WP - U.S. Embassy stops issuing nonimmigrant visas to Russians as diplomatic standoff deepens

Andrew Roth at the Washington Post ("Democracy Dies in Darkness") offered a well-written article.

Money quote(s):

"The decision comes after Russia demanded that the U.S. mission in the country reduce its staff from more than 1,200 employees to 455, the same size as the Russian diplomatic mission in the United States. The American Embassy’s announcement will likely mean delays for the hundreds of thousands of Russians who apply for nonimmigrant visas to the United States each year."

Wait times will go up, and keep going up, and applicants will have to travel much farther for their interviews.

"Senior Russian lawmakers in the Duma and the Federation Council on Monday suggested a “mirror” response that could affect Americans seeking Russian visas. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he believed that by slowing the visa process the United States may be trying to “provoke discontent of Russian citizens against the actions of the Russian government,” but Lavrov also appeared to rule out a similar response by the Russian government."

In a functioning representative democracy, like the U.S. por ejemplo, that sort of "discontent" means writing your congressional representative or even the White House, and telling them to do something about it.

What that means in Russia, CAA can't predict.

"With a Sept. 1 deadline to cut more than 750 staff positions looming, the embassy announced on Monday that it would suspend all nonimmigrant visa applications and interviews until then, and that afterward it would suspend U.S. visa interviews at the American consulates in St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and Vladivostok — effectively forcing Russians across the vast country to travel to Moscow for a U.S. visa."

A staff cut of this magnitude (roughly 60 percent) and including U.S. staff who have to be packed-up and relocated back to (usually) Washington means a huge (if temporary) ramp-up in administrative and logistical tasks, which is why non-essential services get dropped even before the September deadline.

Read the whole thing here.

re: "The Radical President's Radical Plans for the Pentagon"

Hugh Hewitt at Hewitt Blog ("Join the Hughniverse") blasted backdoor plans to hollow-out the military and navy.

Money quote(s):

"President Obama's plan to slash the size of the American military by at least 10% is dangerous and covered in a deceitful "strategic reassessment," which is a crude attempt to deflect attention from the bottom line of a much shrunken American military.

There is a fiscal crisis, but it isn't because of defense spending but because of entitlements which the president will not discuss in detail much less reform. Dramatic cuts in the number of soldiers, sailors and Marines are a substitute for the hard work of shrinking the payout state and cutting off the president's favored constituents. "

&

"The failure of the Supercommittee and the train wreck of the debt ceiling showdown this past summer has left the House GOP divided and its freshman caucus demoralized and apparently defeated. But the House GOP simply has to rally to save the Pentagon from the president's wildly irresponsible plans."

&

"A Harry Reid-led Senate so dysfunctional that cannot even pass a budget in three years ought not to be in charge of the nation's defenses and ought not to be allowed to cooperate in the gutting of the American military.

"Fund the Marine Corps not NPR" should be the theme of a growing pro-defense movement. The Ron Paul-led isolationist slice of the country has seen it voice amplified by the GOP debates, but the Iowa caucus showed again that it is a tiny, tiny part of the GOP and should be pushed aside by the traditional demand of Republicans for a strong and vibrant military defined by a 300 plus-ship Navy and the modern era doctrine of the ability to successfully fight two wars at the same time."

Fast forward to today, with just a few months before sequestration will take effect. All of which was completely predictable back when this can was kicked down the road to today.

"The reporters at the Pentagon didn't even go out and ask what it would mean to, say, the Marines to lose 10 to 15% of their troops, taking the Army from 570,000 to 520,000 and possibly as low as 490,000 and the Marines from 200,000 to at or below 180,000. To say, as the Washington Post did, that "new military strategy, contained in an eight-page document, will guide wrenching decisions on defense cutbacks," isn't reporting."

Well, they're journalists now, not reporters.

(Do try and keep up.)

