Politico - Newt Gingrich goes to spouse school

Annie Karni at Politico ("We reach the most influential people in the country") shares a look behind the curtain of diplomatic training.

Money quote(s):

"Aware that this new, less celebrated role will take some getting used to, Gingrich eagerly enrolled himself in what he referred to, excitedly, as “spouse school.”

The program, run by the State Department and hosted on the Arlington, Virginia, campus of the Foreign Service Institute, was started in the 1950s, when it was referred to simply as the “Wives Seminar.”"

This is not your father's (or even your older brother's) Foreign Service.  

At half of the embassies CAA has worked at the ambassador was a woman.  Of those three all were married:  one husband was a former ambassador himself (he sometimes had trouble remembering he was a former ambassador, but only in his dealings with American staff).  The others two were each a retired and a serving FSO (assigned elsewhere) so they already knew the lay of the land.

"Gingrich and the 12 other spouses of waiting-to-be-confirmed ambassadors were educated on some basic rules of the road. “You always have two fridges,” Gingrich marveled in an interview with POLITICO, “one for personal food, one for entertaining, so you’re not eating out of the taxpayer refrigerator. I didn’t know that.” "

If only every serving member of Congress got a look behind the curtain to see the lengths we go to not live high on the taxpayer's dime.

" “We learned about art,” Gingrich marveled. “They have an entire loan program for trying to keep the embassies with appropriate art representing the United States.”

As for furnishing the place, he noted, “you can bring your own furniture and store theirs, but you’re moving into a furnished facility. I think we’re going to use theirs, but that’s not a decision I would pretend to be the final arbiter on.” "

The public areas of an ambassador's residence are exactly that:  public.  They are representational spaces.  That being said, the ambassador and her or his family have to actually live there so each one's decisions of what's personal and what's mission are going to vary a bit based on preferences and on the nature of the building and the host country themselves.

At a minimum this suggestion:  bring your own bed.

"“I sat through a couple of hours on how to do interviews,” Gingrich said. “The first point they make over and over is, you are not the principal. I’m wearing my spouse hat. I’ve got to be very circumspect. We don’t want to confuse people about who speaks for the United States. Callista speaks for the United States. I just speak for Newt Gingrich.” "

Mr. Gingrich doesn't need a lot of coaching on giving interviews personally but it's encouraging he recognizes the altered boundaries due to his wife's mission.  Wish him luck!

Foreign Service Family

The latest figures I’ve seen show State Dept. as having 16,631 Civil Service (i.e., GS or “General Schedule” and Senior Executive Service or SES) employees, 44,764 Locally-Engaged Staff (i.e., what used to be called “Foreign Service Nationals,”) who are predominantly foreign nationals but also FS family members employed at our missions overseas, and only 13,636 Foreign Service staff members, including both Foreign Service Specialists (FSS) and “Generalists.”

The Foreign Service is a very small corps, overall.  It’s been said, truthfully, in this and other fora that there are more Army bandsmen than U.S. diplomats, more military lawyers in the Pentagon, &tc.

Looked at through the other end of the telescope, it’s also something of a very large extended family.  We’re pretty spread out, it’s true, but we get our orientation, language, and professional training in the same place, through the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) at Arlington Hall.  Then we work in widely dispersed locations around the world or across the country, oftentimes living in the same buildings or on the same residential compounds with our co-workers (with your kids going to the same schools) before winging back to D.C. to work at “Main State” in Foggy Bottom (near the GWU campus) or one of the various State Annex facilities scattered around Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

After awhile, the “degrees of separation” narrow down pretty far, so that if you don’t know someone in the Foreign Service personally, from having worked or trained with them, chances are pretty good that someone you have worked or trained with has worked or trained with them.  Or your spouse has.

So when something like Benghazi happens, where a senior foreign service officer/ambassador like Chris Stevens is killed, along with a long-time Information Management Officer (IMO) like Sean Smith and two of our contract employees, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, it hits home.  It’s like four of your fellow citizens in small hometown were suddenly murdered.

There’s a sudden and visceral impact, something like hearing of casualties from another military unit within the same division.  You might not have known them yourself, but you know you’ve walked the same hallways, sat in the same classrooms, and have similar missions facing similar dangers.

Another of those factoids that comes up from time to time is how there have been more ambassadors killed in the line of duty, since World War II, than general officers or admirals.  That remains true.

(One columnist or commenter, I forget where, voiced the criticism that if, in a decade of warfare, not a single general has been killed, our senior military leaders are leading from too far behind.)

