re: "Clinton asks Kerry for help on budget"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") was following the back-and-forth at budget request time.

Money quote(s):

"Clinton called the Senate's allocation of $42 billion for State and USAID in 2012 "reasonable," but warned that deeper cuts in the House's proposal would force State to shutter some overseas posts and reduce the number of civilians working in conflict areas, as well as result in the U.S. government "turning our backs on the world's hungry and sick."

The State Department and the development NGO community have been focusing on the idea that the diplomacy and development budgets comprise less than 1 percent of federal spending."

Bearing in mind that foreign affairs is one of the powers and responsibilities for which the federal government is specifically charged by the U.S. Constitution, it can reasonably be asked by this is such a small percentage of the budget.

Setting aside percentages and pretending that this budget sufficient to the task, a reasonable person might question what the other 99+ percent of the budget entails, and if it's going for things that are appropriately the duty of the federal government to fund.

10/17

re: "Hope, Change, and 99% View 685 20110728"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook.") examined issues of assimilation vs. diversity and of budget crises.

Money quote(s):

"Sowing the wind.

We don’t do breaking news, but it isn’t so much news as settling “when”: there has been another plot by a Muslim soldier to kill his comrades in protest against being “forced” to participate in the unjust wars in the Middle East.

U.S. officials told ABC News an AWOL serviceman, identified by the FBI as a Private First Class Naser Jason Abdo, was arrested Wednesday after making a purchase at Guns Galore in Killeen, Texas, the same ammunition store where Maj. Nidal Hasan purchased the weapons he allegedly used to gun down 13 people and wound 32 others on Nov. 5, 2009.

As to why it isn’t news:

Abdo told ABC News in 2010 he was Muslim and should not have to participate in what he called an "unjust war" in the Middle East.

"Any Muslim who knows his religion or maybe takes into account what his religion says can find out very clearly why he should not participate in the U.S. military," Abdo said then.

Welcome to the joys of diversity and entitlement. America was not built as a society of entitlement and diversity. There was a founding culture. It was a culture of tolerance, but tolerance is not the same as the celebration of “diversity.” Immigrants were always encouraged to assimilate. They were not forced to do so, but the public system tolerated diversity; it didn’t force it. There were crèches in the public square at Christmas. Later we added the menorah. Almost all public ceremonies were opened by an invocation by a Protestant minister. Over time we added a Catholic priest (and of course some communities always had included Catholics, although most had not). Later we added a rabbi. All of this was to show some deference to the American culture. We would tolerate diversity as a monument to our liberty but we did not set the public hangman the task of destroying the crèche in the public square. We did not use the courts as an engine of destruction of our culture.

Then we began to sow the wind. All cultures are equal. There is no American culture as such.

We have coupled diversity with egality and added entitlements. We have sown the wind.

And we reap the whirlwind. Nidal Hasan and Naser Abdo are not the last of the pale riders."

Dr. Pournelle, as the original blogger, has been around long enough to see certain long-lead-time trends take shape over the period of decades. That perspective is important to those of us who've come after.

"National unity is not a given. Patriotism is not free. For an example relevant to today’s story: imagine an Amish soldier who insists on his right to be part of the Army, but that the Courts prevent the Army from using motorized vehicles anywhere near him since the sight of them offends him; now imagine a court granting that, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding that decision.

We can endure regional diversity. The abortion issue is an example. There is no national consensus. Shall we send armed agents to enforce whatever happens to be the opinion of a majority at the time? Shall the Army insist that Mother Superior perform abortions in St. Joseph’s, or jail abortionists who perform them? Left to the states the issue is endurable.

The goal is a society that holds together, not one of some ideal perfection."

This was written last July. Now we have nearly the exact absurdity, insisting that Mother Superior and St. Joseph's pay for abortions, becoming a matter of federal law.

