A conversation with Scott Osterling: One of Harvard’s Young Military Veterans
by Sabrina Roshan on December 17, 2009 in Culture
Photo courtesy of Taylor Chapman, MPP '11
Scott Osterling, MPA/MBA ’10, walks through the HKS forum just like the rest of us – water bottle, backpack, and cell phone in tow, just trying to get to class on time. What few know is that he is a product of some of the US military’s most elite Special Operations Forces. Osterling, a US Military Academy graduate, was part of the 75th Ranger Regiment and was commissioned as a Green Beret, commanding detachment A-573 in combat in Iraq. Following 10 years of decorated service, he left the commando beard and inconspicuous gear for the halls of Harvard. In light of the recent Veteran’s Day holiday and this critical time in the Obama administration’s decision on the Afghanistan strategy, Osterling sat down to talk to The Citizen about his service to the country and his thoughts on where the US is headed in its foreign policy.
1. At such a young age, what made you decide to attend the US Military Academy?
Part of it was the idealist in me and part of it was the practical side of me. I was interested in the military from a pretty young age and in high school, I had a teacher in the National Guard who was deployed to Iraq for the Gulf War. It was a patriotic time that played an influential part in my decision. More practically, I was a swimmer in high school and was recruited by the West Point swim coach.
2. During your 10 years in the military, what do you think of as your greatest accomplishment?
Being a part of a team that led to the capture of what some media outlets referred to as the “most dangerous man in the insurgency.” He was one of the biggest foreign financiers of the insurgency. He was certainly a key factor in bringing outside money into what was then a very powerful Sunni - Al Qaeda partnership in Central and Western Iraq. The capture required several local contacts, unmanned aerial vehicles, civilian vehicles, and several other surveillance methods.
3. How did you or your fellow servicemen and women deal with situations in which you were in the theatre fighting a war that may not have aligned with your policy perspective?
I can only speak for myself and the guys that I served with. I think the attitude that’s most pervasive is that if the administration that is putting young Americans in harm’s way is supporting the military with the right equipment and there is enough public support for the soldiers – even if the support is not for the mission but for the soldiers, you feel like you are doing something good. You may disagree with the decision to go to Iraq. You can still feel proud on an individual level that you are making life better for the Iraqi people. I think that for most soldiers, that’s the case.
Both the Obama administration and the latter part of the Bush Administration have proceeded with the right amount of caution in terms of winding down the US presence there. I think it’s certainly time to start bringing US forces home. I think that to President Obama’s credit, he has done it at the right pace while making it clear to the Iraqi government that their security is now their responsibility.
4. What was your greatest challenge during your 10 years of service?
Understanding that when you’re in the military that you really work for your soldiers. The idea that you can’t really ever have an off day, you can’t say “well, this challenge is too hard,” or “this job is something I really don’t want to do.” Every day, people expect you to make decisions that affect their lives and expect you to make the right ones. Very rarely are there easy decisions to make out there.
5. What is your greatest memory from the field?
When I was a platoon leader in the Rangers, we conducted a night parachute jump onto an airfield. One of my soldiers had a total malfunction of his parachute -it didn’t open when he exited the aircraft. He struggled to deploy his reserve parachute, finally getting open just a second or two before he hit the tarmac. He broke his back and his ankle, unbeknownst to me. I was already safely on the ground and waiting with the rest of my platoon to move. The soldier properly bagged up his parachute and crawled into the assembly area where my platoon was meeting after making the jump. The injured soldier was a team leader, in charge of 3 other soldiers and he was checking on them, just as he was supposed to do. He only told us after he had completed his checks that his parachute had failed and that he was seriously injured. “Why the hell didn’t you stay where you were and call for some help?” I asked. He told me that he had to get back to make sure that his soldiers were okay.
It was an absolute privilege to serve with men like these and even more of an honor to be trusted as their leader.
6. How do you feel about the Obama Administration’s progress on Iraq and Afghanistan so far?
Thus far, he gets an incomplete. The Obama Administration benefited greatly from a much improved security situation in Iraq that was in place when he took office. As I mentioned previously, he is withdrawing troops at the right pace in Iraq.
On Afghanistan, I think he did the right thing by sending 15,000 additional troops to stabilize the situation last spring. With a new commander on the ground, the President has taken the time to perform a thorough reassessment of the situation. Despite some on the right wanting to increase troops immediately and some on the left wanting immediate withdrawal, President Obama has chosen a judicious course. The fighting is very much seasonal and as it gets colder this winter, the fighting will subside until springtime. This window will also give the Obama administration some time to work with the Karzai government to increase its legitimacy.
7. What are factors that are not being considered in the rhetoric on Afghanistan policy?
It’s just starting to come into focus now: what the future of the Karzai government is going to be. If he’s not seen as the legitimate leader of Afghanistan by both the Afghan people and the world, we can’t win a counterinsurgency campaign as it requires a legitimate government.
8. What are the factors that are not being considered in the rhetoric on Iraq policy?
I think the one big unanswered question in Iraq is what the future of Kirkuk is. The oil field around Kirkuk and how the Kurds and Sunnis in particular look to split the revenue from them has the potential to be incredibly violent.