Much of Main State emptied out, apparently, in order to be bused to Andrews AFB for attendance at a sort of ceremonial or memorial reception of the four caskets containing our fallen diplomats.   It was pretty well-attended, by all accounts, although marred somewhat by the behavior of those who simply had, in contravention of their instructions, to raise their arms in a sort of fascist salute as they took cell phone pictures.

(And don’t quibble with about whether our two ex-SEAL colleagues count as diplomats.  If they were part of our diplomatic mission in Libya, that’s good enough for me.)

Welcome to the Foreign Service

CAA has it on very good authority that new FSO Generalist and FS Specialist orientation classes (each) began training at the Foreign Service Institute earlier this week.

Usually, Digger (at Life After Jerusalem) proclaims a welcome message for such folks, but she's on a much-deserved vacation at the moment.

So.... Welcome!

(Anybody know which number A-100 class this is?)

UPDATE (7/22/2012): It's the 168th A-100 class. Thanks to McKeatings.

re: "The Closers Part VI: Dealing with the U.S. Military"

Colonel Gary Anderson at the Small Wars Journal ("contributed work from across the spectrum of stakeholders in small wars") identified a real problem and offered some help at solving it.

Money quote(s):

"Many of the civilians who gravitate to counterinsurgency (COIN) work for the Departments of State and Justice have some knowledge of the military or have served in uniform. But many people from other agencies will not have such a background. Suddenly living among the military on a daily basis, and often depending on them totally for security can come as a culture shock that is almost as great as that experienced by stepping into a host nation's culture. It helps to come somewhat prepared. The Provincial Reconstruction Team classes given by the State Department's Foreign Service Institute are good but short, and they give out excellent advice, but it would help if you do homework on your own. This piece will attempt to give some background and perspective."

Read the entire, helpful, article.

Bonus quote(s):

"If they come to trust you, your military counterparts will ask you to share information gained in your interactions with the population. I have known civilian representatives from some agencies that had come to view themselves as quasi NGOs, and were reluctant to share information with their military counterparts, apparently seeing themselves in a neutral NGO-like status. Make no mistake about it, when you swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States as a government official or sign a contract with the government as a consultant, you have already taken sides. The insurgents will view you as the enemy, and the population will see you as a representative of our government. You need to accept that responsibility."

"Soldiers, in combat zones (and out of them) use a lot of profanity; it helps them to relieve the stress. If you are offended, I’d suggest keeping it to yourself. "

&

"Conclusion

If you do not have military experience, it is best to treat the military as you would any foreign culture by respecting its mores and customs, and learn as much as you can." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


7/22

re: "Why diplo-spouses can't get real love at the State Department - they are headaches, especially when they are heard and seen"

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.") expands on the problems related to FS family-member employment.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he screener probably thought you were a foreign born spouse who speaks English learned from Sesame Street."

The old joke is that you can tell where a (male) FSO had his first assignment by the nationality of his wife.

This is true just often enough that it remains funny today. For values of "funny."

"Some years ago, we were at a dinner hosted by one of the Rising Stars in the Consular Bureau, who by the way, is now an ambassador over there. Anyway, one of the guests was an FSO with a spouse who was formerly an FSN with considerable experience in consular work. Now the FSO wanted to know if his English-speaking, embassy veteran wife, may be allowed to take the ConGen course. The Rising Star then also insinuated that most EFMs can't pass the basic English skills tests and that most EFMs at ConGen quit or flunk the course. In not so many words, the answer was like ... don't bother dude, find her a hobby instead.

It was most shocking to the FSN-EFM who had worked for a consular section for some dozen years, shocking to her husband who had at that time, far less experience in consular work than the wife, and shocking to us the poor audience, who had the misfortune of observing firsthand a bureaucracy that saw numbers rather than individuals."

Not being a "rising star," and having both worked side-by-side (as a junior officer) with EFM consular associates and as a supervisor of EFM consular staff later in my career, what I take from the perceived scarcity of English-language proficiency among EFMs that not that they should be discounted. Rather, my lesson-learned is that where they exist they should be exploited!

(But then, I'm not a "rising star.")