"It is important to understand that no Congress has the power to bind a future Congress. If this Congress cannot get us out of the automatic increases in entitlements, another can. It may require replacing every single Senator, Member of Congress, the President and Vice President, and every senior civil servant in Washington, but it is possible simply not to fund “non-discretionary entitlements” . The Constitution is very clear: tax and revenue bills have to originate in the House, and “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Words and phrases such as entitlements, discretionary vs. non-discretionary funding, and the like, obscure the truth Dr. Pournelle reminds us of: that no Congress can bind a future one.

7/28

re: "Can Kerry save the State Department on the “supercommittee”?"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") asked a very important question.

Money quote(s):

"Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA) will be on the "supercommittee" that's charged with slashing government spending, but will he use that power to rescue the State Department from its looming budget nightmare?"

The world waits.

"Kerry, who always denies he is jockeying to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she steps down (probably after the 2012 election), certainly looks like the leading candidate for the post. He has traveled frequently to hotspots like Afghanistan and Pakistan on behalf of the administration, led the push for Senate ratification of New START nuclear arms reductions, and is beginning a new push to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty. He even toed the administration's line that the war in Libya does not amount to hostilities.

The State Department, meanwhile, is preparing for what could be its worst budget year in a very long time. After two years of budget increases during the Obama administration, the dire fiscal situation has placed diplomacy and development funding on the chopping block. In April, the Obama administration voluntarily cut $8 billion from the State Department budget as part of the deal to avoid a government shutdown."

Sen. Kerry certainly seems, at least in the major media, to be a leading candidate to succeed Sec. Clinton if and when she decides she's spent enough years heading-up the State Dept. But presidents sometimes surprise with their appointments. And by "sometimes" I mean most-of-the-time.

(Well, at least I'm always surprised.)

"Whether Kerry is able to stand up for diplomacy and aid funding, in opposition to his GOP counterparts, will determine the functionality of the State Department he one day hopes to lead. "

(8/9)

re: "House panel votes to defund the OAS"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside The Foreign Policy Machine") covers a possibly momentous development.

Money quote(s):

"The House Foreign Affairs Committee began its Wednesday markup of the State Department authorization bill by voting to end funding for the Organization of American States (OAS), with Republicans lambasting the organization as an enemy of freedom and democracy.

The one-hour debate over the GOP proposal to cut the entire $48.5 million annual U.S contribution to the OAS is only the beginning of what looks to be a long and contentious debate over the fiscal 2012 State Department and foreign operations authorization bill written by chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). Democrats accused the Republicans of isolationism and retreat for their proposal, while the Republicans accused the OAS of being an ally of anti-U.S. regimes in Cuba and Venezuela. The OAS Charter was signed in 1948 at a conference led by U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall."

By their fruits shall you know them. Or something like that.

Despite the fine pedigree and charter, lots of international organizations have, to put it gently, not lived up to expectations. The OAS in recent years has acted more like a club of presidents rather than the umbrella group of Western Hemisphere democracies that it's billed as being.

This will, I expect, amount to nothing much. At least not this time. But it puts the OAS (and other international organizations who exist substantially on the U.S. dime) on notice. Personally, I'm rather fond of the OAS's Washington establishment. They do good work. Some of their principals' political wrangling, especially lately, had some pretty bad optics nonetheless.

When it comes to international fora and organizations in general, let's just say that CAA is a fan of the idea. As for the reality: they haven't come close to matching the vision, to say the least. It remains to be seen, in some cases, whether things would be better, in their individual areas of action/inaction, whether their absence would in fact be an improvement.

Be sure to read the whole article for the partisan play-by-play.

re: "Personal Army"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex.") seems troubled at the size of this contract.

Money quote(s):

"DoS reveals its plan to secure their personnel in Iraq after the troops come home"

&

"The size of the US mission in Iraq was forecast to be roughly 3000 souls, or 1.5 contract support personnel per DoS employee. The sums spent on contract support are nearly double the entire amount spent by State in Iraq in 2010, and represents nearly 18% of the entire FY10 budget. 5,100 contractors is roughly the size of a reinforced brigade."

Three thousand "souls" is a huge-ass country mission. Many of these folks will be from tenant agencies, some will be contract hires brought aboard solely to work in Iraq, and there'll probably be at least that many more (more like two times as many) in locally engaged staff (LES) employees.

