re: "Hired by US State Department into Diplomatic Corps. Need wardrobe advice"

Liam Schwartz at the Consular Corner monthly newsletter for December 2011 undertook to answer a set of Foreign Service wardrobe questions (from Feb. 8, 2010) that he'd found at the Styleforum.

DamonG asked:

"First time poster, long time lurker -After about a 1.5 year process, I've been offered (and accepted) a position with the US State Department as a Foreign Service Officer. I am 38 and have worked all my life in the information technology field in silicon valley. Current work wear is chinos, oxford shirts and perhaps a sweater, loafer shoes.

I've had very little occasion to wear a suit - I own exactly one - a charcoal Calvin Klein that is my wedding / funeral / interview suit. It is a 3 button and fits well. In my new career, I am going to need a new wardrobe - I figure at a minimum 3 more suits (navy, navy pin, grey and / or black), as well as some shirts and ties. I like 3 button suits, so will shop for those.

So my question is this - where should I go to buy these suits? I'm ready (and somewhat prepared financially) to spend what's required. Judging from Brooks Brothers prices, I will need about 3 to 4k $ for 3 suits and 6 or 7 shirts with ties. Should I shop at brooks brothers? I want suits that will last a good while, both in terms of wear as well as fashion. I would like to shop locally (Silicon Valley) as I find it very hard to mail order clothing - my body doesn't lend itself well to 'off-the-rack' clothing. I need a store that I can trust will put me into suits that are appropriate and fit well.

Most of my work initially at State will be seated (visa adjudication) with some American citizen services work mixed in (births, deaths, etc.). There will be official meetings, parties, etc. to attend. In other words, I need a good all-around formal wardrobe.

Am I correct in my wardrobe calculations? Frankly, I am a dope when it comes to buying a suit - I don't want to buy something that will fall apart in a few days, I also don't want to look like Ambassador Dufflebag when I get to post. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. My report date is March 29th in DC. I need to have everything wrapped up well before that time.

Thanks -Damon" (2/8/10 at 10:36pm)

By now, Brother Damon has presumably completed his initial orientation and other language/tradecraft training and is serving well and honorably (and suitably attired) at his first assignment abroad. CAA wishes him every success in his FS endeavors.

That being said, CAA can't resist taking a swing at answering his earlier questions, in the naive hope that this may be of some use to other readers.

1. "First time poster, long time lurker -After about a 1.5 year process, I've been offered (and accepted) a position with the US State Department as a Foreign Service Officer. I am 38 and have worked all my life in the information technology field in silicon valley. Current work wear is chinos, oxford shirts and perhaps a sweater, loafer shoes."

Firstly, CAA would like to offer his congratulations upon your being offered (and accepting) a conditional appointment to the U.S. Foreign Service. This is quite a personal achievement by itself and you will undoubtedly go on to great things.

Your recognition that you don't already have all the answers and lack of fear when it comes to seeking help from others speaks well of you.

(CAA had to google "chinos" just be sure we weren't talking about dungarees rather than khakis or something. Must be a regionalism. Sort of like Duckheads.)

Your stock of oxford shirts (presumably with button-down collars) will transition perfectly well into an FSO professional wardrobe, assuming (of course) that they're in reasonably sober colors and/or patterns. Likewise for the loafers.

As with many things in the State Dept./Foreign Service corporate culture, much is owed to a rather WASP-y, Northeastern preppy, Ivy League protestant establishmentarian ethos.

(Thus the preference for Brooks Brothers suits and the like.)

A certain studied eccentricism, like that of the stereotypical English gentleman, is also sometimes in evidence as being a part of this corporate cultural heritage. Thus the conformist grey flannel or J.Edgar Hoover/IBM black Blues Brothers suits are occasionally accessorized with interesting ties, braces, and the like.

Similarly western-style boots (see far below) and seersucker suits can also figure into the FSO wardrobe mix.

2. "I've had very little occasion to wear a suit - I own exactly one - a charcoal Calvin Klein that is my wedding / funeral / interview suit. It is a 3 button and fits well. In my new career, I am going to need a new wardrobe - I figure at a minimum 3 more suits (navy, navy pin, grey and / or black), as well as some shirts and ties. I like 3 button suits, so will shop for those."

Full stop. For funerals, you need a black suit, not a charcoal (or other/darker) shade of grey. For most other business-attire purposes, a charcoal suit will serve quite admirably.

Let's analyze your real requirements first; and by analyze, I'll use the traditional meaning of break-it-into-tiny-bits-and-tackle-those-one-by-one.

Your first stop as a newly-minted FSO will be the George P. Schultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center (NFATC) of the Foreign Service Institute (FSI), where you will attend the initial Foreign Service Officer (FSO) orientation, "PG101 - Orientation for Foreign Service Officers," traditionally known as the "A-100" class.

You should be advised ahead of time that for A-100, business suits (or equivalent female attire) are required dress for the entirety of the orientation course.

(That's not strictly true, as there will be an off-site training event at The Woods where dress will be much more casual.)

So, allowing for every-other-day airing out and periodic dry-cleaning, you'll need at least a second business suit to get you through the orientation class lasting.

Your instincts about suit colors, "(navy, navy pin, grey and / or black)," are good. If you've already got grey covered, then go with (one each) blue or "navy pin," and/or black.

(Some of us have the skin tone to successfully pull off an olive suit; I don't myself but you might.)

As for shirts and ties, your current stock of oxfords may be fine, but if I may make a recommendation, L.L. Bean has some very durable wash & wear oxford shirts which I've found to be quite serviceable (monograming is free if you have their credit card). I have not managed to wear out a single one yet, although I did damage one once.

In addition to the online store, L.L. Bean has a physical location at the Tysons Corner Center shopping mall, only a few miles from where you'll be training in Arlington, Va. And, if you're dead-set on it, you can also visit Brooks Brothers in the same shopping mall.

Ties? Don't get me started.... Those are your opportunity to show a little individuality; just don't overdo it.

By the way, while you're at FSI, check to see when they're offering the (optional) Protocol course. It may be offered on a weekend, but is well worth investing the time.

3. "So my question is this - where should I go to buy these suits? I'm ready (and somewhat prepared financially) to spend what's required. Judging from Brooks Brothers prices, I will need about 3 to 4k $ for 3 suits and 6 or 7 shirts with ties. Should I shop at brooks brothers? I want suits that will last a good while, both in terms of wear as well as fashion. I would like to shop locally (Silicon Valley) as I find it very hard to mail order clothing - my body doesn't lend itself well to 'off-the-rack' clothing. I need a store that I can trust will put me into suits that are appropriate and fit well."

See my above about numbers of suits. For A-100, you'll need no more than three suits. It would be advisable to wait until you know where you're first assignment will be before making a larger wardrobe investment than that bare minimum.

Currently the A-1oo orientation lasts only six weeks. Required training after that will vary depending upon your individual post-training assignment. A selection of "tradecraft" courses will get you up to speed for various consular, political, management, economic, or other assignments.

But the "long pole in the tent" will be language training, which may or may not be required for any particular post or individual billet.

Why does this matter in terms of wardrobe? Two reasons:

- After A-100, required dress for FSI students devolves to something known as "FSI casual," which is quite similar to what you described (above) as appropriate in the Silicon Valley IT arena.

- There are more than 260 individual U.S. embassy, mission, and consulate (incl. consulates-general) posts around the world in a variety of climates. After "Flag Day," get in touch with your supervisor-to-be that post and inquire about what's normal business attire at that post and for any climate/locale-specific advice.