1/6

re: "No Apologies"

Mike Few at the Small Wars Journal blog (" facilitates the exchange of information among practitioners, thought leaders, and students of Small Wars, in order to advance knowledge and capabilities in the field ") answered the question:

"What do I miss from Iraq?"

Money quote(s):

"Control- it’s not the killing, the war, or the violence. It is the absolute respect, authority, responsibility and accountability that I was afforded and bestowed by the nation. In Iraq, my bosses gave me their confidence to execute my mission."

After years of nanny-like garrison mentality, the Army shook off the institutional dust of trying to treat deployed troops like they were taking the short bus on a field trip and facilitated their getting on with the job. That is, get them to where the action was, point them at their mission, and do their best at keeping them supplied while staying out of their way.

Ideally, that is. It's not a perfect world, after all. For all the things that can, and did, go wrong, it's still better than the silly season stuff that comes from higher headquarters most of the rest of the time.

"We come home to a nation that not only does not acknowledge our war, but dismisses who we are by immediately portraying us as victims and wounded warriors.

I am neither a victim nor a warrior. I am a professional soldier. As an officer, I took a sworn oath to defend the Constitution.

The garrison Army cannot even get the name right for those soldiers and marines wounded in battle. The term warrior is the most disrespectful label."

Mr. Few quotes LTC Robert Bateman on the subject of "soldiers and warriors."

"(C)alling us warriors is not only inaccurate, it displays an ignorance about what a warrior is all about. The bottom line is that a real "warrior" is really just about himself. Indeed, the key difference between a Soldier (or a Marine, or an Airman) and a "warrior" is almost that simple. A serviceman does his job as a part of a complex human system, he does so with discipline and selflessness as his hallmarks. Courage also matters, of course, but it is but one of several values that are needed. The serviceman is the product of a Western society which, while it values individualism intrinsically, values subordination in pursuit of a collective objective as well. A warrior, on the other hand, is the product of a culture or subculture which is essentially purely honor-driven."

Soldiers are civilized men (and women), under military discipline. Warriors are barbarians, and that's the nicest thing I can find to say about them.

(LTC Bateman's use of the term "honor-driven" is accurate, to an extent, but somewhat misleading. As is, for instance, the term "honor killing," and for the same reasons.)

"I fought not for profit or personal gain; I fought for my men and my mission. I was not a mercenary. And so, this is the world that we live in. I accept that, but I will find my own control in this world. As it is, I refuse to go back into that other world and relive battles that I already won. I refuse to feel sorry for the poor souls who chose hate and anger and death over living."

2/2

WP - Nuclear weapon reductions must be part of strategic analysis

Henry A. Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft at the Washington Postissued an arms control caution.

Money quote(s):

"A New START treaty reestablishing the process of nuclear arms control has recently taken effect. Combined with reductions in the U.S. defense budget, this will bring the number of nuclear weapons in the United States to the lowest overall level since the 1950s. The Obama administration is said to be considering negotiations for a new round of nuclear reductionsto bring about ceilings as low as 300 warheads. Before momentum builds on that basis, we feel obliged to stress our conviction that the goal of future negotiations should be strategic stability and that lower numbers of weapons should be a consequence of strategic analysis, not an abstract preconceived determination." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA)

Measure first, then cut. Pre-determined outcomes are subobtimal, to say the least. They may possibly be disastrous. Keep reading.

"Strategic stability is not inherent with low numbers of weapons; indeed, excessively low numbers could lead to a situation in which surprise attacks are conceivable."

Excessively low numbers of weapons available for a second strike (i.e., retaliation) translates into an excessively low number of targets necessary for a successful first strike (against us).

"The precondition of the next phase of U.S. nuclear weapons policy must be to enhance and enshrine the strategic stability that has preserved global peace and prevented the use of nuclear weapons for two generations."

In other words, something seems to be working, so let's not just dissassemble it because we've got a nice, shiny new (old/unproven) theory.

