re: "What do you do with a "problem" like Peter Van Buren? Take away his badge, escort him out, bar the door, throw away the key and ...."

Domani Spero at Diplopundit (" one of the best niche blogs for Foreign Service folks ") considered Mr. Van Buren's situation last October.

Money quote(s):

"Mr. Van Buren was escorted out of the State Department on Monday and barred from returning while officials there decide what to do next with him. Our own source said that Mr. Van Buren has been placed on administrative leave for the next couple of weeks. Admin leave is like “we’ll pay you so we don’t have to see you.” I supposed that’s until they can find the citation in the FAM that would fit this “problem.” Mr. Van Buren’s current assignment reportedly had also been curtailed. If true, that means they just took away his desk and chair, too. So even if he is allowed to return after his admin leave, he won’t actually have a job to return to."

&

"Mr. Van Buren’s book is highly critical of the State Department’s work in Iraq, the accompanying blog, just as critical. Not sure if the punishment is for the book, the blog, or for both. No one would speak on the record. The suspension letter did not cite the book, but did cite as one of the author’s faults, “an unwillingness to comply with Department rules and regulations regarding writing and speaking on matters of official concern.”

This is the first time, as far as memory goes, that the State Department had actually yanked somebody’s clearance over “publishing articles and blog posts on such matters without submitting them to the Department for review.” Whereas, in the past, I was aware of the shock factor in threatening bloggers with this in-house version of the “nuclear” option, this is the first time where somebody actually pushed the red button. And in a very public way. "

&

"(A)lthough Mr. Van Buren is the first ever blogger escorted out of the building, he was only the latest casualty in the tigers can bite you escapades inside the State Department. Some FS bloggers have been unable to get suitable ongoing assignments – or even normal responses to their bid lists. As one recently told me, “these officers have not asked for extraordinary favors: just regular, humdrum postings that fall comfortably within the bidding rules, that are not heavily bid or bid on by superstars, and for which they are completely competent. ….they have heard only silence.”

Assignment issues, blogger disappearances and PVB’s case undoubtedly will bring a big chill to the FS blogosphere. Don’t be shocked if folks go back to the 50′s and start hiding their journals under their pillows, as was quaintly suggested elsewhere."

CAA has not, to date, suffered any noticeable adverse career impact due to blogging.

"I think it must be said that the State Department handled the book clearance badly. Somebody should have owned up to the snafu instead of gunning after the author. The 30-day timeline for clearing the book lapsed. It was not the author’s fault regardless of whether or not the person responsible for clearance had a meltdown, a baby, was sick or was on vacation. But State like any old and cumbersome bureaucracy is loath to admit to its own mistakes. They cleared Condi’s book within the 30-day timeline, yet Mr. Van Buren’s book was not afforded the same courtesy. The State Department, in short, broke its own clearance procedure. And when Mr. Van Buren published the book as allowed under its own regulations in the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State accused him of “unauthorized disclosures of classified information,” and asked his publisher for redactions six days before the book hit the stores. Can you imagine them doing that to Secretary Rice’s book? Nope. Big fry, small fry; are there different rules?"

Different spanks for different ranks. It's sort of like the Air Force that way.

"(G)iven the potential fallout from a book about reconstruction in what has always been an unpopular, contentious war, and given how much money we’re spending on reconstruction projects over in Iraq, somebody higher than a Deputy Assistant Secretary should have read the book, cleared his/her calendar and spoke privately with the author. Instead of sending the tigers with sharp teeth. I have not meet Mr. Van Buren in person, and he may be far from cutesy and cuddly, but he has written a vivid, engaging account of our reconstruction debacle in Iraq seasoned with absurdities, great and small. To dismiss him as nothing but a disgruntled employee is just plain brainless. Public opinion is already against the Iraq war. Add to that the rest of the domestic headaches that the American taxpayers have been suffering in the last several years. And what do you get? A public relation disaster, with the State Department as the big, bad growling tiger in a starring role. It does not help that State appears to be acting like a big, bad growling tiger trying to eat an angry mouse. "

Overkill much?

"(S)omebody from the Seventh Floor should have attempted to speak with him. He, after all, spent 23 years with the State Department and cared enough to write the Iraq Experience down in a book. With his name on it. Not even the folks interviewed by USIP were willing to put their names down in that Oral History Project. But no one bothered to speak with him. A DAS alleging his disclosure of classified info did eventually write to him, albeit belatedly, and not really to listen to what he had to say.

It’s as if the State Department is proud of all its smart people except for those with the guts to speak up, or write a critical book. Or are they only proud of our smart diplomats when they dissent in private, in a channel that the American public never ever gets to hear, and that which the organization is free to ignore? The guy who talks too much not only gets a good hearing in my book, he or she should be afforded an opportunity to contribute in fixing the problems that he cites. No, we do not shoot the messengers in our book. Most especially if they are bearing bad news. But that’s us. Unfortunately, that is often the case in the bureaucracy, the State Department perhaps more so than most. A dead messenger is a good messenger, no news is good news. "

BTW, the "Seventh Floor" is the part of Main State where all the under secretaries, deputy secretaries, and the secstate have their offices.

10/28

re: "Foreign Service Conversion - All About The Benjamins"

TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("From deep inside the foundations of our Republic's capital city") provided his take on the midlevel staffing gap.

Money quote(s):

"I've been browsing the GAO report on Foreign Service staffing gaps, which is discussed by Domani Spero today, and particularly the portion on Civil Service to Foreign Service conversions. She noted the comically insufficient extent of those conversions"

&

"According to the GAO report, State "opened" only 88 CS employees to conversion in 2011, of which a mere 26 applied. Those 26 were winnowed down to 7 who were given the opportunity to convert, only four of whom were actually converted. With numbers like those, something tells me State really isn't all that into the whole idea of Civil Service conversion." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"State hires for FS positions only at the entry pay grades, which max out at the FP-04 level. That means the CS employees who are most likely to be conversion candidates would take a big pay cut, even if there were some flexibility as to the exact step within that pay grade at which a converted employee might enter.