("Flag Day" is the tradition-wrapped event towards the latter part of your A-1oo training at which you will learn your first post of assignment, upon which will hinge things like tradecraft and language training.)

All that being said, CAA has nothing against Brooks Brothers suits. But as a personal matter, CAA decided as a junior officer that he'd hold off on making such largish individual wardrobe purchases until he was a mid-grade officer (or had at least gotten recommended for commissioning & tenure).

4. "Most of my work initially at State will be seated (visa adjudication) with some American citizen services work mixed in (births, deaths, etc.). There will be official meetings, parties, etc. to attend. In other words, I need a good all-around formal wardrobe."

Words, and definitions, are important. Formal wear (and wardrobe) is not the same as business attire. Formal means black tie (i.e., tuxedo). CAA has worn his own tuxedo on official business as an FSO on exactly one occasion, and that was in the latter months of his second overseas tour.

This is not to say you shouldn't have a tux, and the requisite accoutrements, pressed and ready to go in your closet. But it is to say that you should hold off on buying formal rig until you know where you're being assigned.

(CAA has had considerably more than one non-work, i.e., social, occasion to get into his monkey suit, such as annual U.S. Marines birthday balls.)

If you're headed to the tropics, then get a white (or cream) tuxedo jacket rather than a black one; you can always pick up a black dinner jacket later on. For that matter, in a number of places, "Red Sea Rig" or "Planters" may be worn in lieu of the whole black tie enchilada.

(CAA will forebear a discussion of evening wear since the chances of most entry level officers having to attend a white tie event are miniscule.)

As noted above, check with your supervisor-to-be for the "ground truth" about appropriate professional attire at your first post of assignment. That may save you some considerable time and expense.

For the average first-and-second-tour (FAST) visa adjudicator, you'll be seated for much of your day at a 15-minute forced-entry/ballistic-resistant transaction (or "teller") window. Your clientele won't even be able to tell if you're wearing pants at all, so spending a lot of money on expensive suits may be going a bit overboard. Dockers (or similar) khakis or chinos will more than suffice.

Depending upon the degree of formality in that particular consular section, you may interview in a simple shirt and tie or wear a blazer or sport coat of some sort. In any event, get a nice navy blue blazer with the traditional shiny buttons. They're widely available and represent a cornerstone of any gentleman's wardrobe.

(In certain Spanish-influenced countries, wear of the Guayabera shirt will substitute for day-to-day business attire, even in a U.S. diplomatic post.)

5. "Am I correct in my wardrobe calculations? Frankly, I am a dope when it comes to buying a suit - I don't want to buy something that will fall apart in a few days, I also don't want to look like Ambassador Dufflebag when I get to post. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. My report date is March 29th in DC. I need to have everything wrapped up well before that time."

I love the expression "Ambassador Dufflebag"!

_____

Schwartz, Esq. noted the first three responses to Mr. G's query:

"First Reply: Congratulations. Don't go hog wild on the clothes until you find out where you are posted. Many places will afford the opportunity for bespoke. DOS (and the whole interagency team) dress like the rest of the USG, average or below. If you can do better, that's great. Men's Wearhouse is probably good enough."

"Second Reply: Don't make the navy pinstripe too bold, it will definitely stand out. Most government employees will be in solid colors. I would recommend a navy and two grey scale colors. Welcome to Foggy Bottom."

"Third Reply: You're going to spend your first year stuck in Arlington at A100 and other courses before going anywhere. While it will still be important to make a good first impression, you don't have to go all out for training. I recommend getting a suit or two before you arrive, then take a look around before buying the rest. Also, as others have said, you'll probably want to find out where you'll be moving before buying a complete wardrobe."

Nothing at all wrong with Men's Wearhouse and the like, although CAA prefers Alexandre of London and even Jos. A. Bank. L.L. Bean (as noted above) also carries some business-grade clothing worth checking into.

As for pinstriped suits, nothing wrong with a subtle bit of pinstriping, but don't overdo it; you don't want to look like either a mafioso or a Fox News anchorman.

_____

Schwartz, Esq. added:

"We at Consular Corner also recommend these three important fashion tips to new officers arriving at their designated visa lines:

Never wear a short sleeve shirt with a tie. Short sleeve shirts are perceived as lower class apparel. Fine as part of a uniform or if you aspire to be a fast-food manager, not if you want to project a professional image.

Suit and Sports jackets are symbols of authority.

No pens or pocket protectors in your shirt pocket."

Schwartz, Esq. is pretty much dead-on-balls-accurate about the short sleeve shirts with tie combo, but that may not be utterly universal in application (see my note about Guayabera shirts above).

Suits and sports coats/blazers lend an air of professional decorum to what would otherwise be perceived as a vulgar brawl.

Seriously, visa applicants are make a considerable investment of time and energy to get ready for their interview at the U.S. embassy (or consulate). The least the interviewer can do (along with a lot of other least-you-can-do things) is have a professional appearance, sort of like a judge (only without the robes and wigs, which is a shame actually).

Likewise, pens and pocket protectors simply don't lend to the air of knowledgeable majesty that you want to project at the interview window. That being said, if the pen is a fountain pen, much can be forgiven.

_____

Some final remarks about building that professional wardrobe, from the ground up.

Always wear a (white) t-shirt, even in the tropics. Crew-neck not v-neck. Cotton.

With business attire, wear black or cordovan (oxblood) loafers or lace-up shoes. They should be brush-shined at least once a week to give a nice gloss (and to preserve the leather). Spit-shined shoes are a trademark of military professionals, but FSOs don't need to spend that much of their day thusly.

Some FSOs from Southern/Western states like to wear boots with their business suits. This is a regionalism and not strictly wrong, even for U.S. diplomats.

(CAA is not quite so broadminded when it comes to string/bolo ties.)

Shoes should generally match the (leather) belt and the watchband (if leather).

Socks should match the trousers (some folks would argue they should match the shirt) and be over-the-calf. (Nobody wants to see your pale, hairy legs when you sit down.)

CAA recommends oxford shirts be in the colors white, blue, and pink (or, if you prefer, "light red") if solid colors and suggests white-and-blue and white-and-red striped oxford shirts as well to break up the rotation.

FSOs should have perhaps at least a dozen ties to wear in rotation, of various patterns, some classic/traditional (rep, foulard, &tc.) patterns and some in current fashions. CAA will admit a fondness for ties designed by Jerry Garcia.

Don't invest too much in neckties, at least at first, since fashions and styles change seasonally/annually.

Headgear. In recent decades headgear for business attire has dropped mostly out of style, although that varies from time to place. If your assignment takes you to sunny tropical or sub-tropical locales, you may want to re-think this and invest in a bit of topcover protection.

Lastly, DamonG was coming to D.C. (and onwards) from Southern California, where seasonal variations in temperature and weather are somewhat muted compared to that of the Middle Atlantic states. So my final suggestion involves outerwear.

Think about what season it will be for the (minimum) two-to-three (plus) months you'll be in Washington, D.C. At the very least, invest in a good raincoat. CAA favors a London Fog trenchcoat-style raincoat he purchased during the mid-1990s, which has a zip-out liner for colder weather. That ought to suffice during all but freezing and sub-zero weather.

If a D.C. winter is in your future, invest in a good wool topcoat. A black wool topcoat is appropriate for all levels of formality, business, and casual dress. It won't go out of style, ever.

____

Best of luck to you!

