But if you look closer at the leaks you will see frustration by foreign countries that the US should better understand the local situation. Like the one regarding Iran where the US diplomats were urged to "understand the history".

I have puzzled over this too though I meet business people rather than diplomats, but its the same story. I have been doing business in Asia and the Middle East for 20 years which requires a lot of travel. I have learned that when in Shanghai, Bangkok, Singapore, Phnom Penh, or anywhere where you want to understand the lie of the land and who is who to avoid Americans...unless you want to spend an evening listening to the American talk about himself, and gee how its not like this back home in a simplistic superior sort of way. As you say, the European, German, British, Scandinavian, tend to have a good feel for what's going on and you can have interesting discussions. My conclusion is Americans are brought up and educated into the American Exceptionalism perspective, so why would they be interested in any other culture or place. Combined with the US being big and diverse and vacation time being short the American can happily stay home and doesn't need to travel. Hence the American gives the rest of the world the impression of being ignorant and oafish, which of course they are in relative terms.

I understand Kucera's assessment and argument regarding greater transparency and materiality amongst the American diplomatic corps, but I question his conclusions.

Like the author, I am well aware that the US has many highly talented and knowledgeable individuals in the Foreign Service, and while we can castigate the American approach abroad as being walled-off and buried in bureaucracy, I'm not convinced that the situation is all that different from other diplomatic missions, apart from the scale of the enterprise.

Having lived and worked in many countries over the years, I am also not convinced that Americans as a whole are simply arrogant, uninformed, and disconnected when operating in foreign locales. In terms of diplomatic upbringing, Europeans undoubtedly benefit from numerous languages, close physical proximity to one another on the continent, and shared political / economic / defense organizations. But that is not to say that those same Europeans can't also be arrogant, uninformed, or disconnected as well, particularly when outside the comfort of Western Europe.

I've found that with any nationality going abroad, they tend to break down very quickly into one of two groups; those who wish to recreate their home countries culture, lifestyle, cuisine, language predominance, and so forth, by surrounding themselves with their own countrymen. The other group tends to immediately seek seclusion from their fellow citizens abroad, to learn about local customs, language, cuisine, social constructs, etc. For a journalist, it is far easier to find the first group, usually in the capital city, who openly congregate together, than the latter group, which tends to me made up of individuals who go off on their own, often to less travelled locations, in search of new experiences.

And what about American Exceptionalism? This is a debate that I have struggled with over the years, is America indeed exceptional, or is it simply a form of patriotic, perhaps even nationalistic self-aggrandizement? There are times when American Exceptionalism probably does get the US into trouble, through actions or perceptions which may be at odds with the global current, if one could call it that. However, there is also probably something to say about the history, make-up, character, and influence of America that is undeniably extraordinary. But, is that what so many Americans have found aggravating about WikiLeaks, in that it exposes our exceptionalism for little more than political wrangling and gamesmanship? I doubt it. While many Americans would like the US to be a ‘force for good’ in the world, there is a big difference between our desire, and our expectations. From what I can gather, the anger in America toward WikiLeaks is more related to the fact that there is a web-based organization, led by a foreigner (Assange), who believes that not only does it have the right to divulge American state secrets, but it has an obligation to do so. I believe that many Americans, who are patriotic by nature, take the actions of WikiLeaks as an affront to their country – simple as that.

The main point of Kucera’s argument however dealt with the fact that American diplomats and Foreign Service officials simply lie, instead of dispensing the dirty truth. Most informed observers of political, economic, and security issues in a given area will likely know the ‘ground truth’, with some variations based on that person’s interests and perspective. So, if a diplomat acts ‘diplomatic’, and glosses over some of the more salacious aspects of a situation, that seems primarily inconvenient for the journalist, looking for a great quote or title blurb. I would argue that the true motivation behind ‘diplomatic’ speak, especially for the US, is not that we want our populace or anyone else to remain woefully ignorant, but to preserve our working relationships abroad. The Saudis or the Chinese are already well aware of our criticisms and concerns, so how does it help to discuss that in public?