By "big" I mean about 50 percent, assuming the conversion candidate is a GS-13 pay grade employee who has been around ten or more years.

Even that temporary Chief of Mission job would lose its appeal if I had to take such a severe financial haircut to convert. " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

With the exception of our Foreign Service Specialist colleagues, State Department's Civil Service cadre are probably the best-prepared, most-likely-to-be-successful group of candidates for conversion into the Foreign Service.

7/17

re: "Foreign Service Staffing Gaps, and Oh, Diplomacy 3.0 Hiring Initiative to Conclude in FY2023"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("an obsessive compulsive observer, diplomatic watcher, and opinionator who monitors the goings on at ‘Foggy-Bottom’ (i.e. the State Department) and the “worldwide available” universe from Albania to Zimbabwe") went over Diplomacy 3.0 point-by-point.

Money quote(s):

"State created new positions under Diplomacy 3.0, all midlevel positions. Instead of hiring midlevel personnel to fill those positions, it continued to hire entry level personnel."

Midlevel ranks are where the shortages currently exist.

The FS cohorts hired under the first two initiatives (beginning with Sec. Powell's Diplomatic Readiness Initiative or "DRI") are already in the midlevel ranks, some even at the highest midlevel rank (FS-01: Foreign Service Officer, Class One), the equivalent of a colonel (or a Navy or Coast Guard captain).

Which is one reason State is so resistant to hiring directly into the midlevel grades. No one (or hardly anyone) in living memory has suggested that the military and naval services hire their field grade officeers (majors, lieutenant colonels, and colonels; lieutenant commanders, commanders, and captains) directly off the street.

Even special service officers such as medical doctors don't enter the medical corps above the rank of captain (O-3, equivalent to FS-04, the highest FS entry-level grade).

7/17

re: "Senators Propose U.S. Visas for Alien Home Buyers with $500K in Cash Investment, Dictators and Drug Lords Lining Up Over There"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit (" one of the best niche blogs for Foreign Service folks ") examined some proposed legislation.

Money quote(s):

"WSJ reports that Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Mike Lee (R., Utah) are preparing to introduce a bipartisan bill that would give residence visas to foreigners who spend at least $500,000 to buy houses in the U.S.

According to WSJ, the proposed measure would offer visas to any foreigner making a cash investment of at least $500,000 on residential real-estate—a single-family house, condo or townhouse. Applicants can spend the entire amount on one house or spend as little as $250,000 on a residence and invest the rest in other residential real estate, which can be rented out."

The catch is that this sort of visa won't carry with it any authorization for work or employment.

"(T)he deep pockets foreigners with $500K can buy houses in the United States, and will be granted resident visas, but they’re not allowed to work. Of course, with 500K, it’s not like they’re the kind you see who shows up to pick apples in Washington State or oranges in Florida.

We are obviously looking for independently wealthy foreigners who do not need to work while they enjoy their new houses in a real American neighborhood."

As a relatively recent homeowner myself, I'm persuadable that homeowners pump a lot of money into local economies, what with what it takes to keep the inside indoors and the outside outdoors.

"It used to be that people who want to come here and can’t get visas pay smugglers to sneak them in. I hear that the price go from $2,000 to name that price. Now, under this proposed bill, people with $500K can come here with a resident visa, and we’ll even roll out the red carpet.

Wanna guess who has that much cash floating around? Well, for starters, dictators, drug lords, drug traffickers and their girlfriends/boyfriends always have that much cash around, in case.

But, but … that’s not going to happen because they will be screened scrupulously, and they won’t be able to take American jobs because working here without a separate permit would be illegal under this bill. Besides DHS/ICE will go after them. You know, like they’ve gone after other illegal aliens and overstays in this country. The same agency who has no idea when foreign visitors exit the country. Or not."

I only wish I didn't share DS's skepticism regarding DHS's interest (which is not the same as its ability) in immigration enforcement.

On the other hand, the bureaucratic imperative to go after low-hanging fruit, i.e., the easy way to improve your arrest and deportation statistics, is to go after otherwise law-abiding and non-dangerous violaters who can be detained and processed without fuss or muss.

"I have yet to read the text of the bill but I already feel for our consular officers working at over 250 consular posts. Videoconferencing, also coming soon to the a virtual interview booth near you.

Might this be a good time to suggest that the State Department invite Senators Schumer and Lee to go through ConGen training and deploy both under temporary consular commissions for at least 180 days at a visa issuing post? Preferably to Guangzhou, Manila, Lagos and Mexico City conducting visa interviews?

It’s a fun gig, you guys! This would help you both understand the process, as well as teach you that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service process nonimmigrant visa petitions; but nonimmigrant visas are issued by the Department of State. I know it’s confusing. You will also learn that the State Department already charges $60 for expedited processing of U.S. passports (*** so no need to add that in the new bill unless you’re upping the tab). They’ll teach you how to read faces and how to administer a smell test to determine who is telling a fib; a great trick by the way to bring back to Congress. During training you’ll pretend like you’re in a different country, and then you will actually be shipped to a different country where all your new acquaintances become your best friends as you see them in front of your visa interview window. You won’t regret it ever or forget the experience for that matter! And it will help make you become better legislators especially on this interesting and exciting field of immigration."

10/21

re: "No mother-in-law evictions for consular officials"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("an obsessive compulsive observer, diplomatic watcher, and opinionator who monitors the goings on at ‘Foggy-Bottom’ (i.e. the State Department) and the “worldwide available” universe from Albania to Zimbabwe") relayed a blast of reality from our neighbors to the north.

