Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

'Our tax dollars pay your salary'

State Department

Bureaucrats, like those who work at the State Department, are earning their salaries, writes Varga.

Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Varga, author of “ Under Chad’s Spell,” was a Foreign Service office r, serving in Dubai, Damascus, Casablanca and Toronto

Two Americans were asking for a meeting with me. They had traveled from Alabama to Washington to lobby for more assistance to Lebanon, the country from which their fathers had fled to begin lives in the United States. I was the desk officer for Lebanon at the State Department. It was a fraught time with American hostages still being held.

The 1992 election had just happened, and Bill Clinton was the new president. I welcomed them into my tiny office and offered Arabic coffee that I brewed myself.

They told me about how their families had to reconfigure in America since Lebanon’s destructive civil war had forced their fathers to flee. They said they were born in America — and had U.S. passports — but still felt an obligation to try to assist their extended families back home in Tripoli and Beirut. I asked what they wanted from the U.S. government.


“We want Lebanon to be a higher priority,” Mustapha said.

“It seems like Israel gets all the focus. The Middle East has so many countries that struggle under anti-democratic regimes. We think the U.S. can do so much more,” explained Abderrahim.

I explained that my whole focus was the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Lebanon. I told them that I often worked long hours, even on weekends, when some new crisis developed.

“It’s good to hear that,” Mustapha said. “I’m sure the guy in this job under Bush wasn’t doing that.”

“I don’t have to remind you that our tax dollars pay your salary. We just want to know that that money is being well-managed in regard to Lebanon,” Abderrahim added. A little bit of sharper tone came with that warning.

I didn’t have the heart to tell them that as a career Foreign Service officer, I had been the desk officer under George H.W. Bush. I was continuing in the same job, even with a change in presidents. I assured them that we were doing all we could, mentioning that I had held a recent meeting with the staff of Sen. Jesse Helms. The senator had placed a hold on our ability to make available to the Lebanese army excess defense articles that the Pentagon no longer needed.

They left my office, seeming satisfied with what they had accomplished. But it left me with the feeling that so many Americans didn’t fully grasp how the career bureaucracy keeps the government operating, through every cycle of new occupants in the Oval Office.

In this year of so much polarizing discussion about how Donald Trump intends to reform the agencies of the executive branch, I think it’s important to underscore the value of what the MAGA folks malign as the “deep state.” Foreign Service officers work in embassies and consulates throughout the world. While ambassadors are often political appointees, most of the other officers are part of the career service, in place no matter which political party controls the White House or Congress. That’s a good thing.

We want continuity in our policies in determining our bilateral relationships with the nations of the world. We want institutional memory to be retained as to what has been previously agreed to in establishing these working relationships. If you have a wholesale change of these career officials, you risk having to reinvent the wheel all over again. What a waste that is.

During my first assignment as a Foreign Service officer in Dubai in 1985, I had to meet with a U.S. flag vessel’s crew in the Persian Gulf after it had been boarded and held by the Iranian Navy. I had to interview the crew about the way the Iranians had treated them. The Iran-Iraq war was keeping everyone nervous. Under a ticking clock, Washington wanted to know how serious the breach had been. Was any retaliatory action by U.S. forces warranted? Fortunately, that instance proved to be a mere skirmish in the battle for influence in the Middle East.

But as you consider these claims among politicians that bureaucrats are the devil that must be expunged, think of the career diplomats who work tirelessly in some of the most dangerous places in the world to ensure consistency in U.S. foreign policy. Yes, your tax dollars are paying their salaries. I assure you you’re getting a great return on your investment.


Read More

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democratic Party Suicide
a piece of paper cut out of the shape of a donkey
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Democratic Party Suicide

A recent New York Times article, "Moderate Democrats Prepare for 'War' Against an Ascendant Left," describes a disturbing perspective among mainstream, moderate, centrist Democrats. It is disturbing for many reasons.

First, there is the practical impact. If indeed mainstream Democrats attack socialist Democrats in a sustained, organized manner, there is only one possible result: the defeat of the Party in 2026 and the renewed vigor of Trump and his MAGA allies. Especially when combined with the all-out effort that AIPAC will mostly take to support Republican candidates running against Democratic candidates who are socialists. (See my article, "The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC.")

Keep ReadingShow less
An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less