There was an interesting opinion piece in The Economist a few days ago, which described WikiLeaks as degenerating into gossip. The author wrote: “Diplomatic cables are something entirely different. It's part of the nature of human communication that one doesn't always say the same thing to every audience. There are perfectly good reasons why you don't always tell the same story to your boss as you do to your spouse. There are things Washington needs to tell Riyadh to explain what it's just told Jerusalem and things Washington needs to tell Jerusalem to explain what it's just told Riyadh, and these cables shouldn't be crossed. There's nothing wrong with this. It's inevitable. And it wouldn't make the world a better place if Washington were unable to say anything to Jerusalem without its being heard by Riyadh, any more than it would if you were unable to tell your spouse anything without its being heard by your boss”. [Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/wikileaks]

Unlike the Swiss, or even the Germans for that matter, I believe that the political, economic, and security obligations of the US are simply on a different scale in comparison, by orders of magnitude – thus requiring a different approach. While discussing issues more bluntly in public might feel good at the moment, by ‘telling it like it is’, the consequences and impact are far too great, and undermines the working relationship by which we hope to address our criticisms and concerns of other states. Moreover, anyone working in government or the military should understand that absolutely no statement can assumed to be private or ‘off the record’ – such qualifiers don’t exist in reality. In the end, I don’t believe that any of these issues are barriers to “talking about foreign policy like adults” as Kucera states, but are simply the rules and restrictions of the game we call diplomacy.

Wait, wait, wait!

Let me get this straight.

"U.S. diplomats aren't stupid after all" because they are at least as smart as you think you are?

I think you should have titled this "I am smart." It would have been more honest.

As smug and condescending as you sound - especially in the last two paragraphs - I actually thought you were European. Maybe you just have the American version of the disease, whose primary symptom is the delusion that your audience can never be American but always, always European.

Let me give you the perspective you're just too blind to see. The difference between what you report and what the diplomats write is just time and consequence. Your articles - as important as you think they are - only live for the duration of whatever medium they appear and - I could be wrong but - I don't think anybody bases foreign policy decisions on your analysis.

Mr. Kucera, of course, has extensive foreign policy credentials. He's served abroad in Pakistan, where he was wrestled into an armored car the minute he arrived at the airport, so he wouldn't be shot by insurgents. He's lived in a hooch in rural Afghanistan, working 7 days a week for a year, patiently trying to set up meetings with tribal chiefs. He's overseen prisons in Iraq, training guards, prosecutors and judges to minimize human-rights abuses. He's dealt with misconceptions of US power around the world, talking to student groups, facing down hostile crowds and answering tough questions. (In the local language, of course - he's fluent in everything from Serbian to Bahasa Indonesian. And, naturally, Kazakh.) He lives abroad, breathing air thick with coal dust, getting intestinal worms from the water, putting himself and his family at risk of infectious disease, evacuation, and violent attack, in order to do his job and serve his country.

And, of course, he's been an ambassador, so he knows perfectly well that his job is preserving the relationship with his host country, representing US interests, and pushing quietly for reforms behind the scenes. He also, because he's not a idiot or a chump, would never jeopardize his work or his mission by speaking frankly to an amoral journalist who ADMITS (!) he is specifically trying to twist the ambassador's words to create the most sensational story possible.

Oh wait! Kucera hasn't done these things? He's just a WRITER? And FREELANCE AT THAT?

Well, shoot. Forget it, then. Mr. Kucera, all you've proven with this story is that your ignorance of the real work of diplomacy and diplomats is matched only by your monumental arrogance. (The cables are credible because they "describe the world I know"!?!?!) Congratulations. You've just outed yourself as every bit as clueless and walled-in as you accuse us of being.

Frankly, Foreign Policy, I'm disappointed. I thought you were a serious magazine for policy practitioners, not a showplace for misinformed hacks. You've just lost my respect and my readership.

He hit on the real issue: fooling the American public into funding and believing in, all this foolishness. As long as the American public is willing to bankrupt themselves for their delusions, as Bin Laden so astutely perceived, it will continue. That doesn't mean at all that this mode is viable.

Are we to accept to ramblings of an author who actually believes that an Ambassador writes his own cables just because him name is at the bottom of them?

Im already bored by these leaks. Whatever. time to move on. the world continues to turn. If Assange really wants to help things he'll go feed starving children or lend his expertise to refugee groups. Why doesnt he work on Sudan and Myanmar etc...? Yes , yes America is the big bad wolf, we are always to blame...blah,blah,blah,blah,blah. Poor, innocent Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and Pakistan. They were just minding their own business when the 'oafish' bully America came and ruined their day. i feel so bad for them.

I shudder to think what people would do upon reading the diplomatic discourse of European powers in the age of Colonialism. You know Europe, the age when you permanently screwed up Africa, South America, the Middle East and Asia.

- This stuff is all pretty damn tame when put in historical perspective.

So let me get this straight. You have assumed for years that American diplomats are stupid because they didn't sacrifice the information security plan for you?

Have you ever considered that perhaps you consistently fail to suitably impress them?

Umberto Eco made the observation that these confidential and secret cables look like "cut and paste" jobs from the local press. It's interesting to hear from "the press" - Joshua - that he is pleasantly surprised by the level of knowledge revealed by the leaks. Which leads to the following query: is Joshua impressed because he is reading cables based on what he may have written?