_____

ADDENDUM: "Ol' Remus" noted at Eternity Road:

"A man should choose his watch with care, it's one of his three sanctioned pieces of jewelry, the others being his pen and his eyeglasses."

CAA will admit to not being quite so old-fashioned as Ol' Remus; CAA's ideas of "sanctioned" pieces of jewelry for men extend to sundries such as wedding and class rings, tie chains (or tacks), and a (single) lapel pin.

Being of a military bent, CAA even thinks that men's jewelry can reasonably extend to bracelets of the POW/MIA, paracord, Med-Alert, and men's ID varieties.

Just as your leatherwear (shoes, belt, and wristwatch band) ought to match (at least broadly), so too your metallic jewelry ought not clash. Keep this in mind with regards to belt buckles, wrist watches, and even shoe buckles (Heaven forbid!) as well.

Obviously, you can't (or at least shouldn't) swap out your wedding band for another metal just to harmonize your ensemble and the same dignity ought to be extended to your university/college class or signet rings.

And while, unlike the military, there's no strict rule about the number of rings an FSO ought to wear on any given hand, is impression you want to convey that of a riverboat gambler (or pimp)?

Eyeglasses may or may not represent a sizeable financial payout for any male FSO so I hesitate to lay out any strict rules other than to think about how the frames will mesh with your working wardrobe before you invest in them.

Pens. One of CAA's pet peeves is the sad phenomenon whereby a weighty and portentious official document, such as a birth certificate or similar, bears an attesting signature apparently affixed by an official using a pen nearly out of ink.

In other words, while the garden variety government-issue ballpoint pens are fine for routine correspondence, checklists, and the like, if the federal government entrusts you with a position where you're certifying the birth, death, naturalization, immigration, or other major life event of someone on a document suitable for framing, for Pete's sake use a real pen!

If you're an FSO take a good look at the nice commissioning document you were given. Nothing tentative about the signatures on that bad boy; nobody was running out of ink that day, let me tell you!

So extend the same courtesy to your clients, your customers, our citizens.

re: "Surrendering to the Drones"

Jens David Ohlin at the LieberCode ("The Lieber Code was the first codification of the international laws of war.") looks at the legality of drone-launched missile attacks.

Money quote(s):

"Although technically the United States has a “capture or kill” program, the drones are often used for targeted killing operations. True, they are also used for surveillance, which might precede an operation to capture a suspected terrorist, but the drone strikes we are concerned about involve the deliberate killing of suspected terrorists.

One of the comments during the panel discussion was quite elegantly phrased: You can’t surrender to a drone." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

The (bolded) comment reveals as much about the confusion between the law enforcement and warfare models of, problem-solving as it highlights an assumed drawback of using drones in counter-terrorism.

(Of course, one man's bug is another man's feature.)

"The idea that a suspected terrorist cannot surrender to a drone suggests, somehow, that the appropriate course of action is to send in troops who could potentially accept the surrender of the targets and capture them rather than kill them. This argument deserves a little more scrutiny.

It is important to distinguish between the duty to accept surrender and the duty to afford the enemy the opportunity to surrender. These are two different normative requirements, under both the laws of war and the morality of warfare. Everyone agrees that a soldier cannot kill an enemy combatant who effectively communicates his desire to surrender to the opposing soldier. In fact, declaring that “no quarter will be given” (i.e. refusing to accept surrenders) is both a violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime generating individual criminal responsibility.

However, that’s entirely different from the duty to offer the enemy the opportunity to surrender." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

What "Everyone agrees" to (see above) isn't necessarily so under wartime conditions. A bright guy like Prof. Ohlin can probably cite a half-dozen circumstances where a combatant on the battlefield is not obligated to accept a surrender, no matter how clear the "I surrender" message is communicated.

"(Y)ou can’t surrender to a drone, but you also can’t surrender to an F-16 or a stealth bomber or any other form of aircraft that fires weapons from a distance. That doesn’t necessarily suggest that the proposed norm is incorrect, but it does suggest that it is highly revisionary and would require wholesale revision to current practices of modern warfare. Although such a view would not necessarily be fatal to a moral requirement for warfare, I do believe it is fatal to a legal requirement that is necessarily based on customary international law (and requisite state practice)."

This is where Prof. Ohlin cuts to the meat of this question. Combatants (lawful or otherwise) coming under long-range or stand-off fire have few surrender options available to them, whether that fire is artillery, rocket, bomber, or drone-launched.

"Many of the asserted objections to targeted killings turn out not to be objections to drones per se but actually to the strategic use of air power generally.

As it happens, though, the recent technological advancements associated with air power (and smart bombs) make these weapons more discriminating than they have ever been in the past. A missile fired by a drone or F-16 today might ironically be more discriminating than an artillery shell fired a decade ago (or a missile fired today by a less technologically advanced country). Furthermore, within the category of air power, a drone operator has more real-time high resolution images of his target than a fighter pilot, who in many cases is dropping a bomb on a set of defined coordinates regardless of who happens to be in the building at that time."

A more suspicious sort, such as CAA, might see discussions like this as just the first feelers of an attempt to get civilized powers to voluntarily relinquish one of the more effective forms of military power currently available to them.

12/6

re: "College As Ritual"

Shannon Love at Chicago Boyz examined the consequences of faulty assumptions.

Money quote(s):

"A constant refrain is that young adults went tens of thousands of dollars into debt for degrees and now they can’t find even minimum wage jobs. I don’t think they really understand the purpose of education."

The purpose of education, from the standpoint of a student (and their long-suffering parents) is to prepare someone to enter "the professions." From a societal standpoint, such as that envisioned by the Morrell Land Grant Act, was to train tomorrow's leaders of society, to include the training of militia officers.

"Carefully missing from most of the complaints is the type of degree they got, but I think it’s fairly clear that most of these people got liberal-arts degrees. Moreover, there is no evidence that they pursued these degrees with any eye towards practical economic returns for their considerable financial investment.

I really get the sense that many of these people simply don’t understand that an education is supposed to equip you with skills that make you valuable to other people. Instead, I think these kids have somehow got the idea that college is more of a ritual you have to go through, a kind of right of passage, that entitles you to a middle-class or better life-style while pursuing a job you find interesting and emotionally fulfilling."

The mindset isn't all that new, and it wasn't all that long ago (just a few short years) that possession of the sheepskin itself was a sufficient credential to guarantee a middle class job (or better) and the lifestyle that went with it.

The availability of massive amounts of student loan money has allowed universities to ramp up their fees many times the rate of inflation; after all, the students would simply borrow the money anyways. What matter that the universities and our government have successfully created the country's first nation-wide debtor class of indentured servants.

"We need to think long and hard how so many young people simply don’t understand the purpose of education. Where did they get the idea that a liberal-arts degree automatically entitled them to a middle-class income that could easily pay off tens of thousands in student loans?"

The first part (liberal arts degree = middle class income) is somewhat unfair to lay all of the blame for on the students, given that it had been true not so long before.

The second part is newer; there never used to be that much student loan money available. Taking on that kind of debt without learning a "hard" degree such as in engineering, science & technology, accounting, or at least business, was an iffy proposition at best. It betrays something of a fantastical mindset, as if all of them expected to marry into money or something.

11/8

re: "Honduran president: America is our No. 1 ally"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") brings us up to date on Honduras.

Money quote(s):

"Back in 2009, the State Department sided strongly with former President Manuel Zelaya, who was seized by the military and taken out of Honduras in what some called a coup. Zelaya snuck back into Honduras in September 2009 and holed up in the Brazilian embassy while the Obama administration worked to restore him to power.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even met with Zelaya in Washington, suspended aid to Honduras, and revoked the visas of Honduran officials. Later, Honduras was cut off from Millennium Challenge Corporation assistance.