They really haven’t addressed the issue yet but it’s going to have a significant impact on the future security situation in Iraq. The Kurds consider Kirkuk to be very much a Kurdish city. Saddam moved the Kurds out and forced Sunnis into the city and altered its demographics. There are a lot of Kurds who have unresolved property claims in Kirkuk. Both the Kurdish leaders, Talabani and Barzani, want that to be resolved in a way that allows Kirkuk to essentially become Kurdish again.
9. What is your policy prescription on Iraq and Afghanistan?
Kirkuk is the major future flash point in Iraq. In addition, we must make sure that our force level in Iraq is commensurate with the threat.
Afghanistan is much, much harder because the resources required to replicate the same type of strategy that we did with the surge just aren’t there. We’re talking about something on the order of 200,000 American soldiers, which is not going to happen. It also assumes a level and size of competence that the Afghan national army is not at. I think a counterinsurgency strategy can only effective in keeping the situation from getting any worse. Our key relationship in the region is with Pakistan; working with our Pakistani allies to reduce the power and influence of the Pakistani Taliban and the leadership of al Qaeda that is taking refuge in the tribal areas is our most important challenge. We don’t want Afghanistan to become the failed state it was from 1996 to 2001, where the Taliban was in control, and al Qaeda was permitted freedom of maneuver within the country. I think we can prevent that from happening without the commitment of resources and national will that it is going to take to fight a full on counterinsurgency campaign if we can work with Pakistani allies.
10. What do you want to be when you grow up?
I am going to keep asking myself that question every five years to make sure I’m doing what I want to do. I believe very strongly in service to country. I certainly hope to be, in some capacity, whether it’s military or something else - giving back to a country that has given me so many opportunities; the opportunity to go to the military academy for free, the opportunity to lead the finest men in the country, and the chance to go to an institution like Harvard. I am interested in elected politics eventually. I would like to continue to serve in the Reserves or National Guard after I graduate. I haven’t completely shut the door on serving in some capacity.
Going Out Guide
by Michael Sechrist, Culture Columnist on December 17, 2009 in Culture, Going Out Guide
What: Winter Beer Fest
Where: Blanchard’s Wines and Spirits, 418 LaGrange Street West Roxbury, MA
When: Wednesday, December 2nd from 5:00 PM - 9:00 PM
Cost: Free
Why: Come taste a selection of 35 beers, as well as champagnes and cognacs over appetizers for no fee.
What: 103rd Annual Second Year Show at Harvard Medical School
Where: 1234 Columbus Avenue, Roxbury
When: Thursday – Saturday, December 3-5th at 8:00 PM
Cost: $15
Why: Make your way over to the other side of the river to see second year Harvard medical students put on a unique comedic performance. This year’s show focuses on healthcare reform.
What: Boston’s Official Tree Lighting Ceremony
When: Thursday, December 3rd starting at 6:30 PM
Where: Boston Common
Cost: Free!
Why: Family friendly event featuring a holiday stage show, carolers and other entertainment.
What: Champagne and Sparkling Wine Walkaround!
When: Thursday, December 3rd at 6:00 PM
Where: Downtown Harvard Club, One Federal Street, 38th Floor, Boston, MA
Cost: $40
Why: Got to have one swanky event this time around; hors d’oeuvres are paired with four different brands of Louis Roederer Champagnes, but Cristal is definitely not one of them.
What: The 23rd Annual SnowBall
Where: Boston Park Plaza Hotel, 64 Arlington Street, Boston
When: Friday, December 4th at 9:00 PM
Cost: $55
Why: Black-tie optional party that features live entertainment and a casino area all to benefit charities for Boston inner-city youth.
What: Cultural Survival Bazaars
When: December 4th, 5th & 6th from 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM
Where: Cambridge College, 1000 Mass Avenue, Cambridge, MA
Cost: Free!
Why: Come support Indigenous Communities from all over the world by purchasing their handmade arts and crafts. The event will also feature live music, cultural performances, craft-making workshops, movies and more.
What: 12 Bars of Christmas by Crawl In Boston
When: Saturday, December 5th at 2:30 PM - 8:30 PM
Where: 1 Faneuil Hall Market Place Boston, MA
Cost: $5
Why: Try to make it through 12 bars in support of the charity, Horizon for Homeless Children. Donations are suggested.
What: Bureaucrat’s Ball (aka winter formal)
When: Saturday, December 5
Where: Harvard Faculty Club
Cost: Hopefully cheap
Why: Our last big social gathering of the semester! Just hope the dance floor has more air conditioning this year.
What: Beacon Hill Holiday Stroll
Where: Starts on the corner of Charles and Mount Vernon Streets in Boston
When: Thursday, December 10 from 5:00 PM - 9:00 PM
Cost: Free!
Why: Another family friendly event featuring carolers, pictures with Santa, a brass quintet, horse and buggy rides and free drinks at area restaurants.
What: 3rd Annual Ugly Sweater Party
Where: Market Boston Restaurant, 21 Broad Street, Boston
When: Friday, December 11th at 8:00 PM
Cost: $15 at the door
Why: Embarrass yourself to help others. Show off your ugliest piece from the eighties in a benefit to send 25 seriously ill children from the Starlight Children’s Foundation to a Boston Bruins Game.
