re: "Iraq: the day after New Dawn"

Greyhawk at The Mudville Gazette ("the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him") shared this startling observation:

"Making Secretary Clinton one of the more powerful mercenary force commanders of recent history..."

Hmm. Falkenburg, Graeme, Bar-El, and Clinton.

____

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

7/27

re: "State Department Fixing the Facts Based on Policy"

Say or think what you want about Peter Van Buren 's wisdom in tilting at State Dept.'s windmills, at We Meant Well ("How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts And Minds of the Iraqi People") he made some on-target points about AmEmb Baghdad.

Money quote(s):

"The State Department can often times be so inward looking that it fixes the facts based on the policy need, making reality fit the vision whether that naughty reality wants to or not. Sometimes it’s funny, sometimes it can be tragic."

There is an institutional tendency at State to, as someone in the military might say, "fake it 'til you make it." Just keep talking the talk, and walking the walk, and perhaps others will follow.

(Other institutional tendencies include what I call "the full employment for ambassadors program" of opening or re-opening missions that we probably ought not, or at least not yet. Another is a forward-leaning bias towards making an agreement, signing a treaty, any agreement or any treaty, just to have something signed and on paper, irrespective of how good a deal it might be for the U.S.)

"(A)s the State Department rushes to replace all of the military support it needs to exist in still-dangerous Iraq without the Army, there are fears that the warping of reality may indeed endanger lives in Baghdad."

Brother Van Buren posted this in December (my apologies for the time-delay) so the previously-mentioned military support has vaporized. Gone. Pined for the fjords.

"Currently every item of food for the Embassy, from sides of beef to baby carrots, is procured in “safe” Kuwait and convoyed up to Baghdad. It is an expensive system, one that occasionally even entails the loss of life protecting boxes of Raisin Bran, but it has ensured the safety and cleanliness of the food for almost nine years.

The State Department, facing the crazy costs of this system without the nearly bottomless budget of the Defense Department, is once again swaying the facts to fit the policy. Undersecretary for Management Pat Kennedy told Congress in mid-November that seeking to cut costs in Iraq, State is looking to locally purchase some of the food its personnel will eat, breaking with the U.S. military’s practice of importing. Nothing has changed on the ground vis-a-vis food security, but to save money, State is warping that reality to fit its own needs."

Regular readers will note that this developing situation has already born somewhat bitter fruit (or lettuce) in terms of a tightening stranglehold on our Baghdad mission's logistics and support.

"Much has been made of State’s plan to hire over 5500 mercenaries as security guards for its Iraq-bound diplomats. However, while numbers do matter, the skills that those merc possess matter more. Currently in Iraq, with the US Army in place, a State Department convoy ambushed can call on a QRF, an Army quick reaction force. On standby 24/7, these soldiers are literally the cavalry that rides in to save the day."

"(M)ercenaries" is a bit of a loaded/pejorative term, which I believe is Br. Van Buren's intent. While technically correct on some levels, they might more accurately be called "auxiliaries" if the official terminology of "security contractor" seems to euphemistic.

That being said, he's quite correct in his larger point.

"There remain other concerns harder to nail down in an unclassified environment — security at the Baghdad Airport once control leaves U.S. hands, availability of a blood supply (another contractor, who will have to create a logistics schema with the Armed Services Blood Program) and proper trauma care for the diplomats (yet another contractor), particularly should someone suffer the horrific burns now too common in IED attacks. Under the military system, even during an attack, an injured soldier would receive first aid from a trained buddy, be helicopter evacuated from the site within minutes, stabilized at a specialized trauma unit and on a med flight to a hospital in Germany within an hour or two. While the danger on the ground in Iraq will remain the same (if not more dangerous given the lack of American troop presence), State in no way will be able to replicate the vast resources the military can bring to bear."

Allowing for the OBE ("overcome by events") nature of his observation (which is my fault, not his), these are all potentially fatal (and I mean that quite literally) vulnerabilities of our diplomatic mission in Iraq.

Whatever you might personally think of the wisdom of current (or past) U.S. policies in Iraq or of just how good an idea it is to have an embassy of this (or any) size there, or your possibly prejudiced views about diplomats in general, the ground truth there is that the U.S. has stationed civilian personnel overseas on its behalf, on your behalf, to be about America's business. The diplomats and other staff assigned in Baghdad (and other places in Iraq) are there because our elected government determined they must be there.

"State’s responses have been weak. Can’t travel safely outside the Green Zone? “The Embassy will attempt to mitigate the loss of tactical intelligence by establishing closer working relationships with the Government of Iraq.” Although Embassy medical plans do not currently include the capability for handling a mass casualty event, Embassy officials magic-wanded the problem away by stating that “even the US military’s current combat support hospital can be overwhelmed by a large enough number of casualties.” Meanwhile, State “will continue to explore possibilities for mitigating the impact of a mass casualty event.”

In other words, again the policy seems to be warping the reality on the ground. Only this time, it’s not politics, it’s personal, or maybe, without irony, personnel, at stake."

12/7

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: "Could We Just Buy Off Gaddafi's Mercenaries?"

Shannon Love at Chicago Boyz has clearly been reading her Machiavelli.

Money quote(s):

"Gaddafi is relying on foreign mercenaries to serve as his security troops just like Romania’s Nicolae Ceaușescu relied on hired Palestinians. This is a sure sign that his regime has little to no internal support.

My spouse and I were explaining this to our son who asked, “So, since they’re mercenaries, couldn’t we just outbid Gaddafi?”