Eventually, it became apparent that the de facto regime in Tegucigalpa, led by Roberto Micheletti, was winning the internal struggle and that new elections would take place. The administration began shifting its position in October 2009 and finally threw Zelaya under the bus when Lobo won the election and Zelaya rejected a deal that would have returned him temporarily to power."

Thus demonstrating that even U.S. foreign policy has a learning curve and can, eventually, recognize a mistake.

"Most U.S. trade and assistance to Honduras has been restored, although they are still not able to receive grants from the MCC."

10/5

re: "We all know Saddam had no WMDs"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") understands that the major media (and much of your government) has been in major denial for years.

Money quote(s):

"The author got this info from the Duelfer Report and notes that most people only read the exec summary. There was plenty of nastiness, and while he wasn't linked to the 9/11 attacks he played with plenty of terrorists. The left loves to whine about WMD lies, false reports and no ties to terror. Yeah well that is just BS. He was a menace, murderous tyrant and a known user of chemical weapons. We were and truly justified in taking him out and the world ought to be thanking us."

If you have the opportunity to chat with anyone in, for instance, the EOD community who served in Iraq, you can get an earful about all the "no WMD in Iraq" they disabled.

9/15

re: "A Question for Rick Perry"

Andrew Exum at Abu Muqawama ("a blog that focuses on small wars and insurgencies in addition to regional issues in the Middle East") asked a question regarding our old friends the PMOI.

Money quote(s):

"(O)ne of Perry's informal advisors, Gen. (Ret.) Peter Pace, has been shilling for the terrorist group Mujahedeen Khalq along with a boatload of other people from both sides of the aisle -- including former Obama Administration National Security Advisor Gen. (Ret.) Jim Jones.

What is the appropriate response here? Should Gov. Perry distance himself from those who have associated with and advocated on behalf of Mujahedeen Khalq?"

Given the Generals Pace and Jones' former access to the full stories on the MEK/PMOI, I think we should assume they made an informed decision before advocating on their behalf.

8/14

re: "Random Thoughts"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") managed a coherent, if random, thought.

Money quote(s):

"Mosques seems like a separate issue from religious freedom because you don’t usually worry about churches being full of terrorists. But they’re not. Just wish we had a bit more extremism intolerance when it came to Islam. Hurts good Muslims when we tolerate bad. Like the guys behind the Ground Zero mosque; they had enough extremism links that they should have been shunned from polite society."

7/18

re: Anonymous comment

CAA received a rather ill-tempered (much like laser-mounted sea-bass) comment at his "Seasons Greetings" post the other day.

To wit:

"Anonymous said...

Anyone who wishes a career in the Foreign Circus deserves it. It recruits people lacking spines and brains to insure that the officers never question their fuedal lords. You are one step away from dismissal. There is no real appeal as your supervisor can call you an incompetent, racist, toad and not have to prove a word of it. You must prove him to be wrong, but remember the system protects the guilty not the innocent. This is how it enforces complete submission. Expose theft, criminality, etc and you are dead meat because you rock the boat. An ambassador would never violate the laws of the US for personal profit. Right?

Assignments are on the basis of rabis, not the needs or talents required. Don't speak German, don't even bother asking for Germany. Don't speak Russia, an assignment to one of the coackroach stans is just the ticket you need. Find out your supervisor has served in Europe for the past 20 years and his hardship tour is Mexico City, tough it is how the system works.


Better yet the best do not make it past the senior grading process which is reserved for the prime examples of what the foreign circus considers to be "outstanding." I've seen these losers trying to get posts in law firms and lobbyists in DC once people can no longer tolerate their gaffs, mistakes, and omissions,


One other word, imagine living in housing that is subpar, dangerous and assigned by people who care little and do less. No wonder the divorce and alcoholism rate among FSO is through the roof. Worse yet is the number of kiddies who become warped little monsters because of the availibity of drugs and the mindset that they are part of an "elite."


Talk to an FSO. Most if they speak honestly will not recommend it as a career. If they are honest see if they mention these points. If they do not you know you are being had.


As for the tests, these are for losers. State has stated for years it wants to look more like the US as a whole. What do you think this means? Probably 25% of all candidates do not take the test to get in. They simply don't cut the mustard, but these same people will be ahead of you in the promotion and assignment ques.


Great organization. Do yourself a favor and join the IRS. At least its professional. Even the ATF isn't as politically incoherent as State.


One last point, State status as a bad joke is recognized throughout Washington. Ask any staffer if State is the first choice to be consulted on economic, military or political data that is considered realiable, timely or relevant."

As near as I can figure it, Anonymous came to CAA from the Eternity Road blog where CAA is listed in the "Mainly Politics" blogroll. Anonymous was apparently posting from Manassas, Virginia, where he (or she) is a Verizon customer.

1. "Anyone who wishes a career in the Foreign Circus deserves it. It recruits people lacking spines and brains to insure that the officers never question their fuedal lords. You are one step away from dismissal. There is no real appeal as your supervisor can call you an incompetent, racist, toad and not have to prove a word of it. You must prove him to be wrong, but remember the system protects the guilty not the innocent. This is how it enforces complete submission. Expose theft, criminality, etc and you are dead meat because you rock the boat. An ambassador would never violate the laws of the US for personal profit. Right?"

Aww. This sort of talk is liable to hurt my feelings.

Oddly, the recruitment and examination process seemed (to me) designed to ensure that prospective FSOs exhibited both brains and good judgment. Part of good judgment, to me, means picking your battles carefully and being picky about upon which hill you want to die, upon which sword you wish to fall.

(Military and naval officers have to know how to do the same thing.)

As a consular officer, I know that when it comes to fraud or malfeasance or matters of integrity, the Bureau of Consular Affairs will have my back if I'm in the right. Part of being in the right is knowing the applicable laws, directives, and regulations and following them in the spirit they're intended. Not being burdened overmuch with ambassadorial ambitions, perhaps that's easy for me to say....

As a former intelligence professional, I've always taught my subordinates to tell the truth. The truth being what they themselves saw, heard, read, or otherwise sensed and intuited, and being very clear about which is which. Err on the side of clarity at the expense of politeness or political correctness; don't be afraid to voice a conclusion or informed opinion but label it as such and be clear about your sources and reasoning. In other words, show the math. Let those who have broader access (i.e., all-source analysts) make broader conclusions.

And to be frank, any supervisor who called me "an incompetent, racist, toad" would probably suffer an accident walking into a door jamb.

(But CAA has been hoarding his PTSD card for just such an occasion.)

2. "Assignments are on the basis of rabis (sic), not the needs or talents required. Don't speak German, don't even bother asking for Germany. Don't speak Russia, an assignment to one of the coackroach stans is just the ticket you need. Find out your supervisor has served in Europe for the past 20 years and his hardship tour is Mexico City, tough it is how the system works."

This has not been, to say the least, my experience of the assignments process to date. Needs of the post or bureau have generally seemed paramount.

While it's certainly imperfect, and something of a black box in spots, I know (for instance) plenty of officers who had to learn (or re-learn) German in order to be assigned therein. Once FSI-trained in German and with an assignment under ones belt, however, legend has it that being in the "German mafia" could get you re-assigned back to Germany later on after an assignment (or three) elsewhere in the (Third?) (W)orld. I've seen that happen, including instances where the intervening assignments were in Iraq or Afghanistan (or both).