Frankly, despite decades of nuclear theoretizing and "thinking about the unthinkable," nobody really knows why deterrence has worked (if, in fact, it's "deterrence" that's been operative theory) or whether MAD worked or what.

(But something's kept the wheels from falling off since 1945.)

"(S)trategic stability requires maintaining strategic forces of sufficient size and composition that a first strike cannot reduce retaliation to a level acceptable to the aggressor."

The U.S. has depended upon the "triad" doctrine for its strategic nuclear forces, resting upon three "legs": ICBMs, strategic bombers, and nuclear-armed submarines. Undercutting one (or more) of these legs is something that should only be attempted after considerable forethought.

(Other nuclear capabilities have been developed and deployed over the years, especially in the realm of theatre [or tactical-level] nuclear forces such as artillery, intermediate-range missiles, and ADMs.)

"(I)n assessing the level of unacceptable damage, the United States cannot assume that a potential enemy will adhere to values or calculations identical to our own. We need a sufficient number of weapons to pose a threat to what potential aggressors value under every conceivable circumstance. We should avoid strategic analysis by mirror-imaging."

Mirror-imaging is just one of the analytic traps to be avoided at all costs, but un-trained analysts do it all the time.

"(T)he composition of our strategic forces cannot be defined by numbers alone. It also depends on the type of delivery vehicles and their mix. If the composition of the U.S. deterrent force is modified as a result of reduction, agreement or for other reasons, a sufficient variety must be retained, together with a robust supporting command and control system, so as to guarantee that a preemptive attack cannot succeed."

See my remarks about the nuclear triad.

And read the whole thing.



Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977 and national security adviser from 1969 to 1975. Brent Scowcroft was national security adviser from 1975 to 1977 and 1989 to 1993.

4/22

Leave Donations Requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Department Employees:

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

Employees of other federal agencies:

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

re: "Journalist Admits Is Illegal, Has License Cancelled"

Patterico at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") signaled his outrage.

Money quote(s):

"Another guy living in the shadows, by which I mean writing an article in a national publication about his illegal status" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Doing the work that 90 percent of the print journalists in America would give their left nut to do, i.e., write for the Washington Post.

"I am outraged. I call upon all good citizens of conscience to demand that this man be allowed to seek citizenship in the normal manner that an illegal immigrant seeks citizenship."

Off the top of my head, that "normal manner" would involve:

a.) Self-deporting;

b.) Getting someone (employer, relative with legal status) to file an immigrant petition for him with DHS;

c.) Somehow get a waiver of the 10 year bar to entry to the U.S. which he's incurred by living and working illegally all these years;

d.) Immigrating (legally) to the U.S. and receiving an actual, non-fraudulent "green card";

e.) Residing (legally) in the U.S. long enough to qualify for naturalization as a U.S. citizen.

Note: Step "e." can be accelerated by enlistment, and honorable service, in the U.S. military during a time of war.

7/22

WP - In Afghanistan’s Garmser district, praise for a U.S. official’s tireless work

Please see Rajiv Chandrasekaran's Washington Post article.

Money quote(s):

"Carter Malkasian, who had been the State Department’s representative in Garmser until last month, is perhaps the only foreign official in the country to have been so widely embraced as a sahib, an Urdu salutation once used to address British colonial officials that Afghans now employ as a term of honor and respect.

The adoration stems from his unfailing politeness (he greeted people in the traditional Pashtun way, holding their hands for several minutes as a series of welcomes and praises to God were delivered), his willingness to take risks (he often traveled around in a police pickup instead of in an American armored vehicle with a squad of Marines), and his command of Pashto, the language of southern Afghanistan (he conversed fluently, engaging in rapid-fire exchanges with gray-bearded elders).

Afghan officials and U.S. commanders credit Malkasian with playing a critical role in the transformation of Garmser from one of the country’s most violent, Taliban-infested districts to a place so quiet that some Marines wish they had more chances to fire their weapons.