Money quote(s):

"The Canadian Minister of State of Foreign Affairs recently issued areminder to Canadians traveling overseas on the importance of careful planning for safe travel and what consular officials can and cannot do"

Reminders of this sort can't possibly be disseminated often (or widely) enough.

"An excellent reminder, not at all different from what American consular officials can and cannot do for Americans overseas."

In bizarro-world, the embassy would send consular officers out to place mints on the pillows of all our expatriat fellow-citizens, would have aircraft carrier task forces (like in Jurassic Park!) on speed-dial, helicopters in our motor pool, and enough U.S. Marines without otherwise gainful employment to send them out for, er, domestic conflict resolution.

The essentials (of what the Canadian consular officials can do or not do):

"“Consular Officials CAN:

Provide advice and information for medical services.
Contact relatives or friends when you need serious help.
Provide sources of information for local laws and customs.
Replace lost or stolen passports.

“Consular Officials CANNOT:

Ask your mother-in-law to leave your house.
Purchase tickets for a musical or entertainment event.
Settle disputes between you and your partner."

It's not that consular officials don't love dogs; we do. It's just that we're not actually an international concierge service.

1/3

re: "State Dept Throws Sink + All Fixtures But One to Fire FSO-Non Grata, Peter Van Buren"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("an obsessive compulsive observer, diplomatic watcher, and opinionator") had a good summary of Peter Van Buren's situation (as of March 19th).

Money quote(s):

"Perhaps it is comforting to some to hear that the State Department will finally get to penalize Mr. Van Buren for linking to two non-secret cables on WikiLeaks. But we gotta ask -- whatever happened to the 2010 Diplomatic Security investigation on the leak of two secret 2009 Eikenberry cables to the NYT in 2010?

Or for that matter, is anyone investigating the leak of Ambassador Crocker's top-secret cable to Washington in January this year, warning that the persistence of enemy havens in Pakistan was placing the success of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan in jeopardy.

Somebody really should check out the status of these investigations and see if anyone has been prosecuted yet. The public may get the wrong impression that linking to non-secret cables in a blog is more dangerous than the actual leaks of secret and top secret materials to the newspaper of record."

There're leaks, and then there are leaks. Different spanks for different ranks. Sometimes a leak is unofficially official, or perhaps just when it's to the New York Times, well, that's just okay then.

"The comment that we often hear is that, he should have done the honorable thing and resigned from his job before writing this book or before skewering his employer in his blog.

And we understand that sentiment; for the bureaucracy to “function,” it must have order. For order to exist, employees must follow the line and not be going off every which way. If employees disagree with a policy, there is what they call the “Dissent Channel,” to register one’s disagreement with official policy. As an aside, AFSA even gives out awards for what it calls “constructive dissent.” We have it in good authority, by the way, that Mr. Van Buren has been nominated by more than one person for AFSA’s William R. Rivkin Award for midlevel officials. Let’s see if AFSA can find an excuse not to give out the award this year.

In any case, it is worth noting that the State Department is not obligated to share the dissent received with the American public, nor is it obligated to report what action it takes in response to such a dissent. If that fails, resignation from one’s job has been the accepted course of action, a norm drilled into the heads of our State Department folks."

Diplopundit has an entire post, dedicated to how the AFSA creative dissent awards turned out this year.

"While we understand what appears to be a prevailing collective desire that the employee who disagrees with policy leave in polite terms, we are wondering if the time has come to rethink that. Getting off the bus quietly is encouraged in that culture, and presumably from the perspective of the organization that’s the best course of action. It avoids controversy and the parties can pretend the separation is like a marriage that no longer works, etc — but is this necessarily good for the paying public? Should the employees ought to just be thankful they have a job and keep quiet? And for those who can’t keep quiet for whatever reason, must they give up their livelihood for pointing out the stinky elephant in the room?"

All good questions and ones going to the heart of the Foreign Service corporate culture.

"Instead of taking this case seriously as a good excuse to look inward and review the policy of reconstruction in war zones, and absent a change of direction, develop more effective metrics and accountability for these projects, the State Department took its fight to the messenger. And wasted time and resources there."

CAA hasn't read Brother Van Buren's book. CAA may never read his book. Not that it's an unworthy book, but.... while CAA's heart may feel that the work of PRTs and E-PRTs was/is good, worthy, and well-intended, CAA's mind has told him from the beginning of GW2 (Gulf War II) that the U.S. was never going to stay long enough, in either Iraq or Afghanistan, for nation-building (as such) to do much good in the long run.

So the money (and the lives) spent were going to go towards buying only temporary successes.

Now, there's a school of thought that posits things like good and evil, success and failure, if they're going to be measures or used as any sort of metric, must be matrixed against time or duration for them to have any sort of useful meaning.

So some temporary success, some lives improved (if only for a few years) are not things to be scoffed-at or disregarded; but they're going to be analyzed against dollars and cents they must include their duration as well.

"The State Department spends much money and effort to recruit and train the “best and the brightest” to represent America overseas, then proceeds to hammer and shape them into, I’m sorry to say, drones, who follow directions, not create waves and most importantly, whose stingers are without barbs."

CAA exists. Ponder that.

Diplopundit closes with a thoughtful question:

"I’m sure the State Department can argue that “enforcing” the rules, however selectively, is done to promote the proper functioning of the Service. But should the proper functioning of the Service trumps everything else? Whether you agree with Mr. Van Buren’s message or not, his method of delivery or not, his case has created a precedent. Throwing the sink and all fixtures at him would help ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. I suspect that would be good for the State Department. Order restored. Life goes on.

But are we, the American public better served?"

3/19

re: "James Hogan Case: Wife of Missing Diplomat Charged with Witness Tampering, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("an obsessive compulsive observer, diplomatic watcher, and opinionator who monitors the goings on at ‘Foggy-Bottom’ (i.e. the State Department) and the “worldwide available” universe from Albania to Zimbabwe") had a major update to the case of the missing vice consul.