Dear HKS women : time for some self-defense?
by Lakshmi Iyer, Culture Writer on December 17, 2009 in Culture
Earlier this year, The Citizen featured an article on the safety of Harvard students in and around Cambridge streets. (See “Safety Concerns Highlighted by Cutbacks,” by Carolyn McGourty, MPP ’11, October 11, 2009).
The fear of being attacked is obviously not restricted to life in Cambridge. It could happen anywhere, at any time of the day or night. Women probably think about this fear very often – while walking back alone from a party, after a late-night group assignment, or while encountering a creepy-looking person in the elevator or a lonely hallway.
Of course, there are many ways to take precautions to guard against being in such situations; however, one cannot always avoid them. Additionally, any particular threat to a woman is not usually posed by a stranger: most people reading this article have at least one friend nor acquaintance who has been subject to some sort of abuse by a boyfriend or a male friend of some kind.
In order to equip female constituents of Harvard University with the skills to fend off such attacks, the Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) has started self- defense classes especially for women. The course, entitled the “Rape Aggression Defense (RAD) Program” is open free of charge to female students, and female faculty and staff of Harvard University. RAD empowers women to combat various types of assaults by providing them with realistic self-defense tactics and techniques. The classes focus on four basic principles: education, dependency on self, making one’s own decisions, and realization of one’s own power. Sergeant Amy DiVirgilio, from HUPD is the leading instructor for these sessions. She is supported by Patrol Officer Bill Connell and Sergeant David Burns.
Says Sergeant DiVirgilio, “I have been teaching RAD for 10 years, and it has truly been the most rewarding part of my job. Many women taking this class have not thought about what to do or how they would react in a tough situation. I feel we are giving them options and teaching many women that they can do something they never thought they could. The class is empowering in many ways.”
The first session covers various ways to prevent assault or attacks. The key here is to stay alert and remain aware of one’s surroundings. Listening to your Ipod’s blaring music while walking alone at 3 AM is not going to help you notice that creep following you. Alternatively, if you must listen to music, plug the earplug in just one ear. Another big lesson: do not be afraid to use your voice. Most women choke up or black out when attacked. This is the time to scream your lungs out. Another important tip: be aware of the 24-hour shops locations - you will know which direction to run in for help.
“My advice would be to take time to put thought into your personal safety. We all have busy lives, but take two minutes during your day to think about what you can do to prevent being a victim of any crime. Know what areas are well lit, populated at different hours, and where you could go for help. Look for the blue light,” said Sergeant DiVirgilio. The second and third sessions involve applying these techniques through practice with instructors.
The classes are typically held at 10 Akron or the Strauss common room in Harvard Yard. I urge all HKS women to look out for these emails and sign up!
No, Beyonce’s hair is not real! A review of the new movie, Good Hair
by Lena Benson on December 17, 2009 in Culture
Chris Rock’s Michael Moore-like documentary on the black hair industry in America is more than something to laugh at. Sure, the previews highlight the over-the-top hair shows one might find in the dirty South (where I lovingly call home) and the witty one-liners he cracks in neighborhood barbershops, but Rock’s film also reveals as side of the Black hair debate that is more than skin deep (pun intended).
First off, this movie is educational and policy relevant. Rock does his research by pointing out that black hair is a $9 billion per year industry. Who gets this money? The movie digs deep to reveal a form of domestic exploitation as very few black-owned hair care companies are still in existence. Though many of the faces you see providing salon services are black, by far most manufactures and salon/retail store owners are white and Asian. These are the same owners that Rock interviews and hears them unapologetically state that consumers want smooth, “natural looking” hair; not coarse, curly hair from Africa. My question is, “where did they get this definition of ‘natural looking’”? Women, black and white alike, would agree that it takes more work than you think to get straight, trend-conforming hair.
Rock also enlightens us in Good Hair by candidly addressing the mysterious realm of hair care for black and multi-ethnic women. For those of you who have not had the pleasure of watching the “makeover” episode of America’s Next Top Model, Rock welcomes you to the wonderful world of weaves, extensions, the plethora of hair styling products, and most importantly, the relaxer (aka “creamy crack”). Through the testimonies of style icon, Nia Long; political leader and activist, Al Sharpton; and multifaceted entertainer, Raven Symone; we learn how absurdly expensive and addictive (literally) hair care can be, the danger associated with putting your body in contact with Sodium hydroxide or Ammonium thioglycolate (the chemicals found in relaxers), and the pressure that even 3-years olds face to alter their appearance for the sake of having “good hair.”
Now we know. Chances are every African or African-American woman you see on TV and in the movies has endured the burn of a chemical relaxer or multiple hours in a chair to sew in fake hair. “Why don’t they just sport their hair in its natural state?” you ask. Even the panel of black, female high school seniors interviewed in the film disclosed that they feel natural black hair or dreadlocks are a huge disadvantage when interviewing for a job or interacting with majority society.