While my comment is too cute by a few parts, it nonetheless hints at the tautological nature of sourcing. Ultimately it is the candor of the actual political actors or the presence of first-hand sources that keeps any of this search for information vaguely honest. I think that many people will think twice about confiding in the secrecy of ANY embassy for some time. Which means, unfortunately, that Joshua will have cause to see the diplomatic corps as chumps once again...

I believe the point Mr. Kucera misses is that these diplomats speak in cliches intentionally because they don't want to make news. Perhaps, I can use the movie "Bull Durham" as a anology (BTW- Mr. Kucera, in this case, interviews with athletes=your interviews with diplomats):

Crash Davis: It's time to work on your interviews.
Ebby Calvin LaLoosh: My interviews? What do I gotta do?
Crash Davis: You're gonna have to learn your clichés. You're gonna have to study them, you're gonna have to know them. They're your friends. Write this down: "We gotta play it one day at a time."
Ebby Calvin LaLoosh: Got to play... it's pretty boring.
Crash Davis: 'Course it's boring, that's the point...

So you write an article about how you are too dumb to realize that people are not giving you the whole story (probably because you have acted like an arrogant jerk) and that when they do give you some information, you plan to make them look stupid. Then, you publish the article on a blog read by the very people you thought were stupid. Josh Kucera is an idiot, I hope all of your future background interview requests are denied.

Or so the author thought.

I am actually a little surprised that the comments on this board had turned into an Ugly American/European bash thread, not because expats from rich nations living in poor nations don't typically embrace unwarranted self-importance, but because the article is dealing with diplomats, and not your average expat/tourist.

After reading this article I don't feel much different about the US diplomats, but my feeling about European diplomats have certainly changed. Apparently the Europeans diplomats like to trash talk behind people's backs a lot more often than the American diplomats.

From his willingness to publish certain sensitive information, it is clear that Assange wishes to protect Al Kaida operatives in Yemen. That makes him a big jerk in my book.

I still think they're stupid. Not in the sense of not knowing the Kazakh state is corrupt--they probably do know that. But if they're so smart, why is it that the US, despite having all the advantages in the world diplomatically, seems to be outmaneuvred so often? E.g., we read in the leaks that all the Arab countries really want Iran's nuclear program to be eliminated, by force if necessary. What I would say, if I were in charge, is "Go ahead and do it," and if they can't do it, if they need US help, they ought to make some concessions in exchange for that help. Instead, why do I get the feeling that, if God forbid we do make a move on Iran, that it will be the US that makes concessions to the Arab nations, and that the Arab nations will still excoriate us for imperialism, hating Islam, etc.? No doubt we'll see the same predictable demonstrations, minor attacks on US embassies in Cairo and Damascus, the denunciations of the Great Satan, even as we do something that the Arab leaders all really want done. This scenario, I fear, plays out behind the scenes every time we hear about the US providing another x billion dollars of military aid to some 3rd World kleptocracy.

Colleagues, please. Show Josh a little sympathy. I mean, like you've never been clueless before and then written about how clueless you were.

Josh, you should be pleased that you've actually penned a work of profound irony -- that' not easty to define, much less do.

Your mistake was forgetting that interviews are transactions. What do you get from a really great quote? A great story. What does the Ambassador get? PNG'd. Why would anyone take that deal (especially someone with the bureaucratic and diplomatic skills to become Ambassador)?

Look, they meet with you because they want to be polite, and maybe help out a fellow countryman who needs to publish to eat, but they get no benefit from giving you an actual story. Don't take it as patronizing (unlike this entire comment), but more like when you buy a beer for a kid just out of college. Say thanks, and then go out and work for your story.

On what are you basing your assessment that the US public is less comfortable with political reality in international relations than Europeans? In general, foreign policy issues get very little attention in political races because most Americans are naturally isolationist. And only naive, leftist college students think that the US government isn't looking out for American interests abroad.

If your bias is that the American government always behaves badly overseas, chances are the American diplomats you interview can pick up on that and choose to blow you off. The Europeans, of course, talk to you because they get to enjoy getting their asses kissed by someone who "appropriately acknowledges the superiority of Europeans over Americans."

Too many American journalists (particularly freelancers) don't do enough research to understand the situation in the foreign countries they're reporting on. Whenever I read articles about Central Asia written by American freelancers, I get the sense that they've been played as "useful idiots" by people looking to undercut American diplomats who are getting in their way or to squeeze money out of the US government for "democracy promotion."

After reading your article, its clear you were always the naive one...

After reading your articleparça kontör

HOBBIT3791, DZOO23, JEDI20, DIPABROAD, SOLDCLEW what do these people have in common? Instead of rebutting the author's article with facts, they engage in ad hominem attacks. Pathetic.