(To me, that always seemed more a matter of taking advantage of language/country experience rather than favoritism. Germany alone boasts six different post, plus Austria, plus Switzerland. Due to the decline in the number of high school and college German curriculae, fewer and fewer FSOs enter the Foreign Service speaking the language, which means most FSOs taking an assignment there have to be trained in-house at FSI.)

As for the former Soviet "Stan" assignments going to newly trained Russian speakers, this is of a piece with French speakers serving in West Africa before getting a much-coveted Paris gig or similar scenarios involving Portugese/Angola-Mozambique-Brazil/Lisbon and Spanish/South&Central-America/Madrid. It's not prejudice or favoritism; it's paying your dues.

Generally speaking, very few of even the senior ranks of the career Foreign Service will spend all that long in Western Europe before taking a "career enhancing" hardship assignment. That being said, some hardship assignments are harder than others; there is a range involved there and hardship ratings can be based on a variety of factors.

CAA has himself received hardship differential pay in countries which are home to quite posh resorts. It should be noted that CAA did neither live nor work (nor even much visit) in said resorts; U.S. embassies tending to be located in slum-filled capital cities rather than along an exotic coast or in picturesque mountains.

3. "Better yet the best do not make it past the senior grading process which is reserved for the prime examples of what the foreign circus considers to be "outstanding." I've seen these losers trying to get posts in law firms and lobbyists in DC once people can no longer tolerate their gaffs, mistakes, and omissions,"

If I read this correctly, the "losers" in this paragraph are those who make it into the Senior Foreign Service (SFS). Not having spent much time around D.C. law or lobbying firms since joining the Foreign Service, I must yield to Anonymous' expertise.

(For those keeping score, CAA is in no imminent danger of becoming a member of the Senior Foreign Service.)

4. "One other word, imagine living in housing that is subpar, dangerous and assigned by people who care little and do less. No wonder the divorce and alcoholism rate among FSO is through the roof. Worse yet is the number of kiddies who become warped little monsters because of the availibity of drugs and the mindset that they are part of an "elite." "

Wow. CAA married a Foreign Service brat; on the morrow I will inquire whether she is a "warped little monster."

Housing varies. Rules as to how it's assigned are uniform throughout the service, but its quality, quantity, and availability are subject to the reality of life abroad. Generally it's more comfortable than military tentage in a combat zone or even enlisted dependent housing at domestic military bases. But that is going to depend upon what's available on the local market or what the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations was able to construct.

I'm not trying to sugar-coat this; much of the world is simply not up to providing the kind of amenities (i.e., safety, comfort, and health) the average American suburbanite takes for granted. That's one of the tradeoff Foreign Service families make, or at least have made for them by their Foreign Service Officer/Specialist parent or spouse.

The availability of drugs is not something unique to FS or even expat life. I hear tell, in fact, that there are drugs even in American public schools nowadays. As for the "elite" charge, this is where the occasional domestic assignment helps keep FS brats grounded, just as a year or three of commuting to Foggy Bottom by Metrorail will blunt the elitest edge of even the most credentialed FSO.

Lastly, I can't really speak to divorce and/or alcoholism rates beyond the anecdotal.

5. "Talk to an FSO. Most if they speak honestly will not recommend it as a career. If they are honest see if they mention these points. If they do not you know you are being had."

Who shaves the barber? All Cretans are liars.

An honest FSO (and we all at least start honest) will tell you it's not for everyone, but we're still only half kidding when we tell each other we're "living the dream."

Every assignment isn't a dream, and there are supervisors (and co-workers) you will grow to loath so much that you will rather take Lower Slobovia without them rather than work in London with them. FSOs need to be very honest with their spouses and children and weigh their interests fairly during the course of their FS careers.

6. "As for the tests, these are for losers. State has stated for years it wants to look more like the US as a whole. What do you think this means? Probably 25% of all candidates do not take the test to get in. They simply don't cut the mustard, but these same people will be ahead of you in the promotion and assignment ques."

CAA presumes that Anonymous is referring to those who, as either Pickering or Presidential Management Fellows (or similar) bypass having to take the written examination (actually, nowadays it's computer-based). They still have to make it past the FS Oral Assessment (and not all of them do).

Once upon a time, when CAA was in his A-1oo class (new FS Officer orientation), out of idle curiousity and political incorrectness he crunched the numbers with regards to ethnic background. Within a percentage point (or two), they did in fact match what I recalled of the general U.S. population.

CAA is a pretty smart guy (if I do say so myself) and without false modesty can admit to having served in several career fields which can fairly be described as being quite selective, even elite. The folks that make it into an A-100 class can only be described as smart.

(I never bothered to crunch the numbers with regards to gender, but it's fair to say that the women in the Foreign Service are simply scary smart.).

7. "Great organization. Do yourself a favor and join the IRS. At least its professional. Even the ATF isn't as politically incoherent as State."

Conclusion insufficiently grounded by facts in evidence. Hearsay. Comparing State with these two federal agencies in particular is something in the way of libel by itself.

(Lies. Damned Lies. Statistics!)

8. "One last point, State status as a bad joke is recognized throughout Washington. Ask any staffer if State is the first choice to be consulted on economic, military or political data that is considered realiable, timely or relevant."

Which staffers would those be? Congressional members or committee staff (i.e., "hill rats")? CAA's sense is that many of the wannabee policy-wonks that infest Capitol Hill/Adams-Morgan/Georgetown never managed to pass the FS exam and are holding a grudge about it.

As for being consulted on data of various sorts, when CAA was schooled in intelligence analysis, he was cautioned that policy- and decision-makers tend to rely less on official- and/or intelligence reports than on the sources of information to which they had access before becoming policy- and/or decision-makers. Personal contacts. Media. Pre-existing impressions and prejudices. And usually only as an afterthought would actual processed intelligence be considered, and that for what-do-you-have-that-I-haven't-already-heard.

State has decent political and economic collection and analysis, and it's all-source analysts in INR have a uniformly stellar reputation within the Intelligence Community (IC) (although frankly, going to State for military information seems like a fairly stupid thing to do). Where State really adds the value is in providing context for intelligence by having a cadre of folks who're either on the ground and know the players or have been there.

By way of example, during a previous assignment I happened to have a lot of general access to intelligence products from across the spectrum of the IC. On a whim I looked up satellite imagery of a area of significance in a prior overseas assignment (am I being vague enough?). The imagery didn't match what I knew were the facts (geography) on the ground. After a bit of head-scratching, I realized what I was looking at, and that was imagery of the town just west of what I should have been seeing, and I was quickly able to find the correct imagery.

Now, imagine you're on an aircraft carrier and you're launching helicopters to evacuate American citizens from a certain Third World city, and you end up in the wrong place. Or worse, imagine you're in a bad way and you're waiting on a helicopter to come get you, and it's late or never makes it at all, simply because someone who had the local knowledge never had input.

This sort of thing can get complicated.

re: "Hillary Clinton has serious concerns about Russia's parliamentary election vote. I have serious concerns about State."

Pundita ("US foreign policy for the 21st Century") enumerates her concerns about the State Dept.'s polities in Afghanistan.

She lists six concerns.

Her damning conclusion:

"If State argues it can't be held responsible because it doesn't write U.S. foreign policy and military strategy -- what kind of policy is it, what kind of strategy can it be called, when you're aware that your government knowingly pays another to murder and maim the very troops sworn to protect your life and your nation? This is not a policy or strategy issue. This is about demonstrating baseline human decency, as did the British military officers who resigned their commands to protest their government's betrayal of British troops in Afghanistan.