Still and all, if it seems like it's going to take a major and costly effort to support our diplomatic/civilian mission in Iraq, that's because it is a major and costly effort. Except, until now, that fact has been masked considerably by the fact that State has been able to "piggy back" on the U.S. military establishment in Iraq.

The U.S. military deployment, and its support infrastructure, are going away. Real. Soon. Now. The diplomatic deployment (i.e., embassy, consulates, regional offices, and PRTs) aren't going away. (At least not yet.) And the need for support services of all types, that simply aren't to be had "on the economy" in Iraq, persists nonetheless.

re: "How to save money in Iraq? Withdraw the troops, send in the diplomats ... and get ready with the fire hoses"

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.") sees some contradictions inherant in the Iraq changing-of-the-guard.

Money quote(s):

"At the highest level of the Iraq war which happened during the surge, the average monthly DOD obligations in Iraq peaked at $11.1 billion in FY2008. Note -- monthly obligations. Just roughly the same amount Congress plans to cut from the State Department annual, yearly, 12 month budget in FY2012.

In the infinite wisdom of our elected representatives, given that we will "save" tons of money from the withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, we will "save tons more" by slashing the budget of the State Department -- because why not? Instead of DOD completing the job over there, we'll now have DOS doing the job for a lot less. A lot less money and a lot less people and a lot less of everything!

Obviously, given the history of that made up controversy about the Iraq recruitment in 2007, State is anxious to show the flag. It will have personnel for Iraq, ready or not. If it does not have enough folks, it will hire 3161 limited appointees to staff up the place. It will have its own private army to protect our diplomats. It will have its own air fleet to shuttle our personnel from one end of the country to another. It will have its own life support personnel, presumably all contractors. It will be starting close to scratch on just about everything, from how to bring in food and other supplies, aircraft mechanics for its new air fleet to pest control guys.

But this is a gig set up to fail.

Congress holds the purse strings and the folks over there have never been particularly fond of these foreign affairs officers, as they are with the soldiers in their voting districts. One senator is opposed to the State Dept getting any of DOD's equipment or creating its own mini-army. Others are not happy about the projected growth of contractors working for State. What, you want our diplomats in Iraq armed with toothpicks? Make up your minds, dammit!

The State Department has never taken on a responsibility like this; there will be lots of hiccups even as demands for quick results go off the roof. Um, okay, hiccup is an understatement.

Personnel will continue to rotate on short-term, one year deployments, on voluntary basis. At some point, this repeated deployments of an agency small enough its FSOs can all fit in an aircraft carrier, will have institutional consequences and personal repercussions. Bench strength? What's that?

Iraq as a democracy in our own image is a foolish dream. The State Department will now be expected to be the firewall against its descent back into chaos."

Not a lot to add to what she's said. She's right.

re: "Since you enjoy your job so much, Congress wants you to take a pay cut .... "

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.") explains what's stupid about this amendment.

Money quote(s):

"In case you did not see this -- Rep. Thomas Reed, R-N.Y sponsored an amendment that cut the locality pay for Foreign Service officers serving overseas. Mr. Reed's press release touts the removal of the "automatic 24 percent pay raise for foreign service officers," his third successful amendment apparently. And it passed the House over the weekend.

There is locality pay for all CONUS states. Why Congress is only targeting the 11,500 Foreign Service workforce is not clear. About 70% are not in the Senior Foreign Service and could be affected by this cut when deployed overseas. I mean really, that's about 7,600 federal employees serving overseas in over 260 posts. Mr. Reed's state is home to some 69,000 federal employees (not counting the feds working for CIA, DIA, NSA and the other "A"s who may be assigned in the state of New York). Look - that's 9 times the Foreign Service number. Imagine the savings there?"

The overseas locality increase, which is only about two-thirds implemented (it has been being phased in over a period of years since it's long-overdue approval) is being mis-cast as a payraise. And in the current economy, it's hard (politically) to make the case for payraises for diplomats. We get that.