So if I can’t grow it and must buy it, where does this “good hair” come from? If it is not synthetic or from the mane of a horse (yes, many weaves are) then chances are it is from India. Countless Indians make pilgrimages to temples every year and sacrifice their locks in return for blessings or to give thanks for recent fortune. Shaving their hair off is meant to be a symbol of rejecting vanity. It seems pretty ironic then that most of this hair is then sold to make wigs and weaves that cost upwards of $1,000 in the US.
So in conclusion, Good Hair is worth seeing regardless of your gender or grooming habits. And the next time you wonder why Condoleezza Rice doesn’t care enough about her appearance to work with Beyonce’s or Oprah’s stylist, realize that the answer is simple: she has better things to spend money on than a $1,000+ wig.
Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down
by Marilinda Garcia, Culture Columnist on December 17, 2009 in Culture, Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down
A Guide to Grumblings and Gratifications at HKS
Email submissions to: marilinda_garcia@hks10.harvard.edu. Contributors will remain anonymous.
Thumbs Up:
To Activities VP Angela Boyd for pulling off two fantastic and memorable HKS events without a hitch. Can’t wait for the Winter Formal!
To the winter renovation plans for the HKS library. It will be great to have more group and individual study space and seating, not to mention power outlets. Here’s to hoping for an increased number of staplers.
To raising resources and awareness for various male cancers.
Thumbs Down:
To the somewhat uninspired and sometimes bewildering Sodexho soup selections. What, exactly, should I expect “Hungarian Mushroom” to taste like?
To the people whom the librarians allege have stolen the staplers. Really, people?
To the hideous, and often very sketchy mustaches the men of HKS have been sporting this month.
Citizen Conversation With…Meghan O’Sullivan
by Matt Bieber, News Writer on December 7, 2009 in Citizen Conversation with..., Features, News
Photo: Taylor Chapman, Photographer, MPP\'11
Interview Conducted by Matt Bieber, News Writer, MPP’11
Meghan O’Sullivan is Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs. Previously, she was at the National Security Council as Special Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan from 2004-2007. She has cumulatively spent two years in Iraq, including working for the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003-2004 and helping negotiate the bilateral security agreement between Iraq and the United States in the fall of 2008. She also worked in Policy Planning at the State Department, where she was the senior advisor to the special envoy to the Irish Peace Process and her portfolio included Iran, Libya, Syria, and relations with the Muslim world. She is a member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.
In your view, can the decision to go to war in Iraq be justified using traditional just war theory, or did it represent an extension, augmentation, or violation of that theory?
The departure was in moving from preemptive war — which is broadly considered to be a legitimate and justifiable type of just war — to preventive war. That’s the controversial bit. Post–9/11, senior U.S. officials believed they had a new set of security threats. And we did, in many respects.
After 9/11, people in charge pulled back and said, “We have to re-look at all of our threats in a new light.” Low-level threats in a pre-9/11 world were no longer considered to be low-level. Risk that was acceptable pre-9/11 was no longer considered acceptable post-9/11. This change encouraged the administration to conflate the concepts of preventive war and preemptive war. They’re not the same thing. But the relevant question was now “Is there anything about this new international security environment that actually makes the urgency of a preventive war akin to that of a preemptive war?” I think that’s the debate, which will probably go on for a long period of time.
Do you have a personal view about that?
I understand where policy makers’ heads were at the time. They believed, based on intelligence that was later proved to be wrong, that they were facing a threat in Iraq with some urgency. One of the questions was how to evaluate the urgency in the new security environment where you no longer could expect to identify all your threats as clearly as armies amassing at a border. President Bush described this challenge to me personally in some detail because he wanted me to understand how he was looking at the world in light of his responsibilities. In this 9/11 world, where his primary responsibility continued to be one to protect the American people, he saw it as his responsibility to counter threats before they materialized.
So, in some fashion, you can understand the logic here when your threats are no longer discernable in the sense they used to be. But in practice, the concept is extremely unwieldy. If you extend the logic, it really becomes very expansive….Think about what it might mean for how the situation with Iran is addressed in the next year or eighteen months or whatever the window is. If the United States or some other country were to take military action, to what extent is a preventive action going to be considered to be a justified action?
My sense is that many of the people who voted for President Obama perceived their vote as, in part, an effort to roll back aspects of the Bush Administration. I’m wondering whether for policymakers in the White House, policies are likely to have more staying power than the public may understand. We’ve seen that borne out in some notable examples - Obama retaining Bush-era policies surrounding detention for suspects and so forth. With all this in mind, what do you think of as the policy precedents and ramifications of Bush’s decision to wage a preventive war?
The first part of your question is true: particularly in foreign policy, there is almost certainly likely to be more continuity in policy between administrations than some people outside of government understand. This is not specific to the Obama administration.
And that is because the reality is, once you get into the White House, whether you’re President Bush or President Obama, you’re mostly concerned with national challenges and you largely have the same national capabilities. You’re dealing with the same information, more or less. You may have slightly different sources or perspectives, but you’re getting similar information. And at the end of the day, the most important element of your job is the same – protecting the American people.
So, in a lot of ways, it wasn’t surprising to me to see in some cases once President Obama came into office and was confronted with certain situations, he made somewhat similar choices. The reality is that President Obama didn’t have many more options than President Bush had before him a day earlier. President Obama did have increased international credibility and good will, and the good feelings that came in with his election. This did create some new options. But in general, there are some realities having to do with the threats the United States faces. There are some realities about our capabilities which are distinct from individual presidents.