He was dispatched to this farming community in southern Afghanistan to provide political advice to U.S. troops, mentor the fledgling Afghan government and supervise reconstruction projects, all of which military leaders deem essential to their efforts to stabilize the country. The rail-thin 36-year-old was uncommonly effective, in large part because he was willing to forge his own job description, even if it meant bucking the State Department’s rules.

Seeing his role more as a proconsul than adviser, he single-handedly cajoled influential tribal leaders and mullahs to return to the district, correctly betting that it would lead others to follow. He won the trust of skeptical residents through countless meetings and roadside conversations, persuading them to reject the insurgency and support their government. And he provided vital institutional memory in a mission that has generally forced Afghans to build fresh relationships with new waves of Americans each year.

He also shaped the Marine campaign here in a way no civilian has in other parts of the country. He served as a counselor to each of the battalion commanders, influencing decisions about when to use force, and helping them calibrate it with a political engagement strategy. He built such credibility with the Marines — the result of spending so much time in Garmser — that if he urged a different course of action, they almost always complied."

Carter Sahib was different (see below) from the average State PRT or other embedded advisor in that he'd already had significant experience working these issues in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He didn't just pop out of a box; he was both educated, developed, and (essentially) groomed into this role. Which takes none of the credit away from his accomplishments; it merely points the way for how to get more of this.

"Malkasian was among a surge of civilians sent to increase the State Department’s presence in Afghanistan, which now stands at about 1,150 people. Many of them, including Malkasian, are temporary hires, not career diplomats.

But he was not like most others selected by State and the U.S. Agency for International Development — and that was a big reason he was regarded as so effective by the military and the Afghans. He asked to work in the field, not stay at the comfortable embassy compound in Kabul, which features a bar, a swimming pool and two-bedroom apartments with kitchens. He lived in a trailer on a dusty forward operating base, and his meals consisted of whatever fare was being served to the grunts, if he wasn’t eating goat with Afghans.

Because he was not vying for a cushy embassy posting in Europe as a reward for the privations of the gravel-strewn base, he did not feel compelled to toe the State Department’s line on war policy, which further endeared him to the Marines.."

People working "at the comfortable embassy compound in Kabul" have jobs in that embassy or that require they be based in or around Kabul. Of course, if you're going to do PRT or other field work outside of Kabul, then that's where you'll actually be most effectively based.

"What really set him apart, however, was his willingness to stay at the district level for two consecutive years — very few State personnel have done that — and his tendency to flout the department’s strict security rules, which mandate a near-zero tolerance for risk, as opposed to the military acceptance of some danger in pursuit of a mission’s objectives. Malkasian regularly ventured around the district with the police chief, placing his security in the hands of rifle-toting Afghans — a potential firing offense if his bosses in Kabul ever knew."

This (tour length) is a personnel/manning issue. In order to get a reliable supply of volunteers for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, the Department uses (among other incentives) a guaranteed "linked onward assignment." So if you were to decide, sometime during your twelve month assignment in country, that you'd really rather stay another year, for whatever reason, then someone else would have to be found to fill that (presumably desirable) next job, which would then become unobtainable to you for another three years.

Bear in mind that even the military tries to keep its combat zone assignments at (usually) no more than a year (sometimes extending them to 18 months).

"(H)e joined the Center for Naval Analysis, a military-affiliated think tank in Alexandria that offered the opportunity to visit U.S. forces in the field. That led to an assignment in Kuwait as the Iraq war was commencing, and then a year-long posting with the Marines in Anbar province starting in 2004. The job involved conducting research projects for Marine commanders into the performance of the Iraqi army and the outcome of various U.S. battalion-level operations.

He returned to Iraq for another tour in 2006, and the following year, he spent five months on a provincial reconstruction team in eastern Afghanistan’s Kunar province. That assignment was about not research, but action. He got to engage directly with Afghans and work with fellow Americans in solving problems. He resolved to return.

The opportunity arose in 2009 as more U.S. troops were deployed to southern Afghanistan."