Money quote(s):

"James Hogan Case: Missing Diplomat’s Wife Pleads Guilty to Obstruction of Justice"

&

"We have been following this case since September 2009 when FSO James Hogan was first reported missing in the Netherlands Antilles.... Despite the obstruction of justice guilty plea here, we are nowhere closer to understanding what happened to Mr. Hogan over there."

From the old Diplopundit site (8/26/2011):


"James Hogan Case: Wife of Missing Diplomat Charged with Witness Tampering, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice

The spouse of James Hogan, the U.S. diplomat who disappeared in the Netherlands Antilles has been charged by DOJ in a multiple count indictment for her alleged role in the "obstruction of a multi-national investigation into the disappearance of her husband": "

Clearly, this raises a set of some fairly obvious suspicions about whatever fate (or fates) befell our colleague V/C Hogan. And just as obviously I'm going to not air any unfounded speculation on that score in this venue. CAA has no inside scoop on this, and if I did I wouldn't discuss that here.

I will say that the police force(s) and investigator(s) on this case seem to be turning over pretty much exactly the rocks they should be overturning in their effort to discover what befell V/C Hogan. And it may be that, whatever guilt may actually attach to Mrs. Hogan, this is as much as can be proven in a court of law.

Read the whole update here.


8/26

Leave Donations Requested

As noted by Steve at Dead Men Walking, AFSA's (and our) own Daniel Hirsch put the arm out to the American diploblogosphere to rally the (figurative) troops around one-of-our-own who needs-our-help.

The ever-knowledgable Domani Spero at Diplopundit shared a video and a link to the story at the new-to-the-diploblogosphere (but already in the Washington Post) Jennifer Santiago.

(And a tip-o'-the-blog-hat to Ms. Santiago for making lemonade out of lemons on behalf of your classmate.)

See also Cupcake Diplomacy, one of my must-read FS family web logs. As she put it:

"I have a friend at work named Hannah. She is one of the most amazing people I’ve ever met and pretty much from day one I admired her ability to charm and disarm an entire room full of people without saying a word. She has an utterly infectious laugh, she is brilliant, and she is driven. She is also suffering from what is called a thymoma, a rare type
of tumor in her chest. In her case the tumor is rather large, which is
especially bad since she’s a pretty small person.

After 6 grueling weeks of chemotherapy, Hannah found out last week that the tumor did not respond to the chemo…it actually got bigger. In spite of the bad news from her doctor, she is still smiling, perky, and motivated to kick this thing to the curb.

Here’s where (some) of you folks come in. I know that a pretty large number of you are federal employees and luckily for Hannah, the federal government has a government-wide leave donation program. Today, I’m asking you all to please consider donating some leave to Hannah so she can get the surgery and treatment she needs without losing
pay. I know the summer holidays are coming up and many of you have plans for your leave, but I’m going to climb up on my soap box for a minute and appeal to your good conscience, your kindness, and your compassion. Please help my friend."

Her A-100 class, the 162nd, is digging deep into its Annual Leave pockets but, being junior officers, those pockets are pretty shallow so far.

Here's how to donate leave (swiped, without apologies, from Diplopundit):

State Department Employees:

Email, fax, or mail form DS-1862 (found via intranet) to the address found in the leave donation request announcement found here. [Note: you must be able to access DoS intranet for this link to work]

Employees of other federal agencies:

Fill out form OPM 630b and then have someone from your agency’s HR sign and date the bottom part of the form. You’ll need the name of the State Department contact in HR as well as some info about Hannah, but I’d rather not have that just floating around the internet so please email me at cupcakediplomacy AT gmail DOT com and I will get you the necessary info ASAP.

re: "Stop “whining” about the salad bar to the NYT, it’s “inappropriate”"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("one of the best niche blogs for Foreign Service folks") correctly identified some unfair criticism.

Money quote(s):

"You’ve heard about that earth shaking news on the US Embassy staffing in Iraq? The State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland had to address the topic in yesterday’s Daily Press Briefing, and threw our Embassy Baghdad employees under the bus. How could you, Victoria?"

Amb. Nuland's bio can be read here. Her previous postings include (from most-recent to earliest):

2010-11 "Special Envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe," (D.C.-based, presumably lots of time elsewhere);
2008-9 National War College, (Ft. McNair, D.C.);
2005-8 NATO, (Brussels, Belgium);
2003-5 "Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to the Vice President," (D.C.);
2000-3 NATO, (Brussels, Belgium);
1999-2000 "two years at the Council on Foreign Relations as a “Next Generation” Fellow," (D.C. or NYC, presumably);
1997-9 Department of State (D.C.);
1996-7 "State Department Fellow" at CFR, (D.C. or NYC, presumably);
1993-6 "Chief of Staff to the Deputy Secretary of State," (D.C.);
1991-3 Moscow, (Russia);
1988-90 Soviet Desk, (D.C.);
1988 Ulaanbaatar, (Mongolia);
1987 State Dept., (D.C.);
1985-6 Guangzhou, (China);

Draw your own conclusions about this particular career trajectory, but Amb. Nuland is clearly what the Air Force would call a "fast burner." She's gone straight to the top.

(By way of disclaimer, CAA has never met the lady in person but has heard her speak (live) and was favorably impressed.)

That being said, she's probably not the best person to go on record characterizing her fellow employees, stationed in what is still a war zone, as "wingeing."

"(J)ust to be clear, not enough aragula has never been a hardship in Iraq or in other diplomatic posts around the world. Salad greens are not foremost in your mind, especially if you need to wash them in Clorox, and rinse them with bottled water three times before you eat them. Freeze-dried aragula is much better, yum! Of course, the US Embassy in Iraq is unlike any other in the world. Our diplomats cannot just run out to a grocery store in the Green Zone to buy lunch or dinner, or even tree bark coffee. It turns out their food supply had to be brought in from elsewhere.