So I'd say that at this juncture the Secretary of State should be less concerned about human rights abuses in Russia and more concerned about the conduct of the agency she heads. The conduct has helped make a mockery of human rights in Afghanistan and the United States and specifically in the treatment of Americans serving tours of duty in Afghanistan and the Afghans serving in their country's military. And that's not even mentioning the mayhem that State has helped unleash on Pakistan."

Frankly, CAA would be reluctant to credit mayhem unleashed in Pakistan to anyone other than the Pakistanis themselves.

12/5

re: "Can Obama claim we're leaving Iraq more responsibly than we entered?"

Peter Feaver at The Shadow ("Notes from the Loyal Opposition") drew some parallels.

Money quote(s):

"I haven't seen many attempts to document the ways that the exit is resembling the entry.

A few caveats are worth mentioning up front. The exit is still a work in progress and so there is plenty of time for things to go better (or worse) than might be forecasted now. Any judgment I or anyone else makes on the subject is provisional at best. Moreover, most of the critiques of the entry into Iraq owe more to partisan (or academic) mythology than to actual fact. But they have wide currency -- indeed, in some quarters, they are accepted as self-evident truths -- and so it is worth investigating the extent to which they might apply to the exit."

Mr. Feaver wrote and posted this a month ago (Nov. 7), so the exit has now been completed. And conditions have become, to put it diplomatically, a mite bit shaky, virtually since the moment the withdrawal of combat troops was accomplished.

"At a time when the economy is suffering from some of the worst years since the Great Depression, the echo is unmistakable, and many critics believe that the Iraq decision was dictated by the 2012 election calendar."

Might could be. I did notice that the last of the troops to be pulled out crossed the border into Kuwait before Christmas; it's possible they were even "home before Christmas." Which is a cliché guaranteed to trigger laughter in a military crowd.

"If you find it plausible that Bush let the difficult economic circumstances and the 2002 electoral calendar shape his approach to entering Iraq, shouldn't you find it more plausible that Obama has let his far more daunting economic troubles and the higher stakes 2012 electoral calendar shape his Iraq exit?"

Do electoral politics have an influence on the timing of decisions made by elected politicians? Disbelieving such a thing is beyond CAA's poor powers of naïveté, no matter which party a politician hails from. The better question is to what degree, how much weight such considerations have. Somewhere there's a bright line on this that separates the politicians from the statesmen.

"(T)here is the charge that President Bush put in place the wrong team to handle his Iraq policy and these early failures doomed the effort. Even Secretary Rumsfeld concedes in his memoir that picking Lt.Gen Ricardo Sanchez to head up the military side was a bad choice and Rumsfeld's critique of the civilian head, Ambassador Bremer, is scathing. The team struggled to work together and to understand the situation in Iraq. The crucial early period was squandered, sowing the seeds that reaped the bitter fruit of the sectarian violence of 2004-2006. By all accounts, the Bush administration finally got the right personnel in place when the President tapped General Dave Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker to implement the new surge strategy and their ability to achieve unity of effort contributed considerably to the surge's success."

How long did it take Pres. Lincoln to settle on the Meade/Grant command team?

"Midway through his first term, Obama may have finally assembled a solid team with General Ray Odierno and Ambassador Jim Jeffrey. But he started out with a choice that left many people, including myself, scratching our heads: picking Chris Hill to be the Ambassador. Ambassador Hill certainly had a distinguished career, but he had no direct experience with Iraq and so was starting from square one. Sure enough, within months credible reports were circulating about the poor civil-military coordination on the ground. Perhaps the nadir was the description from one of his former subordinates of Ambassador Hill's alleged wasteful distraction to grow a lush lawn on the embassy compound. Perhaps the complaints were petty, but the more fundamental charge that the Obama team squandered valuable time that undermined future success rings nonetheless." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA has, in his own career, noted an occasional but remarkable ambassadorial preoccupation with issues of lawncare, landscaping, and décor. It seems to be symptomatic of micromanagers or, to put it more charitably, of the detail oriented.

If it weren't for the fact that sod and such had to be convoyed under armed guard at risk of IED attack all the way into Baghdad, it would be farcical. As it was, it indicates a dangerous disconnection with reality.

11/7

re: "The U.S.A. – ten-second summary."

Col. B. Bunny at Intergalactic Source of Truth (TM) ("Daily raising the bar on personal charisma") paints a gloomy picture.



10/5

re: "But What if it’s True?"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") exhibited a much higher opinion of Spencer Ackerman than I can suspend my disbelief to stomach.

(Bear in mind, the scalp, i.e. Scooter Libby's indictment, of which he is so proud was not the official actually responsible.)

That being said, Lex addresses the issues Ackerman is blind to.

Money quote(s):

"For my own part, I would like to draw a necessarily blurry line between what Mr. Ackerman and the FBI call “main stream” American Muslims and the “pious and devout.” Because the possibility never occurs to the former at least that to be a pious and devout Muslim necessarily means super-ordinating the will of God, as expressed to his Prophet 14 centuries ago in an inalterable text, and that this potentially places the believer in conflict with the values of modern Western Civilization. Most will find a way to live with that conflict. A notable few, weak-minded or otherwise deficient, have spectacularly failed to do so."

A deeper than bumper sticker slogan knowledge is required of anyone attempting to realistically address the issue of Islamic-based terrorism and jihad.

(Is CAA an expert? Hell no! But I've got a shelf of much-read books which attest to my attempts at defeating my own ignorance of the issues.)

"Steeped in the culture of Western liberalism, he declines to even recognize this possibility: To the degree you are a good Muslim, as defined by rigorously following and promoting the entirety of the Koran (with Islam lacking as it does any centralized institution to contextualize those 7th Century scriptures in a 21st Century world, what other definition could there be?) it becomes increasingly difficult to be a good citizen.

Because the great monotheistic faiths of the world are fundamentally different, or else Samuel Huntington never would have gotten published (you don’t have to agree with the man’s conclusions to appreciate his command of history)."

Huntington himself knew, and wrote, that (I paraphrase) his "clash of civilizations" theoretical framework didn't explain everything. Modestly (for him), he put it forth as a useful theoretical lense.

(Oh, and to sell books.)

"There are Muslims who are good citizens who point out to us the more radically dangerous among them, and those of Islamic (as opposed to Islamist) traditions who eschew the active “lesser” Jihad to await God’s inevitable ordering of the world under Sharia. But to be a truly pious and devout Muslim – of the Wahabist and Salafist sects in particular – requires the follower to accept as unquestioned the guidance and example of Mohammed, and act on them, straight down the line. It is useful to remember that “Islam” means submission to God’s will, and God wills the believer to act.

(Some well-meaning civil rights activists say that to acknowledge these inconvenient truths is render oneself an “Islamophobe”, subject to the non-rebuttable charge of racism. But Islam is not a race, it is rather a set of beliefs. These beliefs are open to scrutiny and analysis.)" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

By definition, a "phobia" is an irrational fear. How someone with access to news media over the past decade or so could term a fear of Islam or islamists (or even garden variety muslims) to be wholly irrational, to the point where it merits a clinical-style name, is something CAA couldn't do with a straight face.

"In his Regensburg lecture, the man who would become Pope Benedict XVI committed an impolitic gaffe – one in the character of inadvertently blurting out the truth – when he said quoted 14th Century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (thanks, Zane), “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The lecture caused quite a stir, not because it was untrue necessarily but because it was likely to make certain people deeply unhappy. And you know how they get when they’re unhappy." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Clearly His Holiness didn't get the memo about whitewashing European history to fit politically-correct fashions.