As I noted above, Carter Sahib didn't just pop up out of a box. He had conflict-related postgraduate education, prior combat zone experience, and prior Afghanistan experience. Outside the military and/or intelligence community, is anybody growing professionals like this?


8/13

h/t Dave Carson (FB)

WP - "Who lost Iraq?"

The ever-brilliant Charles Krauthammer asked this indelicate question on the Washington Post's "Opinion" page.

Money quote(s):

"(A) war that was won. The surge had succeeded. Al-Qaeda in Iraq had been routed, driven to humiliating defeat by an Anbar Awakening of Sunnis fighting side-by-side with the infidel Americans. Even more remarkably, the Shiite militias had been taken down, with U.S. backing, by the forces of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They crushed the Sadr militias from Basra to Sadr City.

Al-Qaeda decimated. A Shiite prime minister taking a decisively nationalist line. Iraqi Sunnis ready to integrate into a new national government. U.S. casualties at their lowest ebb in the entire war. Elections approaching. Obama was left with but a single task: Negotiate a new status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) to reinforce these gains and create a strategic partnership with the Arab world’s only democracy.

He blew it. Negotiations, such as they were, finally collapsed last month. There is no agreement, no partnership. As of Dec. 31, the U.S. military presence in Iraq will be liquidated."

Some see this is a feature, not a bug.

For myself, I recall my words from way back in 2004, after returning from Iraq myself: All I wanted is for us not to lose.

"Everyone involved, Iraqi and American, knew that the 2008 SOFA calling for full U.S. withdrawal was meant to be renegotiated. And all major parties but one (the Sadr faction) had an interest in some residual stabilizing U.S. force, like the postwar deployments in Japan, Germany and Korea."

&

"U.S. commanders recommended nearly 20,000 troops, considerably fewer than our 28,500 in Korea, 40,000 in Japan and 54,000 in Germany. The president rejected those proposals, choosing instead a level of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.

A deployment so risibly small would have to expend all its energies simply protecting itself — the fate of our tragic, missionless 1982 Lebanon deployment — with no real capability to train the Iraqis, build their U.S.-equipped air force, mediate ethnic disputes (as we have successfully done, for example, between local Arabs and Kurds), operate surveillance and special-ops bases, and establish the kind of close military-to-military relations that undergird our strongest alliances."

The very quintessential self-licking ice cream cone. Somewhat like what our diplomatic missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan either already are or are on their way to becoming, at least in terms of most of their human resources footprint.

11/3


_____

Hat tip to Neo-Neocon ("leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon").

re: "The Media Turns On Obama, And My Head Is Spinning"

Thanks to TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("Giving my fellow Americans the view from my cubicle") for the link and the mention:

"I've been following Consul-at-Arms and cheering as he defends the Constitutional powers of Congress against the administration's interpretation dismissal of the War Powers Act."

I'd quibble about my defending Congress, exactly. I feel like I've been as critical of Congress (for not defending its Constitutional perogatives) as I've been of the executive branch for continuing to push the envelope of its own Constitutional perogatives.

Money quote(s):

"President Obama started the Libyan action with a March 21 letter to Congress that cited the requirements of the War Powers Act ("I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action") but, when the May 20 deadline for withdrawal approached, he changed his mind about those requirements.This morning, as I caught up on my reading, I saw that both the New York Times and the Washington Post have attacked the administration's position that the War Powers Act no longer applies to its military action in Libya. The Mainstream Media in a united front with CAA? I must be dreaming." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

He had to take a lie down until the dizziness passed.

re: "Obama Killed The War Powers Act? No, Congress Did"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") analyzed an analysis from the Washington Post.

Money quote(s):

"Ackerman and Hathway make the same mistake that many people wh(o) analyze this issue do in that they view the Presidency’s power grab int he area of war powers as a completely one sided matter. They forget that there is more than one branch of the Federal Government. As I noted when the debate over the Libyan engagement began (which was roughly an hour after the President announced it), Congress has nobody to blame but itself for the fact that Presidents have essentially written them out of the war powers process over the past 60 years"

Mr. Mataconis also made an on-target criticism whose underlying basis changed just this week past.

