[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8770-8771]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        JOSEPH MUSSOMELI ARTICLE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, Joseph Mussomeli spent 35 years 
in the U.S. Foreign Service, including serving as our Ambassador to 
both Cambodia and Slovenia.
  Ambassador Mussomeli wrote a column for The Washington Post, which, 
frankly, I am very surprised that the paper published in its June 10 
edition. I would like to quote at length from this very important 
column.
  Ambassador Mussomeli wrote as follows:

       Most of my former colleagues at the State Department will 
     be appalled by the assertion, but much of the media-fed angst 
     about Donald Trump's dearth of foreign policy expertise is 
     contrived.
       Our cadre of neoconservative foreign policy experts, 
     unhumbled after marching us into a reckless war in Iraq and a 
     poorly conceived one in Afghanistan, who applauded as we 
     bombed Libya and bitterly resent our having failed to bomb 
     Syria, are frightened.
       Wisely, they often focus on comments that Trump has made on 
     issues that are of less genuine interest to them. But what 
     really troubles them is his generally level-headed and 
     unmessianic attitude untoward foreign affairs. Trump has no 
     desire to make the rest of the world in our image.
       The neocons bemoan Trump's rejection of a global role for 
     the United States, but Trump has no intent to withdraw the 
     United States from the world stage. He only rejects the 
     wanton use of our young men and women on foreign adventures 
     of questionable value.
       The neocons have two clear foreign policy objectives, and 
     Trump may grant them neither. For many of them, their deepest 
     yearning is an air campaign against Iran.
       Trump doesn't like the Iran nuclear agreement, but his 
     instinct is to make a better deal rather than attacking, 
     while Hillary Clinton has a strong record of supporting the 
     prodigal misuse of military force.
       Clinton is just another neocon, though wrapped in sheep's 
     clothing. But clothing

[[Page 8771]]

     makes a huge difference. Most Americans don't want the United 
     States to be disrespected, and they want a muscular military 
     that doesn't take any nonsense--but they also don't want 
     military adventurism.
       Trump succeeds in having it both ways: he reassures that 
     the United States will be respected and also that we will not 
     employ our troops as cannon fodder on distant battlefields.
       Underneath all the tirades against illegal immigration and 
     the need to be tough with our adversaries, there is an inward 
     focus. There is a sense that America--in order to be great 
     again--needs to relinquish its role as global cop and tend 
     first to its needs at home.
       By sounding caustic, Trump is able to appear more 
     militaristic and tougher than the far more reckless Clinton. 
     Calculating and cavalier, Clinton would agree with her old 
     pal, then-U.N. Ambassador Madeline Albright, ``What's the 
     point of having this superb military . . . if we can't use 
     it?'' The stern rebuke to that question later provided by 
     General Colin Powell that the military is not a toy is lost 
     on the neocons and Clinton. Among Clinton's weaknesses, her 
     fear of appearing weak may be her most damning.
       The second neocon priority? A new cold war with Russia. 
     Vladimir Putin, unlikable and increasingly uncooperative and 
     antagonistic, admittedly makes this objective more within 
     reach, but Trump might avoid it as well. Clinton repeats over 
     and over that Russia only understands a tough and determined 
     opponent, while Trump may have a more sophisticated and 
     mature approach.
       Far less petulant than most of the former Republican 
     candidates, Trump says he would actually talk with Putin. 
     That takes real courage, given the general view among 
     Republican elites.
       Contrast that with Clinton, who thinks we should not be 
     talking too much to Putin and that we ought to further expand 
     NATO because, in her view, Russia would be an even greater 
     threat had it not been for NATO expansion. Of course, to 
     admit that NATO expansion triggered the current crisis would 
     be admitting that her husband is largely responsible for it.
       Trump seems to understand George Kennan's warning that NATO 
     expansion would directly lead to a more paranoid and 
     aggressive Russia.
       Trump, for all his bizarre commentary on domestic issues, 
     better grasps the subtleties of global politics and the 
     dangers of thinking ourselves infallible and invincible.
       It is quite an irony: The ostensibly more reckless, 
     infantile, inexperienced and bombastic candidate may actually 
     be more mature, level-headed, and reasonable on foreign 
     policy than his critics who, against all the good advice our 
     parents gave us as children, pout and refuse to talk to those 
     they don't like, escalate arguments to violence when they are 
     upset, lack any remorse for the harm caused by their past 
     opinions and actions, and fail repeatedly to see that there 
     might be two sides to any disagreement.

  Mr. Speaker, I think these words of Ambassador Mussomeli should be 
considered very seriously by all of our Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to refrain 
from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees for the 
Office of President.

                          ____________________