9/15

re: "THIS MUST BE MORE OF THAT “SMART DIPLOMACY” WE WERE PROMISED"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit noted some ill-considered remarks by a junior FSO.

This was not even a nine-day wonder at the time. What's tragic/ironic is that the JO clearly was trying, at the time, to express her fondness for India, based upon her earlier experiences there.

Aside: Why attempt to muzzle FS bloggers when there are so many dangerously open microphones out there?

8/14

re: "Mila Kunis on Casual Sex: ‘It’s like communism—good in theory, in execution it fails"

David Swindle at PJMedia ("Voices from a free America ...") gave credit where it's due.

Money quote(s):

"GQ: Your new movie is called Friends with Benefits. Ever been
in one of those relationships?

Mila Kunis: Oy. I haven’t, but I can give you my stance on it: It’s like communism—good in theory, in execution it fails. Friends of mine have done it, and it never ends well. Why do people put themselves through that torture?

And this is Kunis’s SECOND thing she’s done this week to get on conservatives’ good side. Earlier she accepted an invitation to the Marines Ball

Now she comes out both against promiscuity AND communism in one sentence.

What’s she going to do next? Come out as a Tea Partier?"

It's almost enough for me to want to watch Black Swan. Almost.


_____


Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.












7/14

Seasons Greetings

It's Winter. Officially it began this week with the Winter Soltice and Winterset.

Psychically, the holiday season itself seems to begin sometime between Halloween and Thanksgiving (holidays themselves, IIRC) with the appearance of Christmas decorations in shopping centers and drugstores.

_____

I'd like to take a moment to wish all of my colleagues and comrades, in uniform and out, military and diplomatic, American and allied, around the world and around the Beltway, a very Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah (as your own consciences guide you).

If Yule or Festivus (or even Kwanza) is your thing, likewise get on with it and have a great one.

(If none of those works for you, well, enjoy some officially-authorized time off anyway.)

_____

As I trawl (not troll) my way around the diplo- and mil-blogospheres, I notice from time to time CAA's presence on more than a few blog rolls and links lists. Like anyone, I appreciate the recognition and hope I will remain (or become?) worthy of it.

I've even noticed CAA's presence on the blog rolls of those who are not yet (but here's hoping!) FSOs. It is to those of you aspiring FSO candidates that I address the following:

First, don't give up. There's no penalty for multiple attempts at passing the various obstacles, er, examinations, which must be overcome in the hiring process. Just do some basic research about how the process works and be realistic about some of the factors, completely out of your control, which may have great influence on whether one is hired (or not) during any given year.

Second, as I alluded above, do your homework. The Department goes to admirable lengths to make lots of information about FS careers and about the hiring process itself on the various career webpages at www.state.gov. An educated applicant is our best candidate.

Third, be realistic about the career. It's not just a job, not just something to put on the resume to fill in the blank between graduate school and whatever you see as your next rung on the career ladder. While it's flattering to know that so many see having been an FSO as quite a feather in their professional cap, it's also a little bit insulting. Old school FSOs know that this is not just a job, it's a profession in which we take quite a bit of old-fashioned pride, it's a vocation to which we are called in service.

Having said that, it's not for everyone, and not necessarily forever. People change, people's goals change, and there's no shame in moving on to something else after a period of honorable service. If nothing else, you can always help to beef up the Foreign Service's eternally slender domestic constituency.

To go along with that, understand (as most of you do, I hope) that when they say "worldwide availability" they're not kidding. Only a slender few (and you know who you are) manage to get on the London-Paris-Rome-Brussels-Berlin-Vienna circuit as a career path. The great majority of us will labor on at hardship posts around the world, at risk to health (and life and limb), under-serving our children's education, and enjoy our occasional First World or Washington, D.C. assignments as a bit of a treat.

_____

People sometimes ask if I enjoy my work, if it's fun, if it's rewarding, &tc. Yes, but usually not all of those things at the same time.

The most enjoyable and fun things aren't actually the most professionally rewarding parts of the job. The travel opportunities have been unmatched, working for State has gotten me to faraway places to see things that you'd pretty much have to be a National Geographic photographer otherwise. I've met people and even made friends in other cultures, in other languages, that the average tourism traveler never could.

The flip side of that is, all that geographic access and personal contact have very practical applications when an American tourist or expatriat runs into difficulties abroad. When I worked (as hundreds of State Dept. staff and thousands of military personnel did) on the 2006 Lebanon evacuation, not that much of it was fun, although it was the most professional rewarding work I'd done up to that point.

Later on, as I performed American Citizen Services (ACS) work in the Third World, I visited Americans injured in traffic accidents in the hospital, assisted victims of sexual assault get immediate medical care, identified deceased Americans at local morgues, and made next-of-kin death notifications. None of those things are fun. Some of them can be downright traumatic, for all involved. But all of those things were, and are, professionally rewarding in a way that's hard to explain.

Consular officers performing those sorts of tasks are doing necessary, even crucial tasks, on behalf of victims' loved ones back in the U.S., things that have to be done and often done quickly. The family, spouses, or next-of-kin are thousands of miles away or otherwise unavailable, perhaps even victims themselves. So you step up for your countrymen and countrywomen on whose behalf you serve abroad.

That's what I mean by professionally rewarding.

In many cases, a consular officer can't make things better, things are bad and that can't be changed. But where a consular officer earns his (or her) pay on those occasions is by seizing the chance to keep things from getting any worse. And sometimes that's the best that can be done.

re: "Public Servants"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") asks a legitimate question, disguised as speculation.

Money quote(s):

"Perhaps its different in other parts of the federal bureaucracy, but in the Navy, at least, senior executives take congressional inquiries quite seriously. And you’d never make it to flag rank by committing your actual thoughts about congressmen or senators to an email.

Of course, flag officers are typically selected competitively based on such characteristics as intelligence, integrity and professional performance. US attorneys, being political appointees, may have other selection criteria."

Not having served in every nook and cranny of the Department of State, I suppose that it's possible that, somewhere, there is an office or, Heavens forfend, an actual post or office that doesn't treat a congressional inquiry (or, as they're known, a "Congressional") as if it were a lightning bolt from Mount Olympus.

Immediate attention, rapid turn-around, and management scrutiny to ensure completeness and attention to detail; these are the highlights of how Congressionals are handled by FSOs (and State civil service staff as well).

Apparently this may not be the case in every Executive department within the federal government.

12/3

12/3

re: "Occupy What?"

Victor Davis Hanson at Private Papers puts the Occupy movement into broader context.

Money quote(s):

"No wise politician should invest in the bunch like those rampaging in Oakland [2]. Their nocturnal frolics are a long way from Woody Guthrie’s Deportee, the Hobos’ “Big Rock Candy Mountain,” and the world John Steinbeck fictionalized. It is the angst of the wannabe class, overeducated and underemployed, which chooses to live not in Akron or Fowler, but in tony places like the Bay Area or New York, where annual rents are far more than a down payment on a starter house in the Midwest. Being educated, but broke and in proximity to the wealthy of like upbringing and background, are ingredients for riot." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

That last is as true in America as it is in Cairo, Beijing, Rome, or Paris.