"With but a few notable exceptions, two of which happen to share the last name Paul, no Senator or Congressman of either party has stood up and said anything over the past two months about the President’s decision to commit American military forces to action in a nation that did not attack us and poses no threat to us or our interests, in a conflict where we still aren’t even sure if the “rebels” are any better than the government they’re trying to overthrow. Nobody in Capitol Hill with the power to do so has help hearings on the engagement, or suggested that the matter be put to a vote in the House and the Senate."

He concluded:

"The problem is what this means for the future. Once again, Congress has abdicated in the face of a Presidential power grab and that means that, in the future, this President and his successors will feel much more free to act without considering either the desires, or the existence, of Congress. One day, maybe Congress will wake up and realize what’s happened, and when they do they will only need to look in the mirror to find the party responsible for this disaster."

re: "WP: Honor all those who die in service to our country"

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") draws our attention to a Washington Post article.

Money quote(s):

"It talks about the difference between the ways military veterans who die in the service of the country and civilian employees who die serving, often in the same places, are treated.

While Congress dictates the way fallen soldiers are treated, it is left to the agency where the fallen civilian worked to decide how, and WHETHER, the employee is honored."

re: "Can we afford the Afghan war?"

Kori Schake at Shadow Governments ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") dissects a bad idea.

Money quote(s):

"The White House has opened a new front in the Afghan war - or, rather, in their effort to shed the burden of the Afghan war. The Washington Post reports that cost will be a new and major element for consideration. The $113 billion spent this year for Afghanistan is described as unsustainable; the article concludes, "To many of the president's civilian advisers, that price is too high."

This is preposterous from an administration that budgets a tripling of our national debt by 2018. President Obama has twice submitted budgets that never eliminate deficit spending, yet now claims it cannot sustain the $107 billion to fight a war the president described as "no idle danger; no hypothetical threat," but a vital national security interest to our country. The Obama White House is trying to seize on conservative momentum to reduce federal spending by cutting the only government program they don't support: winning the war."

All that is required, at this point, from our military efforts in Afghanistan and in Iraq is that we not lose.

That's all.

Much of the heavy lifting has been done. It's now a matter of finishing what we started and not letting ourselves be run out, by either Afghan or Iraqi insurgents or by our own "anti-war" faction at home, until we say we're done.

(After all, it's not over 'til we say it is.)

"The American military is not culturally predisposed to nation building. They undertake it because it creates the highest likelihood of achieving our military objectives. What the White House is attempting to do is paint that approach as profligate, contrasting it to the cost-effectiveness of a narrower counter-terror approach. They ought to ask themselves why none of our military leadership is supporting the approach."

&

"Responsible people can advocate different approaches to defending ourselves against the terrorist threat emanating from Afghanistan and Pakistan. They can also advocate further cuts to defense spending. But it is dangerous to argue the cost of prosecuting a war that, while high, is marginal to our expenditures and by no means the driver of our debt, cannot be afforded. "

re: "Telling Our Stories "

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") notes a recent Washington Post article you should read.

Money quote(s):

"This piece is exactly the kind of story the State Department and AFSA need to be getting out.

Our biggest problem, the reason we keep being the whipping boy for the budget cutters, is that we are no ones constituent. We are small and not well understood, so that makes us an easy target.

These kinds of stories help the American public get a better idea of the challenges we face."

We're small, elite (and perceived as elitist, which is even worse), deployed in dribs and drabs all over the world so we're out-of-sight-and-out-of-mind, not concentrated in any one congressional district, and we don't have big bases all around the country where we're stationed when we're not abroad.

When we're "home," 99% of the time that means we're in D.C., where we (deliberately) blend in with all the other government employees, riding the Metro to work and clogging the line at Starbucks.