In terms of Iraq being a precedent used by others to wage a preventive war, it’s a great question and I really don’t know the right answer to it. My immediate reaction is the concept has been discredited by how things went in Iraq. Iraq discredited, to some extent, intervention. It has discredited, in some respect, the use of military force. It has certainly discredited the idea of a preventive war. So there are all kinds of – we could call them casualties – associated with the Iraq War and with the complications that unfolded as a result of it.
So, on the one hand, I think that subsequent administrations will be loath to use Iraq as any kind of precedent. But really, in answering your question, we need to consider what if another administration is faced with the same perceived situation…. Incidentally, there are many things that are reasonable to criticize the Bush administration for regarding Iraq, but one of them which is not valid, is this notion that the administration did not really believe that Saddam had WMD. Senior officials and most others did think Saddam had WMD. The debate at the time wasn’t really about questioning the intelligence and whether or not Saddam had WMD – the debate was about what was the right response to this threat.
So what if President Obama or some subsequent president found himself or herself in a situation where he had some degree of certainty that there was a threat that was perceived in similar fashion? I think when you make the question more specific, it’s harder to answer that no president will ever wage a preventive war again. You know, I wouldn’t put my money on that.
Let’s switch our area focus for a moment. There’s a famous Henry Kissinger quote that goes, “High office teaches decision making, not substance. It consumes intellectual capital; it does not create it. Most high officials leave office with the perceptions and insights with which they entered; they learn how to make decisions but not what decisions to make.” Can you describe the intellectual environment in the White House during your time there? Did you feel like there was space for reasonably paced intellectual discourse? Or were things too fast for that?
You don’t want to say, “There’s no time for intellectual discourse.” But the reality is that true intellectual discourse is rare in policymaking. It is not impossible, and I can give you examples of where it happened. But often, you are reacting to a crisis and you are not in a position to be reading books and contemplating theories. Occasionally, you are able to look out and say, “I’ve got a strategic vision,” or “This is something that’s coming down the road, and therefore, we need to mobilize people. We need to marshal resources that have other immediate applications for this issue down the road because the world is changing – threat, opportunity, whatever it is.” That can be a more intellectual endeavor in some respects.
It also depends where you are in government. I started government in a place called Policy Planning, which is basically like a think-tank for the secretary of state and the State Department. That was an environment in which my colleagues and I had much more scope to think intellectually, because in that environment, we, in general, were not operational, meaning that we didn’t have any responsibilities for executing policy. Our job in Policy Planning was to think of good ideas, to try to critique our own government’s policies, and to propose creative solutions to things. And it was a fabulous job and it was a great introduction to government. I came from Oxford, then I went to a think tank, and then I went to this part of government – it was a perfect slow immersion into the realities of government and policymaking.
That sort of work is very different than being in the field. I spent a total of two years in Baghdad, and no day in Baghdad went nearly the way I expected it to. In the field, especially in place like Baghdad, you’re trying to help build something that’s very long-term, but you’re buffeted by daily, hourly, and sometimes, by-the-minute forces. So it’s a constant challenge to balance the immediate and the strategic.
I actually am a huge subscriber to Kissinger’s sentiments. The longer you’re in government, especially depending on what kind of job you’re in, the harder you have to work to maintain your ability to look at ideas afresh when they come to you. People who have been in government a long time can have a tendency to quickly say, ”We’ve tried that. We’ve done that. This didn’t work.” I worked hard not to do this. Instead, I tried to keep an open mind to the idea that just because something didn’t work in 2005, doesn’t mean it’s not going to work in 2007. The context may have changed. You have to work hard to really be able to digest ideas over and over again to really appreciate the nuances and complexities of things.
How does it feel to come out of such an intense and highly bonded work environment? Does it make it difficult to get used to the notion that you’ve relinquished power and that it’s in someone else’s hands now?
No one is in a high government job forever, and you go into one of those jobs knowing that it is a privilege to serve in that job, and that there will come a time when you’re not in that job and that you should have respect for person who does that job subsequent to you.
It’s nice to hear that, particularly given the way the media covers Washington — you can easily get the impression that participants at that level think of the opposition party as the enemy and root for them to fail.
It is Washington and there is some of that. But in the executive branch, there is probably less of that on both sides than people think. We’re talking about people at a very senior level in the executive branch. Once you get one of those positions, you don’t wake up every morning saying, “I’m a Republican” or “I’m a Democrat.” If you’re somebody who’s working on the policy side and you’re working foreign policy, your morning thought is about the American interest. It’s not a partisan thought.
I know some people find it very hard to believe that in the Bush White House people weren’t sitting around and talking about how to hand a blow to the Democratic Party. I mean, maybe they were, but certainly not in my office on Iraq and Afghanistan. We were talking about how to shift the momentum, how to correct the flaws, how to garner more resources to help America, our coalition and Iraqi partners succeed in Iraq.