It's why, along with all other federal employees, our salary scale is frozen. We get that too, and I've heard precious little squacking about that, even in private. We all have family and friends back home who're out-of-work or struggling and we get it.

But "getting it" shouldn't be a two-way street.

"(A)s Ed points out "the House bill as enacted has no hope of Senate passage or earning President Obama's signature, so this proposal -- while interesting and certainly controversial -- may not survive."

May not survive this time, that is not to say it won't happen ever.

All that did not preclude folks from slinging around their ignorance online --

You folks working overseas apparently do not pay the first $80K of your income overseas. Did you know that? Hah! That IRS has been cheating on FS folks again! It collected every tax penny from your salary including self-employed spouse's annual income of less than $700. If you believe everything you hear, that IRS did not have to collect anything from your $56K + $700 income? Really.

Go ahead and believe that crap, and you might end up sharing a jail cell with whatshisname actor and tax evader.

Foreign Service folks are not/not exempt from paying full federal, state, and Medicare/SS tax on salaries just because they live in Burkina Faso or whatever the name of the hellhole they're presently assigned to. They pay their taxes happily and willingly, 'cuz if they don't, they could get written up for atrocious unlawful uncivic unprofessional behavior, then they won't get promoted, then they get kick out, then they're just part of the 9% unemployment stats. The end."

Pushing back against this sort of recurring ignorance is one of the unstated purposes of this web log. Okay, it's a (former) mil blog as well as a diplo blog. And sometimes I try to bridge the cultural gap between the two, as well as the greater one with the larger public.

I don't be-grudge military members their being tax-exempt during combat deployments. We don't get that, even when deployed to the same places, because we have a different compensation system as foreign service officers. As a consular officer who's worked American Citizen Services, more than once I've encountered the expat American abroad who declares "I pay your salary."

Um. Unless you're making a lot more than you're letting on (and thus are liable for federal tax on your imcome above the $80 or $90k mark), no, you don't.

Not that it matters in terms of how helpful we can (or can't) be, but it's one of those phrases that can bring a (suppressed) smile to a consular officer's face when he hears it.

"(D)espite prevailing belief to the contrary, Uncle Sam's employees overseas are not exempt from paying taxes (unless they're civies at Gitmo). The foreign earned income does not include amounts paid by the United States or an agency thereof to an employee of the United States or an agency thereof. Congress wrote that up. It's the law of the land."

"You also -- supposedly ride around town in a $50,000 Cadillac with diplomatic license plates on the bumper like -- let me get this right -- "like you are better than the very citizens you are supposed to be serving." Ouch! Such sparkling prejudice. Really, a Cadillac? That must be the low level Qatari diplomat riding around in his regular car in DC streets. Have not seen any Cadillac at US overseas posts, not saying there's none, just haven't see any from the embassy compounds I've been to. Saw lots of armored Chevy where you can't roll down the windows. In case you think its armored for decoration, I can assure you it's not. It is armored from front to back and have bullet resistant glass because driving/riding around in a USG vehicle overseas is like driving around with a target mark on your back. What? Um, sorry, not target, they're called cross-hairs now. And in case you think this is vehicle security gone mad, it's not that either. See, the US ambassador to Lome got carjacked recently. And the ICE agents in Mexico who were recently killed/wounded in Monterrey were also using an armored SUV. If not for armored vehicles, not Cadillacs, mind you --- there would be many, many more names up on that memorial plaque on the wall."

Note to residents of and visitors to Washington, D.C., New York City, and other cities which host diplomatic and consular missions from other countries within the United States: the diplomatic and consular license plates you may notice on cars parked illegally or cutting you off in traffic? Not being driven by American diplomats.

Hard to imagine, but we don't get diplomatic plates (or immunity) when we're stationed at home.

Those annoying diplomatic luxury cars you may encounter? Driven by foreign diplomats.

"We have unarmed diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in Pakistan where they hate/hate the USA terribly and now think all diplomats are spies. And you don't ever get a tax break for service in those posts."