We laughed at the idea at first but then stopped to think. Back in the day when mercenaries were far more common, they could sometimes be bought off especially if it looked like their current employer would never be able to pay up. The basic economics of a mercenary life has not changed so maybe Gaddafi’s mercenaries would be just as susceptible to financial inducements as their historical predecessors. Gaddafi supposedly has a lot of money to pay his mercs with but I think it safe to say we have more and a much better track record of paying off."

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.") has a locality pay-cut round-up.

Money quote(s):

"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?"

"Could it be because you have "foreign" in your job title? Or it it because you work overseas and is not in real America? And by the way, who knows if you even vote when you are so far away!?!

I think of this as a simple fairness issue. Of course, nothing is ever simple when it comes to money, or politics."

"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."

There's a lot of popular/unpopular mythology and misinformation out there about diplomats, embassies, and the Foreign Service. Such as the erroneous belief that we somehow don't pay federal income taxes.

Not only do we pay federal income taxes, but we pay state income taxes as well, despite the fact that, for instance, I may not have actually lived in my home state for the entirety of the first ten years of my Foreign Service career.

(You're welcome, Old Dominion!)

"(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. And we know that US diplomatic missions are part of that land, even if they are located all over the map, right?

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."

I wonder sometimes if people mistakenly think that the cars being driven around D.C. and New York City with diplomatic plates issued by the State Department belong to U.S. diplomats.

Sorry to disappoint, but those are foreign diplomats assigned by their own foreign countries to foreign embassies, foreign missions, and foreign consulates located in the U.S.

So, if you got cut off in traffic by one, or saw one parked illegally, or were otherwise annoyed by one, be untroubled by the notion that it was a U.S. foreign service officer at the wheel.

"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."

Military members deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan (i.e., combat zones) get a federal tax vacation for the time they are in theatre. U.S. foreign service officers, even those "embedded" with military units in those countries, do not.

This is not a complaint; it's simply an observation as I note the contrast in benefits with regards to different career fields. It simply is. Comparing the military and diplomatic careers, and their respective benefits packages, is like unto the proverbial apples and oranges. They're all fruit, of course, but there are many differences.

Also, as someone who deployed to Iraq as an Army NCO, I "enjoyed" my 12-month federal tax holiday and don't begrudge that the benefit continues to date. The pay systems are quite different, which is why the more useful comparison is with other federal employees, such as the civil service.

"(I)t's not a complete line up of this United States of America unless you have some really wacky ideas thrown in like this one:

"Close the State Department. Hire mercenaries."

Oh! What a gem, dat! I bet the writer would not suggest that if he/she were ever evacuated out of Abidjan, Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli, etc. etc. But just in case Congress takes in that suggestion (because, hey, why not, huh?) -- close the State Department and Uncle Sam somehow hires 'em mercenaries -- here is my simple advice if you're an American in search of an adventure: Do not/do not go to Yemen. What's neat on paper is not always neat in real life. Mercenaries will not arrange an evacuation to bring you back home, they will not notify your next of kin of your welfare or whereabouts, they will not have spouses to cook meals and help check on you in jails or hospitals. And this one is really important -- they will not search morgues to ID your body and ship it home."

The really awful part of consular work are what are non-euphemistically known as "death cases." They are, as anyone with a shred of an imagination might suspect, a bit wearing on those who perform them.

They're also something that good consular officers recognize as being a privilege. It is our honor to be the person who helps take care of those unpleasant chores that an American citizen is simply, to be blunt, too dead to take care of for him- or herself.

Recently, I noted that it was exactly one year since a certain fatal plane crash that involved Americans in my consular district. Out of respect for the families of the deceased I'll omit any unpleasant details, but I will note that was a week when my spouse really helped me deal with the emotional aftermath.

But I wouldn't have ducked the duty, not for anything, because it was my job to be there for my deceased fellow citizens, when no one else could be.

An honor and a privilege and if you ever have a frank exchange of views with my more experienced consular colleagues, you'll quickly notice something: they'll fight for the opportunity to take on a tough job like an evacuation or a disaster. Because they know they've trained for it and they've got the bug that makes them want to help, that makes them run towards events others are running from, like firemen do at fires and like soldiers do when duty calls.

(So, getting back to the original topic, it absolutely dumbfounds me whenever I consider the bass-ackwards business model that financially disincentivizes FSOs from taking overseas assignments. Does. Not. Compute.)

re: "Progressive twit beclowns himself"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive takes a journalist to the woodshed.

Money quote(s):

"A resident fellow traveler at The American Prospect manages to attempt an Uncle J style snarky beat down about security contractors. Unsurprisingly he manages to include zero facts, his assumptions are all literally wrong and even his snarky comments are false and not even funny."

"I will let his voluminous knowedge of military and security affairs speak (silently) for itself, and simply squash his weaselly commentary. This may pass for clever among the pantywaists he represents, but c'mon this is the reality-based community little fella. We deal with real bad guys and real bullets here, although I'm sure you kick ass at Halo while being blissfully ignorant of what HALO even means."

"The idea that you would consider security contractor a euphemism for mercenary shows immediately your lack of serious knowledge or interest in the topic at hand."

"Since the most dangerous situation you have likely found your punk ass in is a slap fight at a frat house, I will deny your attempt to judge the professionalism of your betters. You so blithely discount the fact that no one Blackwater was protecting in the most dangerous area on Earth has been killed"

&

"(T)he type of specialized security Blackwater does is something only a tiny handful of military folks do. Mostly because it is not their job to be bullet sponges for diplomatic weenies. Their job is to make dead tangos"