Confirmation Hearing: Potus 2036 for SoEA/SecState

[Cranberry]

While I am in no way a fan of the current Midwest Governor Mr. LeBron, out of region lobbying against any political official is in my point of view not really at place in a democratic process. However, since I see this is another case, I am willing to let persuade me to oversee this, if the nominee is willing to commit himself from now on transparent and democratic processes.

That aside, far more important for me is here the political point of view. Folks who know me know that I am an non-interventionist, that believes diplomacy and non-violent, non-troop based ways to solve a conflict, and if there is need of interventions, this in most cases just after an UN resolution and in cooperation with our allies abroad. This nominee however seems not to be on many similar foreign policy points with me. Furthermore, I note quite an aggressive rhetoric with the nominee, who states his wish to "train the Lebanese government how to run their country" and "neutralize the thread Hezbollah [a legitimate, democratic, party; democratically and justly elected by many people in Lebanon!] poses".

[Cranberry]

Senator Cranberry, it is my duty as SoEA to execute the will and goals of the President's foreign policy. The President is not a non-interventionist type and he ran on that. His campaign pledged to support Atlasia's role in the world. My job is to implement the goals of the president.

I can agree with that, it seems the people of Atlasia want no non-interventionist "type" in the office. Okay with that. Still, there is a slight difference between interventionism and blatant aggressive rhetoric. You will be Atlasia's chief diplomat, the one person that represents our country on the diplomatic parquet. This person should in my humble opinion have a slightly different rhetoric, starting from talking about "types" to saying "to show the Lebanese government how to run their country".

[Cranberry]

Senator Cranberry, it is my duty as SoEA to execute the will and goals of the President's foreign policy. The President is not a non-interventionist type and he ran on that. His campaign pledged to support Atlasia's role in the world. My job is to implement the goals of the president.

I can agree with that, it seems the people of Atlasia want no non-interventionist "type" in the office. Okay with that. Still, there is a slight difference between interventionism and blatant aggressive rhetoric. You will be Atlasia's chief diplomat, the one person that represents our country on the diplomatic parquet. This person should in my humble opinion have a slightly different rhetoric, starting from talking about "types" to saying "to show the Lebanese government how to run their country".

There are basic human capital issues with the majority of governments in the Middle East. Plenty of passionate people who want to improve their country, but are not trained or informed in how to do so. I'd hardly say that's aggressive.

On the Darwin Campaign, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Once said the concept of the "outside agitator" no longer exists. Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere. The policies of the Midwest government were unjust and I participated in a protest campaign. Without malicious intent or violation of the law.

So why capitalise this issue just on the Lebanese government, which is by the standards of their environment, very akin to what we call "Western Democracy". I would guess just humanitarian aid, for example in form of education aid, would be a more straightforward solution to this problem you are taking of, and which I do not deny surely exists, also in Lebanon. But then again, this does not seem like "showing them how to run their country" to me, which in turn sounds pretty aggressive to me.

[Cranberry]

Senator Cranberry, it is my duty as SoEA to execute the will and goals of the President's foreign policy. The President is not a non-interventionist type and he ran on that. His campaign pledged to support Atlasia's role in the world. My job is to implement the goals of the president.

I can agree with that, it seems the people of Atlasia want no non-interventionist "type" in the office. Okay with that. Still, there is a slight difference between interventionism and blatant aggressive rhetoric. You will be Atlasia's chief diplomat, the one person that represents our country on the diplomatic parquet. This person should in my humble opinion have a slightly different rhetoric, starting from talking about "types" to saying "to show the Lebanese government how to run their country".

There are basic human capital issues with the majority of governments in the Middle East. Plenty of passionate people who want to improve their country, but are not trained or informed in how to do so. I'd hardly say that's aggressive.

On the Darwin Campaign, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Once said the concept of the "outside agitator" no longer exists. Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere. The policies of the Midwest government were unjust and I participated in a protest campaign. Without malicious intent or violation of the law.

So why capitalise this issue just on the Lebanese government, which is by the standards of their environment, very akin to what we call "Western Democracy". I would guess just humanitarian aid, for example in form of education aid, would be a more straightforward solution to this problem you are taking of, and which I do not deny surely exists, also in Lebanon. But then again, this does not seem like "showing them how to run their country" to me, which in turn sounds pretty aggressive to me.