And so if they are now low on sugar or Splenda, or if the cafeteria is rationing chicken wings on chicken wings night, you gotta ask the question — what happened to the command and supply structure?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

As Omar Bradley may (or may not have) said: "Amateurs study tactics, while professionals study logistics." All the synergy, transformation, and press releases in the world won't matter if our embassy staff in Baghdad have to start relying on local sources of provinder.

Would you trust that foodstuffs procured locally, and in mass, from Iraqi vendors, would be safe from tampering, adulteration, or even more lethal substitution?

"Did State anticipate that crossing the borders now manned by Iraqis would be messy? Did they anticipate that the Iraqis would want to approve/deny entry of supply convoys but that the government may have no process in place, but will never admit it? Did State anticipate the multiple layers of bureaucracy required to approve entry of frozen chicken wings, and salad bar weeds trucked in from Kuwait? Is there a new SOP on what to do if the Iraqi guards do on chay break the rest of the day while supply trucks gets barbequed under the sun?"

As Messrs. Ringo and Kratman wrote in "Yellow Eyes," Ch. 8 (sec. 1, cl. 7): "The ability of a State Department fool to deny unpleasant reality is deservedly the stuff of legend."


2/8

re: "State Department Seeks Advisors for South Sudan Armed Forces Transformation"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") shared a State Dept. solicitation for a job overseas.

Money quote(s):

"Not only has the State Department got itself a new private army in Iraq, we now will also be training and mentoring the Ministry of Defense of the world’s newest country.

I’m sure we’re all relieved to learn about this."

Calling what AmbEmb Baghdad has in the way of security contractors a "private army' is a bit of a stretch, but let that lie for now.

8/18

re: "USG Employee's Security Clearance Revoked Because His US Citizen Wife Went to an Islamic..."

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") questioned the logic behind this decision.

Money quote(s):

"U.S. Citizen Mahmoud M. Hegab worked as a budget analyst at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) until last year when his Top Secret/SCI security clearance was suddenly revoked. The revocation of his clearance was apparently due to the fact that his newlywed wife who is a U.S. citizen had graduated from an Islamic school located in the D.C. area. Also that she had participated in an ‘anti-war occupation protest in Washington’” on the grounds of the Washington monument, and that she had engaged in pro-Palestinian political activity while a student at George Mason University."

&

"Mr. Hegab filed a lawsuit against the NGA seeking reinstatement of his clearance. Mr. Hegab’s complaint includes a rebuttal of the allegations against his wife."

As I noted in (two) comments at the time:

"Just a suggestion, considering one particular of the "Islamic school(s) located in the D.C. area" and who Mrs. Hegab might have associated with there, this might not have been the worst adjudicational decision ever made.

A little internet research can even reveal the names of the various graduates of a D.C.-area Islamic school who have been convicted of terrorism-connected offenses.

While security clearances shouldn't have much to do with one's political views, they can have quite a bit to do with one's personal associations."

&

"Someone has done the research: http://nicedoggie.net/?p=2704#more-2704 "

10/10

re: "US ConGen Chennai: "Dirty and Dark" Tamil Remark Lands US Diplomat in Very Hot Water"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") explored how this could have happened.

Money quote(s):

"(A) US diplomat was caught in a very public row over her insensitive and thoughtless remark about Tamils during a speech at a local university in Chennai, India."

A fairly experienced individual, but new to formal diplomacy. Foreigners can be a mite tetchy about First World diplomats talking down to them, even if the diplomat didn't mean to do so.

"U.S. diplomats are on 24/7, 365 days a year. Even the lowest ranked, most junior U.S. diplomat is a representative of the United States Government.The press, and host country nationals in fact, will have high expectations even on the newest vice-consul. If there is a lesson to this, it is that no matter how junior a diplomat the individual might be, what he/she says and does reflect on the United States. The press, local or otherwise, will not make allowances that this is a diplomat's first assignment or whether or not he/she had lessons in public affairs and public diplomacy."

All true. It can be a bit heady; it's also quite dangerous (to the junior diplomats more than anyone).

Presumably V/C Chao's supervisor looked at her long experience in education and thought she'd be the ideal person to handle this particular speaking event. We all have to speak in public sooner or later; this is covered at least somewhat during the A-100 orientation that all FSOs attend.

"In a very competitive service, entry level officers often try to set themselves apart from the pack. Most volunteer for additional assignments, others use their portfolio assignments to stand out; in a pack of highly educated, talented newbies, they mostly want to be memorable to their bosses. But it can sometimes backfire.

In the last several years, there has also been a pushed for new officers to be out there. Even "newbies" on their first tours in consular sections are being asked to conduct consular public diplomacy outreach with radio, television and the print media. The State Department culture often presumes that a Foreign Service Officer, a generalist can do just about anything, whether they are trained for it or not. Some officers are indeed talented in dealing with the general public and the media; but others are not so."

First tour officers are worried about their annual performance appraisals; supervisors of those first tour officers are worried about coming up with something to write for each of perhaps as many as a dozen or more such individuals that makes each evaluation individual. So they get special projects or assignments, none of it make-work, that give them an opportunity to shine (or not).

I suspect that this vice consul's supervisor has had lots of occasion to reflect on all the ramifications of that.

"In another life -- in at least one consular section, I have seen a Consul General tasked entry level officers with extremely limited press training to go out and deal with the media in the section's public outreach. And it was not optional. The result was a group of new officers who desperately wanted to excel on something they were set to fail. For those naturally talented or PD-coned, the task was manageable; if you have the knack for it, you can get by by the skin of your teeth. For those who are non-PD coned, or those with no substantial experience dealing with foreign publics--some not always friendly to the United States, it was often like amateur hour. Why would a senior manager do something like this? Rumor had it that the Consul General was trying to impress somebody from his/her home bureau with an "innovative" program for new officers which carry no training cost. It was a shitty program but the junior officers were too afraid to complain or demand appropriate training." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

All FSOs, but especially new ones, suffer (is the right word?) from varying degrees of Lake Woebegone-ness. That is, none of them can be described as being anything but above average. They can't be average (or below) to get anywhere within spitting distance of being hired into this line of work, no matter what fellowships or other line-cutting opportunities they're gifted with beforehand.

