“When I came to this bureau ... I knew it was not without its moral complexity and moral compromises, and I made myself a promise that I would stay for as long as I felt … the harm I might do could be outweighed by the good I could do,” Paul wrote on LinkedIn. “In my 11 years I have made more moral compromises than I can recall, each heavily, but each with my promise to myself in mind, and intact. I am leaving today because I believe that in our current course with regards to the continued – indeed, expanded and expedited – provision of lethal arms to Israel – I have reached the end of that bargain.”

Gutty. Well thanks for trying to change things from the inside, it's a shame things are set up the way they are. Not to mention having the strength to stick to your morals and leave when you realize there's no more good you can do.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I dunno. It sounds like he was a state-sponsored arms dealer. Was he really "doing good?"

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have little faith in the amount of movement you can actually cause from inside the system personally but Im not going to pretend my way is the only way, it's good that people try. It sounds like this is someone on whom the ethics weighed heavily from the very beginning and their resignation when it became too much supports that. I could be very wrong on my analysis, but someone who's got the moral fortitude to leave at all like this is probably among the better people in those positions for what that's worth. I guess what I'm trying to express is that I feel like most people in positions like theirs are not as ethically inclined as they were, at least from the views I get on the outside.

[–] aairey@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ironically, that "good" person is no longer in such a position.
Thus, one could question once again whether "good" people can be in such a position.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 3 points 1 year ago

One could ask what positions do exist for "good" people? Is there any left that lets them have any say?

[–] Ropianos@feddit.de 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It does sound a bit weird. On the other hand, if he can influence the choices positively, he does have a point. If not him, someone else would take the job. I would have drawn the line somewhere else but I can understand where he is coming from.

And the fact that he resigned means that he has and likely had some moral compass guiding him.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It reminds me a lot of the situations where Law Enforcement Officers won't follow along for what they know is not right when everyone else is doing it, despite knowing that if they leave that's one less person to stand up to the unethical, there is a point when you can no longer even associate with the group because of the very real blame you'll start to share, and rightfully so. And in the case of LEOs if you're not going along with the rest of the gang, you could very well be in danger.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly what "the bad apple spoils the bunch" is about, and it's constantly misquoted by people defending the police forces. The problem is not the bad apple. The problem is the system designed to corrupt new recruits, attract only the easily indoctrinated, and drive away anyone trying to do anything about it. Thus the whole bunch is spoiled. You have to get rid of the system or you continually will only have spoiled apples.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago

I agree with a systematic approach to problem solving, especially when so many of the large problems are systematic in nature. I don't personally believe too much can be done from the inside, but I'd love to be wrong and have progress come from wherever it may, and I know my way is not the only way. Not gonna spend my time trying to work from the inside though.

[–] Plantee@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I want to add, that arms are still needed in this day-and-age, even to uphold peace. So many things are not as black and white as they seem.

I am quite happy NATO (to name one) can deter bad actors from attacking it, or in worst case use them to protect its member states. But, yes, ideally weapons would be history.

[–] Ropianos@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Absolutely! Unfortunately, we are talking about the US. The article even says explicitly:

"Various U.S. presidents considered and approved billions of dollars in arms sales to controversial nations during his tenure — for instance, to Saudi Arabia in its ongoing war in Yemen."

So it's not the first time he's about to make a very questionable choice. Though I guess he knows some details that blur the lines.

[–] Plantee@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course, I neither wanted to portray arms sales as just something good. Unsurprisingly, states manage to have these twisted deals in the name of national interests.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's nothing new. Everything is used for politics nowadays and if there is some chance to portray a decision as bad (no matter if you need to leave out details) then someone will try to do it.

We have the constant discussion in Germany about "how the spineless Green party campaigned on reducing arms exports and instantly reversed their stance once in government". That the arms deals they wanted to reduce went to countries like Qatar oder Egypt while the increase now is going to NATO allies and Ukraine is of course never mentioned as gray areas and details have no place in the populistic bullshit political discussion has become.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

The American people have more than enough arms in their own homes to defend against a Canadian or Mexican invasion. We don’t need a military in the least; maybe keep the National Guard, but that’s it.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Morality if the conflict aside, t's just insane to me that we would send a 10bn care package to a country with one of the strongest economies on earth. Israel is rich as fuck with a strong military. They don't need OUR tax dollars to commit genocide.

[–] lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But with our money they can do it faster and more thoroughly.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They've got stockpiles. Our money is going to salaries and bribes.

[–] FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bet they have their student loans paid off...

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Israel hasn't been buying avocado toast and caramel lattes which has allowed them to amass a huge surplus of ammunition

[–] Skkorm@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Colonizers stick together shrug

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

Good for this guy. Though obviously working for the US State Department means you are absolutely doing things far worse then funding Israel, as ghastly as that is.