"The better paying jobs at the embassy are in the Consular Section, of course. Unlike most sections in the mission, the consular folks actually has (sic) money they can tap to request and pay for additional employees. And sometimes, you do get lucky when you have real leaders in the captain's chair. Other times, you get lemons, too, although CA hates to advertise that. But ConGen has always been a tad "complicated." I mean, management often wants the EFMs because they are cheaper, but they really would rather have junior officers if they have a choice. They want EFMs to fill in an empty slot, but they won't pay for you to go back to DC and take the course. Also some well-qualified EFMs can't get consular gigs because managers worry that they'd get bored over repetitive mindless work, go on leave during the peak visa season, take off to take care of kids or school issues, demand their Highest Previous Rate (if previously held a higher pay grade than advertised) and yada, yada, yada."

The Consular Section has (some) money because Congress insists that fees be charged for services provided, both visa- and citizenship-related. Said fees must reflect the actual cost to the State Department for providing said services. Every year or so a "cost of services" survey is conducted by experts in this sort of thing to figure out just what the true costs are. Every time they do this they get a little bit better at ferretting out "hidden" costs and overhead/support expenditures that make it possible to provide consular services. Also, every time they do this, some previously "free" service gets a fee attached to it. Annoucements of updated fee schedules are routinely greeted by howls of indignation from those who depend on these services.

However, since there are not congressmen or senators elected by our citizens-abroad-at-large, after a little bit of chest-thumping and pronouncing, the new fee schedule goes into effect.

"The bottom line I'm told -- there is a need for MANY more low-level visa adjudicators in the so -called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, China and India). Some can be filled by EFMs, but not all, even if all EFMs wanted to do so. They have to be filled by language-qualified applicants, they have to be filled full time, and filling them cannot depend on the availability of EFMs. The word out there is that EFM employment opportunities will not be reduced. Where language-qualified EFMs are available, they will be used."

Obviously, the thing to do is require unmarried FSOs to chose English-fluent spouses from one of the BRIC countries until further notice.

re: "Love Letters to Congress and Who Gets Magic Dragoned Between FSI and First Post"

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 created a whole new tag.

Money quote(s):

"I still look at this as a fairness issue for those who remains in the Service. I just hope you all don't get get stuck in the OCP fight. If you are a member of the FS community, your main mission if you decide to accept it -- ta-da! --is to to help educate Congress and the American public about your work and your life abroad in the service of this country. Congress is not the enemy, ignorance is.

The U.S. State Department as an organization has never been good at explaining its work to Congress and the American people. You don't believe me? Ask your neighbors what they know about Foreign Service Officers, and they'd probably ask which foreign country these officers serve. If you tell them, the United States of America, they'd probably ask if these officers are, you know ... real Americans, being foreign and all. And those who are able to identify them as American diplomats would inevitably bring up the words, "pinstriped, cookie pushers," "cocktails", "elite" and most recently, of course, "voluptuous blond" and "WikiLeaks." To others they are nothing more than visa stampers and passport shufflers. A good number of the American public who travel overseas have no reason to see them at US embassies or consulate unless they have lost their passports, marry or adopt a foreigner, lands in the foreign hospital or jail, survives a plane crash, is a victim of crime, is evacuated, or in a host of other emergency crises abroad."

As a Department, State will always lack the kind of domestic constituency that a department which, for instance, builds jet engines and weapons systems in lots of congressional districts will have. That's reality. As both a "diploblogger" and a "milblogger," part of my "mission" as CAA is to educate and advocate with the folks who should be our natural allies, our colleagues in the uniformed services.

"You will hear officials insisting that State is full of really smart, really talented people. But you just have to take their word for it because the officers themselves, smart as they are, are not allowed to have their own opinions or tell their stories. Even in their private capacity. What? Like we're afraid FSOs would wikileaked themselves in their blogs?"

There would be a reason (or two) why this web log is pseudonymous.

"Just so sad.... you see all these wide-eyed newbies entering the service and then puff, their blogs get magic dragoned between FSI and their first posts."

"(M)agic dragoned." That's a new one, but apt enough. I've seen the terms "black dragon," "tigers," and "mandarins" used, generally implying what Dave Barry likes to call "the powers that be" (i.e., white men in blue suits).

"Telling the story of the Foreign Service is not an easy thing. You walk that fine line of either coming across as too whiny or as too bland if you've got nothing else to blog but brown grass in your backyard due to drought. A good thing that the FS has some talented writers who are able to straddle the fine line."

re: "Small World"

Donna at Email From The Embassy ("After three years in Beijing, we're headed to Amman, Jordan. For family and friends who want to follow our adventures, this is it...") tells it like it is.