You mentioned 18-hour days. I read an excerpt of a study recently on high-level British officials; the study estimated that the pace at which senior government officials work is so damaging to the body that it can be the equivalent of working with a blood alcohol level of 0.1. Two questions: Did you have the strength and endurance to deal with the incredibly complicated and nuanced problems that were on your desks? And if that capacity was diminished by sleep deprivation or overwork, did you have strategies to deal with those challenges?
When I went into government, I saw a few colleagues who’d been in government a long time under very stressful conditions, and they had burned out but were still in their jobs. I remember saying to myself, “I’m going to leave before I burn out.” And every year, I checked in with myself and asked, “How close am I to that level?” It’s a part of the reason why I left in 2007 and not in 2009. I wanted to feel that I had done the best job that I good do on both my first day and my last day.
When one of my old bosses, Bob Blackwill, talks about things he looks for in a person he’s looking to hire, he always mentions physical stamina. It sounds like not really an important thing for a policy person, but really, the ability to work those hours for that length of time without being demoralized, disheartened, or losing your judgment is something that requires physical stamina. Perhaps even more importantly, it requires a certain psychological perspective and resilience. There are lots of tactical defeats in foreign policy. You can’t be demoralized every time something doesn’t go the right way.
During my first stint in Iraq – from early 2003 to mid-2004 – I, and all my colleagues, worked seven days a week, easily eighteen hours a day, sometimes twenty hours a day. I came back, I went directly to the White House – I had a few days off in between. Then I started to work a similar schedule again, but soon I realized this is not actually sustainable and I had to find pockets in the week, however small, to rejuvenate. For me it was a long Sunday afternoon run….I don’t think it requires having ten consecutive nights of twelve hours of sleep, but you need some point to recalibrate, and I think everybody finds it in a different way. The people who don’t find it, I think, cannot last nearly as long.
Sports Rivalries 101
by Chris Arlene, Sports Editor on December 7, 2009 in Sports
Courtesy of Christopher Arlene, MPP\'10
Last Saturday, Harvard and Yale met for the 126th edition of “The Game,” college football’s oldest rivalry. For most of us, the trip to New Haven was just an excuse to tailgate, but the rivalry between these two schools deserves respect. It’s the type of rivalry that sports are built on: the names and faces change, but the mutual institutional dislike only intensifies over the generations.
So it seems only right that I write a column about the best American sports rivalries. There are limitations, however, to doing this that I need to be up front about. First, rivalries play a much bigger part in college sports, but there are only so many college rivalries that transcend their respective fan bases and are generally “can’t miss” type of games.
Second, it’s almost impossible for professional teams to have long-term rivals. For many years, the L.A. Lakers and Boston Celtics was an unmatched rivalry full of future Hall of Fame players, but that rivalry laid dormant for more than a decade while the Celtics stunk and before Kobe and Shaq resurrected the Lakers. And third, I can’t comment on rivalries I haven’t witnessed, so some classic rivalries like Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier or Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain don’t show up. So with these principles in mind, here is my list of the best five rivalries in sports:
1. Duke vs. North Carolina
There never has, and there never will be, a better rivalry than this classic matchup between two schools that are only about 10 miles apart. UNC is second all time in wins. Duke is fourth. UNC has 18 Final Four appearances and 5 National Championships. Duke has 14 trips to the Final Four and 3 titles of their own. UNC has Michael Jordan, James Worthy, and Tyler Hansbrough. Duke has Christian Laettner, Grant Hill, and Elton Brand. This rivalry has unmatched history, intense fans, and a compelling public vs. private university undertone. If you are only going to watch one college basketball game this year, make sure it is one of their two annual slugfests.
2. Ohio State vs. Michigan
College football is full of great rivalries (Oklahoma vs. Texas, Miami vs. Florida State, USC vs. Notre Dame), but nothing tops this classic Big Ten battle. The matchup includes two of the top college football programs ever, with a combined 18 national championships, 10 Heisman Trophy winners, and 75 Big 10 Conference championships. Most years, the winner of this game wins the Big 10, and it often has national implications. After 106 meetings, this game is still very old school, played at noon the Saturday before Thanksgiving. Throw in its “origins” of the 1830s border war between these two states over which would claim the town of Toledo, and this rivalry is clearly one of the best.
3. Rafael Marquez vs. Israel Vazquez
OK, you’ve never heard of these guys, and I hadn’t until a few years ago. I can’t pretend to be a huge boxing fan, but the three fights these two warriors had in 2007 and 2008 were straight out of a movie. Though they fight in the bantamweight class (122 lbs), these two Mexican fighters fought with more heart and courage than any other fighters I have ever seen. Marquez won the first fight after injuring Vazquez’s nose, Vazquez won the second fight with a 6th round knock out, and Vazquez won the third fight with a split decision. So often in boxing, fights don’t live up to the hype, but these are three of the best fights you will ever see.
4. Army vs. Navy
A few years ago I had a part time job as a food runner at Lincoln Financial Field where the Eagles played and was hosting the annual Army-Navy game. I was walking in the tunnel underneath the stands to make a drop when my path was blocked as the Brigade of Midshipmen was marching onto the field. I looked over and saw two Army Cadets in full uniform stuck at the gate as well. Over the next ten minutes, more Midshipmen than I can remember broke ranks, ran over to the Cadets, and blasted them with language and gestures that their mothers would not be proud of! The Cadets? They stood stoically through the whole thing. All parties involved earned my respect and proved why this is a great rivalry.
