Argument

Cheer Up, Little Dima

It could be worse, Medvedev. At least you made the country better -- and that's more than the next president can say.

This has been a terrible week for Dmitry Medvedev. First, of course, he was dumped as Russia's president. Then there was the blowup with the finance minister. Finally, he had to endure the revival of all those mortifying two-guys-go-into-a-restaurant jokes, the kind in which Medvedev always features as the "vegetable" and Putin as the "steak."

To all this, I say: Buck up, Mr. President. The past four years have not been a total waste. Medvedev did more than keep the presidential seat warm. He changed the country's politics in ways that will make Putin's job as president much more challenging. For this, anyone who cares about where Russia is headed should be grateful.      

The open secret of the long succession drama was that a large portion of the Russian political elite, even people in his direct employ, did not want Putin to return as president. To them, he felt like yesterday's man -- someone who many said had served the country well in the past, but whose work was done. Who could not possibly take the country forward. Who would, in fact, make the country feel like Central Asia.

A lot of these people made their case openly. For months, the media and airwaves were full of pundits bewailing Putin's return. They spoke up loudly this week, too. Medvedev's own economic advisor was typical. "There is nothing to be happy about," Arkady Dvorkovich tweeted after the announcement. And when Alexei Kudrin, the finance minister, had to be fired because he refused to work under Medvedev as prime minister, he wasn't just dissing Medvedev. He was slamming Putin's entire plan -- and his policies, too.

The people who didn't want Putin back haven't gotten their way, of course. But this uproar represents a different kind of success. Four years ago, when Putin's best pal from his KGB days, Sergei Ivanov, was passed over for the presidency, he was said to have thrown an ashtray at a TV set. But he didn't denounce his betters in public, he didn't refuse to serve Medvedev, and he didn't have people wondering whether he might become (as Kudrin may) a leader of the opposition. He made no news at all. Compared with the orderly but farcical selection of Putin's successor in 2007, this year's events look more like real politics.

The past four years have also taken a toll on United Russia, Putin's own creation, now known colloquially as "the party of crooks and thieves." And who deserves the credit for its troubles? Well, among many others, Medvedev and Kudrin. Both have argued in public that the party is corrupt and can only be saved by the introduction of real political competition.

Medvedev's high-flown public pronouncements are often treated with scorn, and it's true enough that he wasn't able to follow through on his critique of the system over which he presided. (OK, "presided.") But the critique itself has to be admired. It was, for one thing, more far-reaching than generally recognized. Medvedev attacked such old chestnuts as the corruption of the state bureaucracy and the poor performance of state corporations. But he went way beyond this, too. He talked about the debilitating psychological legacies of Soviet times and the hopelessness of basing a foreign policy on paranoia. These were not just admirable sentiments. They were a universally understood rejection of Putinism.

Meanwhile, Russian politics is stirring. So far, the efforts to bring it back to life -- to reinvigorate old parties, form viable new groupings, register avowed oppositionists, and identify new funders, new leaders, and new followers -- have failed. But there is no shortage of activity and no shortage of worry in Putin's entourage. Medvedev, in the end, showed himself to be a loyal member of that entourage. He has also done an admirable amount to stoke the worry of its other members.

Could he have done more? Could he have played his hand better? Throughout his tenure, opponents of the regime kept urging him to "fire" Putin. It's obvious now that this thought was never in his mind. Medvedev's only real route to becoming an independent politician -- and a second-term president -- was to make himself more popular than Putin, and the only way to do that would have been to create a string of successes that resonated with the public. Putin was not going to let that happen.

In the end, Medvedev took a different path. He encouraged people to talk about what's wrong with the system. By last Sunday when Putin finally said, "Let me drive again," his little pal had made the job of steering Russia back into the past a lot harder.

ALEXANDER NEMENOV/AFP/Getty Images

Argument

How the State Department Came After Me

For telling the truth about what I saw in Iraq.

I never intended to create this much trouble. 

Two years ago I served 12 months in Iraq as a Foreign Service Officer, leading a Provincial Reconstruction Team. I had been with the State Department for some 21 years at that point, serving mostly in Asia, but after what I saw in the desert -- the waste, the lack of guidance, the failure to really do anything positive for the country we had invaded in 2003 -- I started writing a book. One year ago I followed the required procedures with State for preclearance (no classified documents, that sort of thing), received clearance, and found a publisher. Six months ago the publisher asked me to start a blog to support the book.

