The sad state of US public diplomacy and the lessons of bad rapid response practices

When you read this reported interview with an unnamed US official, I think you get another little window into why so many young Americans, like myself, have been so turned off about entering the State Department.

Are these guys serious?

Even on relatively small matters like a government change, the contradictions are so glaring – their rapid response unit needs to remember the first law of…rapid response: even if you are being hypocritical, don’t draw attention to that fact in the SAME STATEMENT! At the very least time TWO different statements/interviews that contradict each other so you can send TWO messages. If you combine them into one, even to the least educated reader you sound like you think said reader is STUPID… And people, especially “swing voters” and wedge constituencies DO NOT LIKE TO BE TREATED LIKE THEY ARE STUPID.

24 JANUARY 2011 Lebanon > Politics
Subject(s): Democracy | USA/EU |
“American official: We did not obstruct the Saudi efforts…”

On January 23, the Saudi-owned London-based Asharq al-Awsat daily carried the following report by its correspondent in Beirut Thaer Abbas: “A prominent American diplomat warned against any new Lebanese government being formed by the March 8 forces and led by Hezbollah. The American official noted that this would create major obstacles and will force the United States to stop its cooperation with the new Lebanese government. The American official was quoted as saying: “Congress will reject any cooperation and the dispatch of any kind of military assistance to persons who are getting their instructions from Hezbollah.”
[I.E. A THREAT]
“The American official denied the information that circulated regarding the fact that the United States was behind the failure of the Syrian-Saudi efforts.

[But last week you were saying THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS A S-S INITIATIVE]

The official added saying: “The United States has supported the Saudi efforts because we also want to see stability in Lebanon. But we also do not support any agreement that is forced upon the Lebanese parties because we believe that the solution should be Lebanese before anything else.

[THEN WHY SUPPORT an outside, saudi action? And you have said that an S-S settlement would have forced a bad govenrnmental process on Lebanon…. which here you say you would not support…. But I thought you said you did not pressure against the S-S initiative? But it’s bad…. so is the US, therefore, NOT standing up for what it believes in? I dont understand.]

“We are currently watching what is going on with great attention and we are waiting to see what will happen next. However, it seems there is a power struggle taking place for the time being, and it is as if they are trying to threaten or frighten the other team. Maybe the opposition is even using blackmail in order to obtain results which it would not now been able to obtain by any other means.”

[But at the beginning of the piece you THREATENED? Perhaps rightfully so…. but get your story straight AT LEAST.]