CAA admits to a certain trepidation when it comes to dealing with the media, but has benefited from generally U.S.-friendly interviewers and media outlets, which allowed him to gain experience without tongue-trampling too badly on camera (or in print).

"(E)ntry level officers who are on overseas assignment for the first time ought not deal with the foreign public/media without specific guidance/training from post's Public Affairs Officer. Some sections where bosses are not too addled with the illness known as promotiontitis, the officers get to do murder boards before they show up for public engagements. Despite what the name implies, a murder board does not involve actual murder and gets its origin from the U.S. Army's extensive training system; it simulates the actual presentation where the audience (usually colleagues) engaged in a role play including asking difficult and gotcha questions that the target group is likely to ask. It is a practice session that not only allows newbies to make mistakes in a learning environment; if handled effectively with appropriate feedback, it also help the new officers improve their persuasion, presentation and public speaking skills."

The concept of a "murder board" is also utilized when preparing political appointees for their confirmation hearings. The main drawback is time. Anyone who would be needed to put one of these together almost certainly has other things eating up the limited number of hours in their work day. So preparing media newbies for their first foray into the lion's den has to be made enough of a priority (by management) that it happens. To do otherwise invites media disaster, as we've seen.

8/15

re: "Foreign Service Blogging: Tigers Have Teeth, Rather Sharp ... Rawr!!!"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") blogged on the hazards of Foreign Service blogging.


Money quote(s):


"A while back someone else also wrote to inform me that he/she was "strongly reminded" that blogging can lead to at least pulling the security clearance, forced (involuntary) curtailment, followed by loss of job, arrest, detainment and prosecution. Understandably, that blog is not here or there, anymore.


The Tigers roared baring fangs, which means the threat of no food on the table, arrest, detainment, well, just about everything, really. Except they forgot to include non-promotion and career suicide. Of course, if you lose your job, there would be no point worrying about a promotion or a career." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


The "Tigers." Them's State Dept. powers-that-be (or as Dave Barry famously described them: "white men in blue suits"). A.k.a. "Black Dragons" or "mandarins."


The most famous, and fairly current example, of an FS blogger come acropper has to be We Meant Well ("How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts And Minds of the Iraqi People"). Of course, Van Buren, Esq., did a bit more than just blog, whatever you may think of the merits/demerits of how the Department has/is handled his situation.


CAA prefers to blog pseudonymously, for a number of good reasons. Frankly, it's just good operational security. On the other hand, CAA is not one of the scores of new officers who've joined the Foreign Service and were already longtime bloggers.


"In some places, the Foreign Service is now like a scene out of Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, only this time, the letter one wears in not "A" for Adultery but "B" for Blogger. You blog at your own risk under the Big House's 21st century statecraft jungle regardless of the nice things they say about freedom and the Internets.


Here are a few things I'm kicking around the campfire concerning the various disappearances of Foreign Service bloggers through the years. A quick caveat: I am talking out loud there, so try not to misconstrue the following as an advice in any shape or form; they're not. Also please do not write and ask for "real" examples of "Tiger" blog take down. They are not my stories to tell and I respect the privacy of the bloggers who make no public explanation of their online death." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


Lots of excellent FS bloggers have either taken down their posts, sanitized them, or simply discontinued posting. Sometimes that simply the press of business, of work-life balance, of being to busy being and doing to spend much time writing about it. Sometimes ones FS job involves so much writing that doing even a little bit more, even when its for yourself, is just too much effort.


"(I)t seems like "FS bloggers should never mention *anything* about work." Why? Probably because vague blogging isn't as vague as you think and you never know who's reading your blog? Even if Diplomatic Security sees no problem with your blog, your regional/functional bureau or post management may have issues with it. I don't think it has anything to do with what you write per se, it has everything to do with fear and the lack of control. Fear from management that your blog has a ready, captive audience and fear that you might write something out of turn. And there is the notion that you have a direct connection to an audience and your right to self expression has not undergone any sort of vetting by the higher-ups who luv their red pens!"


The Department has evolved some since its 18th century origins, but those origins, and the Dead White Males who populated them, have left a lasting imprint on our corporate culture. In some ways, these are good things.


Por ejemplo, diplomacy is still, rather widely, seen as more than just a job. Like the military, like the church, like academia, the profession of diplomacy (and of diplomats) is a legacy out of the Middle Ages and indeed Late Antiquity (and later Byzantium) itself. Like those cited examples, the profession of diplomacy remains more even than merely a career; it is a calling and a vocation.


On the other side of the ledger, the practice of modern U.S. diplomacy has evolved considerably, with parallels to the similar evolution of micromanagement in military command and control spawned by the technological revolution in worldwide communication.


Once upon a time "our man" on the spot had to be trusted and empowered to act on our behalf according to his latest (telegraphed) instructions, his detailed local knowledge, and his best judgment.


Nowadays, our "man" may be a woman and will never be too far separated from an email, a conference call, an "instant message," and their Blackberry. Upper management's capability for micromanagement produced the temptation, even the obligation, to do so.


So throwing social media into the mix, where even lesser sorts can write, and self-publish (for values of "publish") their unvarnished observations without the benefit of a traditional "clearance" process must truly be an upsetting experience for some folks in high places.


"(M)aybe folks should never blog anything that could be perceived as critical towards the Foggied Bottom, the Foreign Service, the host country, or ones clients (visa applicants, AmCits, official contacts, etc. etc.), even if you're only complaining about somebody sneezing or snoring loudly.