And then, toward the end of the summer, the wrath of Mesopotamia fell on me. The Huffington Post picked up one of my blog posts, which was seen by someone at State, who told someone else and before you know it I had morphed into public enemy number one -- as if I had started an al Qaeda franchise in the Foggy Bottom cafeteria. My old travel vouchers were studied forensically, and a minor incident from my time in Iraq was blown up into an international affair. One blog post from late August that referenced a WikiLeaks document already online elsewhere got me called in for interrogation by Diplomatic Security and accused of disclosing classified information. I was told by Human Resources I might lose my job and my security clearance, and I was ordered to pre-clear every article, blog post, Facebook update, and Tweet from that point out. A Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs wrote, without informing me, directly to my publisher, accusing me in writing of new security violations that had apparently escaped the sharp eyes at Diplomatic Security, and demanded redactions. The publisher refused, citing both the silliness of the actual redactions (everything was already online; one requested redaction came from the movie Black Hawk Down, and another from George Tenet's memoirs) and the First Amendment.

It seemed kind of sad, kind of desperate, and maybe a little bit unfair. I always took my obligation to protect information seriously, and all my material went through a careful vetting process with the publisher as well as with State to make sure nothing had slipped through.

I wrote about all this on the blog TomDispatch, and before I knew it, the story went viral. I found myself returning calls to the New York Times, the ACLU, Reporters Without Borders, CBS, NPR, and about a million blogs and radio stations. I had hoped to promote the book I had written, which came out yesterday, but the story ended up being about me and the State Department instead.

I never intended this to be a fight against my employer of 23 years, and I never intended to become a poster child for the First Amendment. However, I'm not one to back down when bullied, and I am afraid that in their anger and angst, the Department of State has acted like a bully. In addition to false accusations of security violations, State has used its own internal clearance requirements as a blunt weapon.

The State Department, on paper, does not prohibit blogs, tweets or whatever is invented next. On paper, again, responsible use is called for -- a reasonable demand. But this rule must cut both ways -- responsible writing on my part, responsible control on State's part.

And responsible standards for clearance. The department's "pre-clearance" requirements are totally out of date. Originally designed for a 19th-century publishing model, its leisurely 30-day examination period is incompatible with the requirements of online work, blogs, Facebook, and tweets. But the department has refused to update its rules for the 21st century, preferring instead to use the 30 days to kill anything of a timely nature. What blog post is of value a month after it is written, never mind a tweet?

In addition, the pre-clearance rules are supposed to be specific in their goals: to prevent classified or privacy protected information from going out, stopping info on contracts and procurement, and blocking private writing that seeks to pass itself off as an official statement from the Department. In my case, however, any attempts to pre-clear blog posts ran into the Department of Silly Walks. My bland statements about the military in Iraq made using easily Googleable data were labeled "security risks." When even those were clipped out, everything I wrote was labeled as possibly being confused with an official statement, even though my writing is peppered with profanity, sarcasm, humor, and funny photos. Say what you want about my writing, but I can't imagine anyone is confusing it with official State Department public statements. As required, I always include a disclaimer, but the pre-clearance people simply tell me that is not enough, without explaining what might be enough other than just shutting up.

So instead of using pre-clearance as it is on paper, a tool to guard only against improper disclosure with which I have no disagreement, it is used as a form of prior restraint against speech that offends State. Me, in this instance.

We have been battered to death with public statements from the Secretary of State on down demanding the rights of bloggers and journalists in China, Burma and the Middle East be respected. While the State Department does not lock its naughty bloggers in basement prison cells, it does purposefully, willfully, and in an organized way seek to chill the responsible exercise of free speech by its employees. It does this selectively; blogs that promote an on-message theme are left alone (or even linked to by the Department) while blogs that say things that are troublesome or offensive to the Department are bullied out of existence. This is not consistent with the values the State Department seeks to promote abroad. It is not the best of us, and it undermines our message and our mission in every country where we work where people can still read this.

I have a job now at State that has nothing to do with Iraq, something I enjoy and something I am competent at. To me, there is no conflict here. I'd like to keep my job if I can, and in the meantime, I'll continue to write. I have no need to resign in protest, as I don't think I've done anything wrong absent throwing a few pies at some clowns and bringing to daylight a story that needed to be told, albeit at the cost of some embarrassment to the Department of State. That seems to me compatible with my oath of office, as well as my obligations as a citizen. I hope State comes to agree with me. After all, State asks the same thing of governments abroad, right?