5. Yankees vs. Red Sox
I am expecting some flak for this, but baseball’s best rivalry does not deserve to be any higher. This low ranking has nothing to do with my dislike for either town’s teams, but instead a simple, objective observation: the Yankees have dominated this series. The numbers don’t lie: the Yankees have 27 World Series titles compared to 7 for the Red Sox, they’ve won 40 League Championships to the Sox’s 12, and 20 players have entered the Hall of Fame as Yankees while only 12 have gone in as Red Sox. Add in the Yankees advantage in celebrity fans (Spike Lee, Billy Crystal, Jay-Z vs. Ben Affleck and Jimmy Fallon) and it’s clear that in the last decade this rivalry has truly become great.
HKS Hierarchy and the (Un)answered Question
by Zachary Kushel, Opinions Asst. Editor on December 6, 2009 in Opinion
As Kennedy School students, we all should recognize how fortunate we are to study at such an intellectually rich institution. But respect and appreciation for our school must never yield to acquiescence, complacency, and blind faith. While it is wise to take counsel from our professors and at times defer to the administration, we also have a duty to remain vigilant and actively work to ensure our experience here meets our needs. After all, we are paying customers, and the product being sold is incredibly expensive.
The HKS curriculum does not set out to produce a chorus of ‘yes-men.’ Instead, this school seeks to churn out future leaders critical of power and the status quo and encourages its students to never take ‘no’ for an answer. In this spirit, it is essential to now pose an important question in this forum: how much of a priority is the student experience to this administration?
One would hope that the answer would be ‘pretty damn high.’ Yet, it is doubtful that this would be the response offered by many of you. Instead, it is likely one would hear complaints, many of them detailed in these pages over the course of this semester, about a lack of attention paid to student concerns.
Early praise should be given to KSSG President David Baumwoll MPP ’10 and his team, who have identified many of the issues that could be improved upon and have been working extremely hard to better student life at HKS. While the administration has largely been responsive to his efforts and displayed a willingness to work with and seek input from students, the length of Baumwoll’s recent Accountability Report distributed to the student body shows just how far the pendulum has swung away from students in recent years.
Second-year students, like those in previous classes, enjoyed ‘shopping days’ for courses so much that the administration decided to do away with them without formally consulting KSSG. They were replaced with scheduled sessions of ‘course previews’ that were so lambasted by the student body that they will be continued for the spring term.
The administration’s solution to the problem of already deficient student space was to take away even more room for students to make office space for an academic center. While the reasons and timeline that went into this decision have still have not been adequately explained, one can only hope that a donor was not accommodated at the expense of 1,000 students.
While the school has not gone paperless, the administration decided to eliminate mailboxes this academic year, managing to upset both green activists and radical students who might have the arcane desire to receive flyers, graded exams, newspapers, or course materials at some point during the semester.
This year, MPP1s were welcomed to the school with the logical decision to schedule an MPP1 core, required course to meet during the coveted 11:40 – 1:00 time slot on Tuesdays and Thursdays. This has effectively guaranteed a conflict with an entire category of events at the school.
Any MPP1 that came to the Kennedy School to focus on press, politics, and public policy or business and government, seeking to learn from some great visiting practitioners on these topics, has been unable to do so – the Shorenstein Center & Mossavar-Rahmani Center brown-bag lunches conflict with this core requirement. Clearly, had the student experience been a factor in scheduling, a core course would not have been put in that slot. One can only hope that the scheduling desires of faculty did not take precedence over the interests of students in this respect.
Now, activists in the MPP1 class, in coordination with the MPP1 class representatives, are lobbying the administration given their unilateral decision to schedule exemption exams for the spring core courses during the last week of this term’s classes – as if students were not busy enough with class work, other core requirements, and a host of extracurricular activities during that same period.
The exams are designed, the administration concedes, so that it is simply not possible to pass without sufficient preparation. Students are therefore left with two unappealing options: retool their Thanksgiving holiday break to prepare for up to three exams at the expense of time spent with one’s family, or spend the next semester taking courses already mastered in their undergraduate and professional careers.
Adhering to the current plan provides no tangible benefit for students; one can only hope that, by the time of this piece’s publication, greater sense has prevailed and the exams are moved back to January, when they were offered last year. But at a school where the registrar sends threatening emails to students promising to drop them from courses without a response from the student in sixty minutes, this author remains skeptical.
What is needed is for each and every one of you to get involved – here. Before saving the world, we need to start by rescuing the student experience at this institution by using our own voice at our own school. The KSSG could use you to serve in one of many advisory capacities that the administration has opened up to us.
If we do not take advantage of such offers, the administration will stop asking for our opinion. Where they have yet to ask for our opinion, we need to begin to offer it in an organized, intelligent manner. Only then will any of us have legitimacy walking out of here with a diploma and being able to truly make the case that, while here, we acted as constructive agents of change.
The Republican Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Ray Martin and Josh Archambault on December 6, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” This excerpt from President Kennedy’s Inaugural Address sums up U.S. foreign policy from World War II until January, 2009. The foreign policy of being willing and able to support friends and oppose foes to assure the survival of liberty had served the U.S. very well.