Money quote(s):

"Another friend, currently in Chinese classes at FSI, has just written an excellent post about what it's going to mean if Congress moves forward on their plan to cut locality pay for State employees. For my family, it will mean an immediate 15% pay cut. That's no small amount when you're a one-income family living in an expensive city. To hear the rhetoric, it seems our politicians think State Department employees aren't regular, middle-class Americans, and we are somehow leaching off the American public by collecting our pay. I guess they don't know that my husband regularly puts in 12-hour days (in fact, by law, he's required to work at least 10 hours per day). I guess they don't know he works weekends. I guess they don't know that he has literally put his life on the line to keep other Americans safe. I guess they don't care that our whole family works for the government, every day, merely by putting ourselves out there, presenting an American face to a foreign public, even in countries where it might be dangerous to do so."

re: "Language Shortfalls at the State Department, Revisited"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Blogging the Foreign Service: Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") posted an excellent piece on State's linguist shortfalls during wartime.

Money quote(s):

"(A)ssignments in hard locations like Afghanistan and Pakistan are usually “unaccompanied” and have one-year durations. Given that we’re seven years into the Afghan war, even if we reduce the number assigned to that region to 5 FSOs in each of the last 6 years, that still amounts to something like a 1 ½ tour for those qualified speakers. I suspect that almost all of those 18-language qualified employees would have done their second tour in the region by now.

Isn’t this the same old story that happened to the Arabic speakers sent to Iraq? At a certain point, you run out of qualified speakers. What do you do? Make people do repeat tours for a second, third, fourth time? Or maybe give others 3.5hours of Arabic training and send them off to battle sheep, the electric grid, water wells, etc. in the provinces of Baghdad. Only this time they’ll do this now in the rural areas of Afghanistan?"

"You know what’s going to happen – it happened before when we fumbled into Baghdad. There will be a mad scramble at the Hill to find out more about this language deficit. We don’t have enough people to go; it’s not like this is really news. But Congress will be shocked and the CRS or the GAO will be tasked to review the language shortfalls at the State Department, again."

"State’s philosophy is to hire officers with a wide range of skills that it believes are predictors of success in the Foreign Service. It does not hire exclusively for skills that State can train, such as foreign languages. As a result, State’s primary approach to meeting its language requirements is through language training, primarily through classes provided at its training arm, the Foreign Service Institute (FSI)."

&

"Our current universe is everything about risks. The current enemy stretches the globe like a giant octopus, with tentacles in many different hot spots around the world. Do you think our opponents in the "war of ideas" will wait quietly until we’re done and ready to counter them?

If there is ever a time when State’s hiring and recruitment philosophy needs an extreme makeover, that time is now. State does not have the luxury of time for training its officers from scratch whether in functional, regional or language areas. It needs to speed up, and it can't speed up using the same old SOPs from an outdated era. "

(Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA)

re: "Quick, Get the Duct Tape!"

DS at Diplopundit ("Blogging the Foreign Service: outside looking in, sometimes, inside looking out; monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and elsewhere in the diplomatic universe, so you don't have to. ") responds to news coverage of PM Brown's visit to the White House.

What she found truly alarming:

"The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key. The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

Her reaction:

"That State Department official is new in this gig, hmmn? Quick, get the duct tape! Must not open mouth again until said person has undergone the following intensive courses with one-on-one simulations at FSI: “How to Keep Your Cool When Questioned by Mainstream Media on Foreign Official Visit” and “How to Speak Delicately About Special Relationships and Other Matters and Still Keep Your Friends.”"

re: "Diplomacy, Continued"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ asks a key question:

"What's the deal with gifts?"

He continues:

"Hm. You work at the State Department, with thousands of native Russian speakers at your easy command."

Maybe not thousands, but certainly about a dozen native Russian language instructors at the Foreign Service Institute, the hundreds of American diplomats trained by them, and the local staffs at our embassy in Russia as well as the several U.S. consulates within Russia.

"(I)t does demonstrate that none of these fucks have any idea what the hell they're doing.
Hillary could have called a native speaker of Russian, but apparently she decided to rely on, who knows, her good buddy Joe Wilson and BabbleFish."

&

"If they can't take the minute necessary to get the small things right, I don't see why I should have confidence they'll spend the hours and weeks necessary to get the big things right."

There is such a thing as a learning curve. I'd much rather see screw-ups like these now, at the micro level, while the new administration is essentially doing a shake-down cruise, then later on when it's for all the marbles.