"I don’t think the protests are really much over the Goldman Sachs bailout, or jerks like revolving-door Budget Director Peter Orszag starting back up at Citigroup, or Solyndra crony capitalism. Apparently, most middle-class and upper-middle class liberals — many of them (at least from videos) young and white [3] — are angry at the “system.” And so they are occupying (at least until it gets really cold and wet) financial districts, downtowns, and other areas of commerce across the well-reported urban landscape. As yet there is no definable grievance other than anger that others are doing too well, and the protestors themselves are not doing at all well, and the one has something to do with the other. I am not suggesting union members and the unemployed poor are not present, only that the tip of the spear seems to be furious young middle class kids of college age and bearing, who mope around stunned, as in “what went wrong?” " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA is given to understand that some, perhaps most, college students are burdened with large amounts of student loan debt.

CAA finds this puzzling, mostly because CAA financed his college tuition through a combination of money earned through work, scholarships, savings (including some thousands saved by my parents in my name), employer tuition assistance, and veteran's benefits. Some tuition payments were made via credit card, which I suppose could be considered a sort of college loan, but only in the most general sense.

So CAA's understanding of the "education bubble" is perhaps somewhat superficial, even unsympathetic.

"Students rarely graduate in four years, but scrape together parental support and, in the bargain, often bed, laundry, and breakfast, federal and state loans and grants, and part-time minimum wage jobs to “go to college.” By traditional rubrics — living at home, having the car insurance paid by dad and mom, meals cooked by someone else — many are still youths. But by our new standards — sexually active, familiar with drugs or alcohol, widely traveled and experienced — many are said to be adults.

Debt mounts. Jobs are few. For the vast majority who are not business majors, engineers, or vocational technicians, there are few jobs or opportunities other than more debt in grad or law school."

Taking on even more debt (on top of an unmarketable degree) in order to put off entry into the wage-earning workforce even later strikes CAA as something akin to taking a payday loan to the race track or to Las Vegas.

"Students with such high opinions of themselves are angry that others less aware — young bond traders, computer geeks, even skilled truck drivers — make far more money. Does a music degree from Brown, a sociology BA in progress from San Francisco State, two years of anthropology at UC Riverside count for anything? They are angry at themselves and furious at their own like class that they think betrayed them. After all, if a man knows about the construction of gender or a young woman has read Rigoberta Menchu [4], or both have formed opinions about Hiroshima, the so-called Native American genocide, and gay history, why is that not rewarded in a way that derivatives or root canal work surely are?

Class — family pedigree, accent, clothes, schooling — now mean nothing. You can meet your Dartmouth roommate working in Wall Street at Starbucks, and seem for all appearances his identical twin. But when you walk out the door with your environmental studies degree, you reenter the world of debt and joblessness, he back into the world of good money."

There's an unending debate, a constant tension, between education as job training and education as intellectual development. It's unending and constant, in part, because they're not completely mutually exclusive, unless taken to an extreme or in a tight economy.

"Never have Americans’ prospects seemed brighter — vast new energy reserves, an unmatched military, disarray in Russia, the Middle East and Europe — and never have Americans been more conditioned and readied for decline."

Optimism and positive thinking is a force multiplier. This should be one of the chief lessons of the Reagan Revolution.

11/6

re: "Today's Reading Assignment"

Spook86 at In From the Cold ("Musings on Life, Love, Politics, Military Affairs, the Media, the Intelligence Community and Just About Anything Else that Captures Our Interest") shared an excellent and detailed narrative explaining why military pensions are earned rather than being socialist "entitlements."

Money quote(s):

"Professor Lacey shares our outrage at a recent article in The New York Times, which described the armed forces retirement program as "another big social welfare system." Recounting the long list of military operations over the past two decades, Lacey reminds us that a soldier who enlisted in 1990 had more than "earned" his pension by the time he retired last year."

Prof. Lacey went on to provide a detailed fleshing out of what a recent 20-year military careers actually involved. If you didn't already experience it yourself, it makes educational reading.

"(O)nly two of the Republican candidates have actually served in the military."

That's a fact which deserves a bit more attention, at least from this registered voter. I know Gov. Perry served in the Air Force. Who is the other one?

"Sounds like a "lose-lose" for hundreds of thousands of career military members (and retirees) who gave so much for that $25,000 a year pension. We should also note that Professor Lacey's prototypical retiree was something of a fast burner. The average non-commissioned officer who leaves active duty after 20 years is an E-6, with an average annual pension of less than $20,000 a year. "

Which isn't a lot. Fortunately, given that the average NCO joined the military sometime before (or not long after) their 20th birthday, the average active duty retiree is around age 40, with a couple more decades of working life ahead during which to launch and make a second career. They will also have the experience and life skills learned in two decades of increasing responsibilities to help them make that second career a success.

(Which doesn't mean they aren't owed the earned military pensions to which they're due.)

10/5

re: "Saddam, WMD’s, and Terror"

Jim Lacey at The Corner ("a web-leading source of real-time conservative opinion") explained what's actually in the Duelfer Commission Report.

Money quote(s):

"The Left said this document proved there were no WMDs — of course, they only read the executive summary. The commission was put together to look into what went wrong with prewar intelligence, and that is what they reported out on. However, in the two volumes no one bothered to read, the commission members detail all of the stuff that was actually present. You have to read almost to the end of volume three to learn about the real bio-warfare labs.

As for Saddam’s links to terror, here is a short version of a report I co-wrote. All of the information in volume one of the report comes from captured Iraqi documents"

This is the sort of thing that explains why I begin to get so exercised whenever the party line about "no WMDs in Iraq" gets trotted out.

9/15

re: "State Dept. Makes Us All Look Stooopid"

The Phibian at Cdr Salamander ("Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.") took objection to remarks by State Dept. spokesperson Victoria Nuland.

Money quote(s):

"The PRC is a sovereign nation with legitimate maritime security requirements that are easily understood by anyone with an even rudimentary understanding of where maritime strategy and commerce come together.

The fact that the DOS would ask this in public does too things; it insults the Chinese through its patronizing tone and it makes our nation look like it is led by arrogant imperialists at best, simpletons at worst."

I wonder if our institutional gobsmackedness on this particular issue is due to the residual embarrassment of those who really believed that the Varyag was actually ever going to be converted into a casino.

I mean, if you believed that one, you'd believe just about anything.

"I find all the wide-eyed panting over the Chinese carrier immature and silly.

It is a limited carrier with a limited airwing. The French CVN Charles de Gualle is a much more capable platform and we have seen what it can do off Libya. Nice, but no biggie.

I am more interested in how we would kill the Chinese carrier if we ever needed to. That is no problem at all.

As a matter of fact - in the case of general war, I would give the job to the Japanese."

Frankly, the Varyag says more about Chinese naval intentions in the longer term than about what they're likely to do with it next week or next year. Clearly it'll be the test bed and school house for development of naval aviation operations over the coming decades.

Perhaps the Chinese have doubts about future U.S. ability to ensure open sealanes. The Chinese economy has become increasingly dependent upon its ability to import raw materials and energy by sea. Developing their own ability to guarantee open sealanes could explain much of this.

"If you want to nibble your nails over the Chinese, then nibble over the multi-axis "Porcupine Strategy" they have for the Taiwan Strait that wants to make the prospect so painful to contemplate that we simply won't go there. They don't need a carrier for that. SS, Houbei Class, ASCM, ASBM, H-6M and other land based long range strike aircraft; that is what you should focus on; that is the challenge. Simple, but in numbers and worth a sober ponder.

Against our carriers coming across the Pacific, they only need to get lucky once; we have to get lucky every time. "

8/13