Concerned about all promotions going to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan hands regardless of actual performance? Okay, but that may not be the best subject to blog about, most especially if you're bidding.


Big House functionaries talking about internet freedom really hurts your ears now? Okay, but it won't do any good to talk about the cause of that ear ache in your blog.

You cannot/cannot blog about the smell you have to endure as you sit in your visa interview window because it's bad form to talk about body odors, period. You cannot/cannot blog and complain about seeing boobies with nursing mommies as you conduct visa interviews because breastfeeding is udderly not optional when you have a screaming infant. Trust me on this.


You cannot make snarky comments in your blog about your Amcit clients no matter how loony and unreasonable their demands might be (they are covered by the Privacy Act of 1974). You cannot complain in your blog that your host country has no sidewalks, it might upset the Tourism Bureau. You cannot complain in your blog about getting Montezuma's Revenge because it might upset the host country's Sanitation Bureau. And on and on ...you get the drift? Somewhere there's a fill in the blank form in the shared drive on what FSOs should not blog about, but don't look for that list in the FAM.

EFMs must not blog about how every transfer is like a reinvention of wheels at the Big House because it would make the HR Bureau look bad. Gawd lord! They should not blog that their spouse's HR Technician kept messing up their Travel Orders because it makes the HR staff look incompetent (and some of them are). They should blog zilch /nada about housing, because hey, it's free housing and the leaking roof should not be a big deal! They should not blog about the American school because isn't it enough that you are in a country with an American school? EFMs above all should not blog too loudly about the lack of embassy jobs; didn't ya know that 9.1% of Americans in the United States of America are out of work?! Somewhere there's a fill in the blank form about what EFMs should not blog about, but it's a secret until they call you or your spouse for that Talk. (I'm having a hard time locating my sarcasm off button, sorry!)"


This is just too much (and too good) not to take a point at a time.


a.) "never blog anything that could be perceived as critical towards the Foggied Bottom, the Foreign Service, the host country, or ones clients"


Easier said than done.


Like any institution larger than can be fit into a phone booth (remember them?), the State Dept. and the Foreign Service are vulnerable to brontosaurus syndrome.


That is, information can take so long to filter through its ponderous nervous system from tail to brain (and back) that those signals can be out-of-date, and even dangerous, before they arrive. It makes them vulnerable to "the stupids."


This is not a criticism for which the Service or the Department are uniquely qualified, to be sure.


Still and all, criticizing one's host nation online while attempting to diplomatically represent the U.S. in real life is kind of stupid too. Sort of defeats the purpose.


Host nations, and cultures, can be awfully touchy about things that may seem innocuous.


Some particularly touchy nations may even seize upon blogged "criticism" as an excuse for other actions. So it's wise not to give your opponents any extra ammunition. Not to put too fine a point on it, but some of the police states to which we have diplomatic representation are not really our friends, although in the interests of world peace we certainly try our best to change that reality.


b.) "all promotions going to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan hands regardless of actual performance"


Really? From reading Diplopundit, I've gotten the impression that, at least at the highest levels, the true path to promotion seems to run through assignment in the Human Resources bureau rather than through any particular set of hardship assignments.


That being said, I've seen officers with hardship assignments and those without get promoted. It's probably fairer to say that lots of the better or more desirable (i.e., Western Europe and other First World) assignments get tied up by Afghan, Iraq, and Pakistan "linked" assignments.


Some find it unfair that this should be so, arguing that their own unique circumstances (family and/or medical issues) prevent them from taking such assignments. It can also be argued that it's unfair that those lacking family and/or medical issues that would exempt them from hardship post assignments should have to shoulder that entire burden. And both camps would be entirely correct.


Life is not fair.


c.) "Big House functionaries talking about internet freedom really hurts your ears now"


There really is a world of difference between being a Chinese dissident liable to be arrested and have their organs harvested after a botched execution and someone be counseled to not publicly blog against their employer. The two simply aren't comparable other than as an example of how everything simply isn't co-equal.


d.) "smell you have to endure as you sit in your visa interview window.... body odors.... boobies.... nursing mommies.... breastfeeding.... screaming infant"


Any consular officer can confirm that the 15-minute forced entry/ballistic resistant (FE/BR) interview window, even with mandatory "overpressure" airflow, is not powerful enough to prevent exposure to the body odor of some applicants.


Simply. Not. Powerful. Enough. (No offense intended to Ross or Norshield.)

Yes, Americans have a well-known and justified terror of body odors. This can be best explained by the decades-long campaigns of television advertisers to convince us we smell bad so as to sell more soap. Ever wonder where the term "soap opera" comes from?


Still, even allowing for mad cultural variations, disparities in the availability of water for personal washing or laundry, and the like, some visa applicants (and even Amcit clients) simply and frankly reek. Some truly reek far more than their co-nationals. And not overdue-for-a-shower stinky; we're talking fell-int0-a-latrine reeky. Wishing that away doesn't make it so.

(Oddly, the stinkiest identifiable groups in my recollection has been men-of-the-cloth. Not every reverend, priest, or shamen, mind you, and certainly not as a group. But they're over-represented on the stinkiest extreme of the Bell curve. And I haven't a clue as to why.)


As for breastfeeding and nursing mothers versus screaming infants, that's a no-brainer. As a visa interviewer with at least half-vast experience, I learned very early in my consular career that the occasional glimpse of bare mammaries is greatly to be preferred over a waiting room full of screaming infants. Case closed. Grow up and get over it. And if mentioning it in an FS blog disturbs any Tigers, they need to grow up and get over it.

e.) "snarky comments in your blog about your Amcit clients "


Yes, the Privacy Act of 1974 prevents blogging about what I term "stupid American tricks" in sufficient detail that it's not even worth trying to sanitize the story for blog posting.