It would be nice, don't get me wrong. But we don't expect that it will ever happen. And that's okay. Just don't erroneously assume and accuse us of getting what we don't receive and aren't entitled to, at least not as a pretext for denying that which we are.

"I just don't think the FS has the numbers. Even if the entire Foreign Service, and spouses and kids write to their congressfolks and senators, that may not really matter when push comes to shove. The diplomatic service needs to tell its story better. You need more than employees and family members to step up and say -- it's unfair to single out a small group of people for a pay cut."

This is a common lament. The Department of State and the U.S. Foreign Service (and its members) have no domestic political constituency of any consequence. Which is why I'm never shy, when I have a happy American customer who's thanking me profusely, about suggesting they drop their congressional representative a short note or email, if they really are that happy about the service and help they've received, and share their impressions.

They don't have to commend anyone by name, it's not about individual credit, but there are always plenty of congressional inquiries being initiated about complaints, fair is fair.

re: "Understanding State's Budget Woes"

Matt Armstrong at Mountain Runner ("Discourse on America's Discourse") shared a detailed critique of State's flawed relations with Congress.

Money quote(s):

"Andrew Exum at CNAS blames - only somewhat tongue in cheek - the absence of federal money creating jobs in Congressional districts for the State Department's budget woes. His point, of course, is that Congress sees little direct benefit from State's activities."

He's not really kidding. Well, even if he was, it's still true.

The State Department has no (or little, which amounts to the same thing) domestic political constituency. We don't create jobs in anybody's district (aside from the various domestic passport centers, which is another subject). And most of the time nobody writes, emails, or calls their congressional representative unless they're seeking help with a problem they're having with the State Department.

Fortunately, most of the legislative staff who deal with State Department on behalf of their constituents quickly learn that we don't capriciously create problems and obstacles for their constituents. Most of the time the problems are actually the creation of the constituent themselves, and State Department folks (usually consular officers) are either simply following the laws that Congress itself passed or are limited in what they can do by either budgetary constraints (also an artifact of Congress) or reality itself (i.e., foreign courts and police forces don't actually work for the United States, so I can't order them to release someone just because they're American).

This is why I take every opportunity I can to help create at least a shadow of a glimmer of a domestic constituency whenever I get the chance. You're a college professor or church leader bringing a gaggle of your students or parishioners to my consular district and you'd like a quick tour of the embassy or consulate while you're in country? If I can spare someone for even an hour, I can make it happen. I've got a relatively brief Powerpoint presentation kept up-to-date, can reserve a meeting room, and if you'll get me everyone's passport information ahead of time then embassy security can pre-clear your group.

And then I get an hour to tell some congressman's constituents what the State Department does for them and for the country.

I've also learned to not be shy about telling people who are thanking me about something I or my staff has done for them that, yes, I appreciate their thanks but if they're really grateful it'd be even better if they dropped their congressman or senator an email or postcard. I generally add that other people are never slow to send complaints about the things they don't like, so it's just good citizenship to ensure their representative is getting the whole picture.

It's constituency building at the micro level, in the field, which is not the aim of Matt's post, but you have to start somewhere.

&

"If Congress is to fund (and stop defunding) State, it requires greater awareness of State's purpose, requirements, and limitations, especially those that must be overcome. State cannot continue to rely on the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other members of the uniformed community to ask Congress for money and authorities to build capacity and capabilities to fulfill current and future requirements.

State has a role in making sure the discourse over its purpose and activities become more public, and thus a higher profile, and more informed. The President and the American people require it. Guns and bombs do not create or sustain peace."

CNS News.Com - Obama Freezes Budget for Program Designed to Stop Terrorists from Getting U.S. Visas

From my archive of press clippings:

CNS

Obama Freezes Budget for Program Designed to Stop Terrorists from Getting U.S. Visas

Wednesday, May 05, 2010


By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer


This Dec. 2009 photo released by the U.S. Marshal's Service on Monday Dec. 28, 2009 shows Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in Milan, Mich. Abdulmutallab, 23, is charged with trying to detonate an explosive device on a Dec. 25 flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. (AP Photo/U.S. Marshal's Service)

(CNSNews.com) – Four months after the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit and nine years after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, only 14 of the 57 U.S. consulates identified as being at “high risk” for potentially providing visas to terrorists have been furnished with units of the Department of Homeland Security’s Visa Security Program (VSP).