Lebanon has a very specific set of issues, such as border security in regards to the Hezbollah issue. UNIFIL is the mechanism through which we launched training and involvement in mitigating the risk to the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement. We are teaching them to address their issues. That's clear in the initiative.

I don't know, but your reason why we would need to intervene in any way particularly in Lebanon has now differed in every one of your posts - first it was because our President is interventionist, then because , quoting, "there are basic human capital issues with the majority of governments in the Middle East" (I still don't understand why in particular in response to Lebanon and not Saudi Arabia or Qatar or whatever) to a set of issue such as border security, the whole Hezbollah issue, which is if I am correctly already dealt well with by UNIFIL, of which I don't know if Atlasia is part (?). So, why bring this whole issue up in the first place? I see no reasoning for it, I'm sorry.


Also, I would very much like to see the responses to Senator Deus as well.

[Cranberry]

Senator Cranberry, it is my duty as SoEA to execute the will and goals of the President's foreign policy. The President is not a non-interventionist type and he ran on that. His campaign pledged to support Atlasia's role in the world. My job is to implement the goals of the president.

I can agree with that, it seems the people of Atlasia want no non-interventionist "type" in the office. Okay with that. Still, there is a slight difference between interventionism and blatant aggressive rhetoric. You will be Atlasia's chief diplomat, the one person that represents our country on the diplomatic parquet. This person should in my humble opinion have a slightly different rhetoric, starting from talking about "types" to saying "to show the Lebanese government how to run their country".

There are basic human capital issues with the majority of governments in the Middle East. Plenty of passionate people who want to improve their country, but are not trained or informed in how to do so. I'd hardly say that's aggressive.

On the Darwin Campaign, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Once said the concept of the "outside agitator" no longer exists. Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere. The policies of the Midwest government were unjust and I participated in a protest campaign. Without malicious intent or violation of the law.

So why capitalise this issue just on the Lebanese government, which is by the standards of their environment, very akin to what we call "Western Democracy". I would guess just humanitarian aid, for example in form of education aid, would be a more straightforward solution to this problem you are taking of, and which I do not deny surely exists, also in Lebanon. But then again, this does not seem like "showing them how to run their country" to me, which in turn sounds pretty aggressive to me.

Lebanon has a very specific set of issues, such as border security in regards to the Hezbollah issue. UNIFIL is the mechanism through which we launched training and involvement in mitigating the risk to the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement. We are teaching them to address their issues. That's clear in the initiative.

I don't know, but your reason why we would need to intervene in any way particularly in Lebanon has now differed in every one of your posts - first it was because our President is interventionist, then because , quoting, "there are basic human capital issues with the majority of governments in the Middle East" (I still don't understand why in particular in response to Lebanon and not Saudi Arabia or Qatar or whatever) to a set of issue such as border security, the whole Hezbollah issue, which is if I am correctly already dealt well with by UNIFIL, of which I don't know if Atlasia is part (?). So, why bring this whole issue up in the first place? I see no reasoning for it, I'm sorry.


Also, I would very much like to see the responses to Senator Deus as well.

It is difficult to find any action ever taken in foreign policy that has one sole driving reason behind it. If  the question is more directly "Why Lebanon and not elsewhere?", then that can be explained differently.

I tend to believe in the concept of momentum in foreign affairs. One victory can lead to another victory. It is easier to create successes when you have other successes under your belt. Lebanon isn't an especially squeaky wheel, but it has issues that can be addressed and solved in the long term. Resolving the mission of UNIFIL will give us the wind in our sails needed to move to other regional issues.

I think the fundamental disconnect between us, Senator, is simple. I do not believe that the job of the Secretary of State should be to lurch from crisis to crisis, to keep foreign affairs well-managed enough to keep it off the news. I believe that the Department of State can lead positive, proactive efforts in the world. We do not require a crisis to act.

Fair enough, I thank you for your answers. I still see we have fundamental differences regarding the role Atlasia should be in the world, what role the SoEA/SecState should have; but you outlined your positions thoroughly.
I will think of my final decision, my points however have all been adressed. Thank you.

[Cranberry]

After thorough and long consideration, and an assurance from the nominee that he will not repeat what he did in the Mideast, I can state my decision. The nominee is fundamentally different from me politically speaking, yet he seems to represent this administration's policies. In any way, provided he will be active, he will certainly tackle this office in a good way. Be a good representative of our nation, Mr Keaton.

AYE