The policy had directly led to ending the Cold War without a shot being fired and to the growth of one of the only democracies in the Middle East, Israel. Despite these great accomplishments, this foreign policy doctrine was inexplicably dropped by the Obama administration; it has been replaced by the Obama doctrine.
The Obama doctrine has several parts to it. Blame the U.S. for many of the world’s problems. Engage in discourse with mad men like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Abandon our allies in Eastern Europe. Assign all blame for the conflict in the Middle East to Israel. Bow and subject oneself to the rulers of other nations. And lastly, ignore other countries’ human rights violations when it’s convenient for Barack Obama.
At a time when the U.S. needs to stand tall in Asia and send a message to China that it will protect democracy and liberty in places like Japan and Taiwan, President Obama is too afraid to recognize the grave human rights violations that have been committed in Tibet by the Chinese. What sort of message does this send to the Chinese people? What sort of message does this send to Kim Jong-il?
The Obama doctrine on human rights was first revealed during a tour of East Asia in February by Secretary Clinton who, when responding to a question pertaining the leveraging of human rights violations as a bargaining chip with the Chinese, laid out the Administration’s position. Clinton stated, “Our pressing on those issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.”
Scholars from both the right and left considered this public pronouncement jarring for two reasons. Firstly, was she implying that the Chinese people’s liberty and the Chinese government’s human rights violations were not a major priority for President Obama? Simply put, Secretary Clinton was setting up a false dichotomy between the two issues.
To be fair, since the opening of China under President Nixon, past administrations have also paid insufficient attention to human rights when negotiating with China. However, with that being said, for most students of American foreign policy, Clinton’s standpoint was quite disconcerting.
Secondly, a foreign policy in which the U.S. does not strongly pressure a tyrannical regime on human rights is fundamentally different from one that doesn’t raise the issue at all. Some have termed this as a “unilateral moral disarmament.” As much as the Administration may hope otherwise, given the latest violence in Xinjiang and ongoing strain in Tibet, it appears that human rights will remain near the top of the global consciousness in the near future for China.
It would therefore makes sense for the President to articulate to Chinese leaders that America will maintain a robust commitment to freedom worldwide and not lose moral ground by backing down. President Obama and his advisors must ask themselves if trying to be the anti-Bush President is worth the reversal of 50 years of precedent first articulated by JFK. The U.S. should not risk losing its standing in the minds of oppressed people across the globe.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on December 6, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
China is a complex country with a history, a people, and an economy starkly different from the United States. China views this as its time to establish itself as a world leader. For these reasons, the United States has an interesting and difficult task ahead. The United States must figure out approaches which will help shape China’s growth. The United States does not intend to, indeed cannot, dictate how China develops, but resolution of contentious issues such as international security, global economic growth, and human rights are integral parts of our diplomatic relationship with China.
China wants to forge its own path, and part of its path is a different approach toward government. Politically, the Chinese have been very successful with their authoritarian regime and have no reason to reform their government. The Chinese do not want to emulate the United States’ rise to international prominence. They see no reason to copy the American democratic system, when their own system has been so successful.
This places the United States in a weak negotiating position. The United States feels strongly about the moral grounds of democracy, competition, and dissent. Our democracy may not always be very pretty, but we are immensely proud of our system. The Chinese have no practical reasons to adopt a tumultuous democratic system such as our own, when they have seen such developmental success with their own form of government.
For the sake of the Chinese people, we should continue to pressure China to open up their system of government. The Chinese need not adopt a system identical to the Americans, but we should strongly push for a system that allows political competition, free discussion of the media, and dissent by the people. The Chinese people, who comprise one-sixth of the world population, deserve an open and democratic government that reflects the diverse views of the citizens.
China is also a major force in international politics and is helping shape the development of nations all over the globe. Countries, looking to China rather than the Western powers, see the success of China’s authoritarian government. The spread of anti-democratic governments is a threat to everyone, including those under the rule of authoritarian regimes as well as the rest of the world community. We must negotiate forcefully with China on the issue of human rights in order to prevent the spread of authoritarian governments to the developing world. We must do this to protect the people in the developing world, ourselves, and the rest of the international community. We cannot let the 21st century be defined as the era of the spread of authoritarian rule and undemocratic governments.
Addressing the human rights situation in China is a top priority for the United States, but we are also trying to balance environmental safety, trade partnerships, monetary stability, and military dominance in our relationship with China. The U.S. relationship with China is not a simple discussion only about human rights; rather, it is a multifaceted discussion over the future of our countries and the direction in which we will lead the international community. An overemphasis on one issue may lead China to restrict the scope and extent of its diplomatic relationship with the United States. The United States must take a strong but nuanced position to pressure China into opening up their form of government.
The United States must consider several factors before determining its position on human rights. This does not imply that the United States should back down on the issue of human rights. We cannot let any of our short-term interests drown out our opposition to human rights violations perpetuated by the Chinese. Human rights concerns must remain a top priority and a major part of our diplomatic efforts towards China. The issue of human rights is just too important to the lives of the Chinese people as well as to the safety of the world community to ignore.