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"President Barack Obama, meanwhile, is planning to freeze the program’s budget for fiscal 2011.

The VSP, established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, puts Department of Homeland Security officials in the field at U.S. consulates to vet the backgrounds of people applying for U.S. visas. DHS uses a broader range of databases than the State Department to review the backgrounds of visa applicants. Also, many policymakers believe DHS officials tend to be more security-minded than State Department consular officers when reviewing visa applications.

While administration officials have said publicly that five additional VSP units should be in place at high risk consulates by the end of 2011, President Barack Obama’s fiscal Year 2011 budget for DHS--submitted almost two months after the Christmas Day bombing attempt—does not increase funding for the program from its fiscal 2010 level."

&

"Congressional sources told CNSNews.com that Yemen and Jerusalem are believed to be among the four planned VSP units to be deployed in 2010. The visa-issuing process and the progress of the VSP came under scrutiny after the failed Christmas Day attack Northwest Flight 253, when the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held hearings on the incident. At the April 21 hearing, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the committee, said the Obama administration was not making the expansion of VSP a priority. “Here’s why I reached that conclusion,” Lieberman (I-Conn.) said. “DHS and the State Department have identified 57 high-risk consular posts around the world – that’s out of 200 posts that issue visas. But only 14 of those have received … Visa Security Program offices.”"

GE - Expanding mission of State's Diplomatic Security Bureau concerns lawmakers, GAO

From my archive of press clippings:

Government Executive

Expanding mission of State's Diplomatic Security Bureau concerns lawmakers, GAO

By Elizabeth Newell enewell@govexec.com

December 9, 2009

Both the Government Accountability Office and lawmakers are concerned about how the State Department's Diplomatic Security Bureau is handling a rapid acceleration of responsibilities during the past decade.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"At a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia on Wednesday, GAO presented the results of a recent audit showing the security service faces significant challenges as a result of the considerable growth in its mission since 1998."

"(T)he bureau's presence in an increasing number of dangerous posts overseas requires additional resources, even though Diplomatic Security's budget has grown almost tenfold during the past 10 years."

"(E)xtra resources have not guaranteed the bureau's readiness, particularly given Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent statement that the number of American civilians in Afghanistan will triple by early next year."

"(M)ost pressing is the second challenge GAO identified -- staffing shortages and challenges such as language deficiencies and experience gaps. According to Voinovich, 53 percent of special agents do not speak or read at the foreign language level their position requires."

&

"(T)he bureau must do more to balance the increasing reliance on contractors and properly manage them. Almost 90 percent of Diplomatic Security's workforce needs are met by contractors, and GAO found that some employees are not prepared to manage such a large private sector workforce."

re: "50 military "good ole boys" support shifting money to the State Department"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside The Foreign Policy Machine") highlights some support from a somewhat unexpected quarter.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he development community has rounded up 50 senior retired military officers to support its drive to shift money and authorities from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom."

"The group is trying to protect the president's $58.5 billion fiscal 2011 budget request as it winds its way through the legislative process. That's the biggest request ever for foreign operations and international assistance, but in this time of fiscal peril, lawmakers are expected to try to use that part of the budget request to fund other priorities."

&

"Hagee said the letter is remarkable because it represents the opinions of "50 retired three-and-four-star good-old boys," who have seen first-hand the military's encroachment upon traditional development issues, which was unavoidable but now needs to be addressed.

Many have expressed doubt that the State Department has the capacity to take on these missions, such as managing foreign military training or supervising crisis money disbursement.
"But you can't get the capability and the capacity unless you get the resources," Hagee explained."

Actually, this shouldn't really be all that unexpected. These guys understand that you need more in your toolbox than just a hammer.