Some of your American clients have unrealistic expectations about what the embassy can do for them. Some of them have gotten themselves into such personally hazardous circumstances that you wish you could send the embassy marines (if you're lucky enough to have them at your post) out with the embassy softball team's equipment (i.e., bats) to sort things out for them. (The which you may not do.)

Others are, not to put too fine a point on it, crazy. Or criminals. And by criminals I mean well and truly wanted in the U.S. by lots of fine law enforcement folks.

As a consular officer, you can minimize, to a degree, some of the unrealistic expectations among your Amcit expatriats by means of an active consular outreach program, including holding local "town hall meetings" out and about within your consular district. (But that still won't fully eliminate the problem.)


f.) "complain in your blog that your host country "

See my answer to "a.)" above. This is something that FS bloggers have to gauge very carefully and finely, calibrating it precisely to your own particular host country.

g.) "HR staff look incompetent"

CAA has generally had good luck with HR folks, at least the U.S.-based ones; and even abroad it's been fairly passable. Not everyone is so lucky.

h.) "Housing"

FS housing is one of those things that varies wildly from post to post. In my own career (incl. Western Europe, Third World, embassies, and a constituent post), I've lived on embassy-only compounds, on the economy, in apartments, and in houses. Plus I have the perspective on government-furnished housing that a prior, military, career can lend.

Nowhere is going to be just like home. Nowhere is going to be like your last place in D.C. Nowehere is even going to be like your last overseas post. I've seen FSOs (and their spouses) with frankly outragous and unrealistic expectations as to how they should housed and with what amenities.

(Dude, you passed the FS exam; you didn't win the lottery!).

That being said, in my own browses of FS and FS family blogs, I've seen far more posts which are complimentary of embassy housing maintenance and other support in dealing with the problems that unavoidably come up than I've seen princessly whining.

It does seem like blogs by FS spouses deal more with the problems, and problem-solving, of embassy housing than those by the officers (and specialists) themselves. But then, how could they not?

Military readers will be familiar with the phrase "Household" or "Kitchen" "Six." "Six" signifying the commander, and "Household" (or "Kitchen") signifying itself. CINCHOME: Commander-In-Chief, Home Front. Whatever you call it, the spouses are large and in charge at home, dealing with housing issues, while the FS hubby or wifey is about America's business abroad.

So it should surprise no one that they blog about their triumphs and travails on that front.

i.) "blog about the American school"

See my last immediately above. Everything I said about spouses and housing goes double for anything related to FS kids and their education.

I've been at posts that did, and ones that did not, have an American school. Sure, the families at the one without would have loved to have had the luxury of dealing with the problems of the posts that do have them. Life, and blogging, is like that. You write about the experiences you have, not about the ones you don't have.


j.) "lack of embassy jobs".

This is a very big deal. The career, financial, professional, and employment dynamic of American families, of married couples, is vastly different than that of only a few decades ago.. The ability, or inability, of FS spouses to find (or be offered) gainful employment during their FS hubby or wifey's assignments abroad has a measurable and drastic impact on both their gross family income and their retirement benefits. That's a fact. It's also a fact that, due to job requirements (such as language fluency or lack thereof), not every embassy support staff job is suitable or available for an EFM to fill.

So of course it's going to get blogged about.

One of the little leadership laws that's passed down within the military is the adage that you should never give an order that you know will not be obeyed.

(How big a hint can I make this? Should I draw a picture?).

"I am convinced that some bloggers are "allowed" to blog by default because their bosses have no idea what a blog is. Seriously.


Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because maybe they are lucky enough to have adult bosses with no control issues who recognize that warts and all are part and parcel of real life, even in organizations. As long as your blog does not end up in NYT or Al Kamen's column, you're safe. Of course, their bosses may have blogs, too :-) and did not want to be outed!

Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because no one has yet complained about them, or the blog is obscure enough it does not register on anyone's radar screen.


Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because their bosses look the other way. These blogs are usually like mini-DipNotes. What's the harm in letting them PR blog for free? And if they write something nice about their bosses, then that is super great, too.


Finally, I think some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because the Big House has not yet found the right stick to scare them to death and make them stop. In almost all instances they eventually find the right stick, so the blog disappears. Unless ... the blog stays .... in which case ... well, that's another story down the road."

CAA has not (yet) been called upon the Tiger-y carpet. There's no accounting for that. A number of my colleagues know (more than I probably realize) who I am. At least one DS agent knows, because he made a fairly pointed, if friendly, crack to me one time about "an FSO's anti-Administration blog."

(Anti-administration? I've commented upon criticisms of not only this, but the previous administration. No matter.)


"I've lost count the number of FS blogs that have gone dark. A trend that is both disturbing and sad. In the end, I think every FS blogger must decide on his/her own comfort level and decide how much grief he/she is willing to put up with in order to blog, tweet or FB. As long as the Big House considers blogging a "dangerous" hobby or preoccupation even in its employees/family members private capacities, this is also a "livelihood" issue. When you butt head with city hall, you will get more than a headache."

Part of the solution to this issue will be FS bloggers learning to manage upwards. There's still a huge cadre of very senior folks within the Department for whom "leadership" is still something of a foreign concept, so I expect "social media" is going to take a little longer. So watch your blogging, watch out for each other, and try to train upper management to see blogging as a positive force.

Smart upper management is going to keep an eye on FS, particular FS spouse, blogging as a bellweather to spot problem areas early, well before they become the sujbect of an OIG investigation or congressional inquiry.

"Truth to tell, I have not seen or heard of Tigers actually yanking anybody's clearance due to an offending blog. I am aware of private sessions of discouragements, issues with onward assignments, and of course, threats of various colors and stripes among FS bloggers. And as far as I know, they have not technically kicked out anyone who blogs either -- unless you call the "push" to retirement a payback kick.

Fear as we all know is a great motivator. Sometimes, a Tiger's growl is just that, a growl and enough to do the job. Of course, it does not mean that the Tiger will not also eat you!"


9/14