system works. Naturally, we need to learn from our mistakes and adjust accordingly. On another matter, do you really think that U.S. diplomats are compensated that well? I guarantee you that all of the oil sector folks in Nigeria are getting paid substantially more than the U.S. diplomats serving in the country.
Just to add to the consensus on the ignorance displayed here: how would you like it if one unsubstantiated complaint about you by someone who may or may not have a personal beef with you resulted in the immediate and un-appealable cancellation of your travel documents? Outbid someone on a contract or get in a fight with your boyfriend and say goodbye to your visa? Consular officers receive thousands of “poison pen” letters every week, many of which are in retaliation for some personal injury suffered; should they all be accepted as proof positive?
In as much as I agree with some aspects of the writer’s argument, there are others that I do not. the writer is absolutely accurate, having lived and observed the “so-called” Foreign Service at work in Lagos, Nigeria (2006/2007 - I wasn’t an ex-pat, I was a part of the U.S. mission).
Our current Foreign Service is corrupt and dysfunctional. The State Department continues to recruit more of the same — thereby increasing the inbred nature of their system. The career Foreign Service is a cancer that is just as dangerous to our homeland as external, non-U.S. terrorists.
No matter which agency is present, whether its the CIA, FBI, DEA, DOJ, et cetera, all these Federal employees are just biding their time they whine about their lack of pay, benefits, and rich taxpayer-funded pensions.
We have a Federal government that is broke — just review the statement that the Homeland Security Secretary made, which was no doubt drafted by career employees that was totally out-of-touch with reality.
Time to reverse the Reagan/Clinton/Bush/Obama BIG GOVERNMENT PUSCH!
“Escaped” — you misspelled “putsch”, and that’s just the beginning of your silliness. As one of the Foreign Service’s few conservatives, I’m embarrassed that apparently you’re from my side of the political spectrum.
And the above postings adequately pointed out the ignorance of the blog writer — s/he gets practically nothing right about how the law works, how Embassies work, or what Foreign Service Officers do.
“Escaped” — it’s clear that living in Lagos doesn’t qualify you to criticize the Consulate, and I’d love to know what “observed” means to you — apparently you drove by the Consulate once. The lack of detail and the stupidity of your alleged criticism shows that you are totally unqualified to comment. The Foreign Service does have its problems and weaknesses — like any organization — but neither “Escaped” nor the blog writer knows what they are.
An awful blog. The writer is a ranter who has spent too much time listening to Newt Gingrich and not enough time pursuing the truth. A few notes:
–Canceling a visa is not the same as canceling a passport. Visas to the U.S. are not scanned until someone gets into the U.S.. Even if the embassy canceled it, he would still have gotten on that plane.
–Salaries in the foreign service are good, but not great. Certainly not even close to the highest paying jobs in the government. I would add that the equivalent military rank pays roughly the same salary as a comparable level foreign service officer, although military personnel get significantly more retirement benefits and pension.
–The Foreign Service accepts about 1% of its applicants each year. Poor standards? Hardly.
–Nearly half of all career diplomats came in during the Bush administration.
This person has some obvious issues and needs to adjust to their current circumstances whatever they are.
That said, many of the blogs,media types, and other talking heads seem to have ignored or glossed over the fact that our adversaries have learned a great deal about our processes and systems.
Let us (the American people) not be shortsighted and assume that our physical size, military prowess, or soundbite inspired congress prevent an enemy from studying us and developing new strategies and tactics to exploit our systems and processes.
To counter these new methods, we must also adopt new strategies to gain advantage over those who seek to endanger our way of life.
Typical of the denial of tea and crumpet pin-stripers at Foggy Bottom.
The art of diplomacy practiced at its best by saying one thing; and meaning another like a half-empty hot air balloon! Diplomats are just that–all talk and little common sense.
Keep up the good work.
“Tea and crumpet pin-stripers?” In 30 yrs at the State Dept. I served with about a dozen individuals who lost their lives in the line of duty - in bombings, targeted assassinations (in one instance) and attacks on embassies. While the common perception is that State Dept. officers spend their time sipping tea in Paris, London and Rome, the overwhelming majority of Dept. officers and staff spend time trying to maintain diplomatic relations in difficult, hostile environments. An example: Embassy in Chad has been evacuated twice in the last 18 mons. because of rebel attacks on the capital. An RPG accidently hit the embassy and by a miracle did not go off, otherwise many would have died. We have had people working around the clock in disasters, such as the tsunami in SE Asia, etc., etc. More and more embassies are unaccompanied postings, which means our people go and spend a year or more without their families, with minimal personal effects and in very difficult conditions. An unsung story is the story of hundreds of Foreign Service personnel who have served in Provincial Reconstruction Teams all over Iraq and Afghanistan, on the front line, trying to help rebuild those countries, but without carrying guns or other weapons. I am disgusted with the ignorant comments based on outdated perceptions half a century out of date…
The number of anonymous and family based accusations reported at Embassies and Consulates around the world would be impossible to calculate. While many of these accusations are rooted in familial problems or jealous issues, the accusers know that saying the magic word “terrorist” gets the government’ attention and that all of the officers involved pay attention and respond with an abundance of concern and caution. To think that revoking a visa any time someone makes any sort of accusation against an individuals shows this blogger’s lack of interest in justice and inability to grasp the realities of the real world that visa officers face. To state that visa officers are not 100% committed to protecting the United States against all threats, be they national security related or illegal immigration concernsc shows this blogger’s lack of acquaintance with any visa officers. And to state that Foreign Service Officers are highly paid, when many of them take pay cuts in order to enter the Foreign Service in order to serve their country, is dishonest and reprehensible.
Its important to do away with the misconception of Foreign Service Officers as having pampered lifestyles overseas. Most U.S. diplomats serve in hardship posts where crime, disease, pollution, terrorism (or all of the above) are problems. Schools and medical services are often inadequate for families. Once reference I recommend to the blogger is the book: Inside a U.S. Embassy: How the Foreign Service Works for America.
http://www.afsa.org/inside/
One should be aware of the fact that not all US diplomats are so-called “foreign service officers”. More and more of them are assigned under alternate personnel designations within the Civil Service, of which the Foreign Service is just one part. There is a labor union known as “AFSA” bent on creating the impression that only “foreign service officers” are qualified to serve on diplomatic assignments. They even have gone so far as to petition the Secretary to curtail appointments of qualified diplomats simply because they had served under non “foreign service” systems. So please do not lump all U.S. diplomats under the designation of “foreign service officers”.
Leave A Reply