"We have an awesome, exciting job that we are priviledged to get to do. We also have a frightening, challenging job that demands great personal sacrifice.

America needs to know."

It is an awesome job, often exciting and frequently meaningful.

I wouldn't trade it, and the chances its given me to "make a difference" for all the world, but.... it's still not fair to single us out for a 24% pay cut when we have the affrontery to actually deploy overseas to do our jobs.

Who else in government and military service does that?

re: "Quiet in Cairo"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") comments on a recent Wikileaks disclosure.

Money quote(s):

"WikiLeaks continue to show the consequences of empire by bureaucracy. They also have a consequence: it is always difficult to get ones foreign service to be candid with their bosses, and the senior State department career officials to be candid with their political masters. Now that everyone can see there is a real danger that anything they write or say can be part of a Washington Post -- or Fox News -- article for all the world to see, that becomes even more difficult. Few in Washington actually know what is going on overseas, because few in Washington and even fewer of those we send out as diplomatic officers know any history of either the world or the region to which they are sent; now they'll all learn and say less about what they find when they report. Welcome to the candid world. Open diplomacy openly arrived at."

-----

Agree with it, disagree with it; the point is still valid even if some of the criticism seems off-target. Outside of academia itself, it's hard to find a group of people so interested in the world and its history as my FSO colleagues.

JO - Come clean now, Prime Minister

From my archive of press clippings:


Jamaica Observer

Come clean now, Prime Minister

Sunday, April 18, 2010


PRIME Minister Bruce Golding reminds us of that stubborn Pharaoh of biblical times who sacrificed Egypt to plague after plague before releasing the Israelite slaves in accordance with conventional wisdom.


Read the whole editorial here.


Snippet(s):


"And we wonder how much longer he intends to carry the leaky bag of excuses that he has employed to explain his administration's handling of the US' extradition request for the strongman of his West Kingston constituency, Mr Christopher 'Dudus' Coke.

Surely he must realise that when the Washington Post, the same news outfit that brought down US President Richard Nixon in the early 1970s, begins to discredit him, the gig is up."

&

"We are going to find out why Mr Golding is taking such a personal interest in Mr Coke, an interest that he has yet to demonstrate in the countless young girls who are being forced to spread their legs for the sexual entertainment of the dons who rule garrisons."

WP - Federal agencies must post public data online

From my archive of press clippings:

Washington Post

Federal agencies must post public data online


By Ed O'Keefe


Washington Post Staff Writer


Wednesday, December 9, 2009


The White House released a series of wide-ranging mandates Tuesday designed to make agencies more transparent and cooperative in the public's requests for information about the inner workings of government.

Read the whole article here.

WP - Special Contacts Aided Release

From my archive of press clippings:


Washington Post

Special Contacts Aided Release

By Glenn Kessler

Washington Post Staff Writer


Thursday, August 6, 2009


Former president Bill Clinton's central role in the return of two journalists detained by North Korea has once again cast a spotlight on his vast web of financial and political contacts, a network that troubled senators who weighed whether to confirm his wife as secretary of state.

Read the whole article here.

WP - Swine Flu

From my archive of press clippings:

Washington Post


Swine Flu

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

In the Health section's special report on swine flu last week, we posed some common questions to Andrew Pekosz, an associate professor of molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. As readers submit further questions, he will continue to offer answers.
-- Rachel Saslow

Read the whole article here.

WP - Researchers: Social Security Numbers Can Be Guessed

From my archive of press clippings:

Washington Post


Researchers: Social Security Numbers Can Be Guessed

By Brian Krebs

Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, July 6, 2009; 6:05 PM


Researchers have found that it is possible to guess many -- if not all -- of the nine digits in an individual's Social Security number using publicly available information, a finding they say compromises the security of one of the most widely used consumer identifiers in the United States.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The results come as concern grows over identity theft and lawmakers in Washington push legislation that would bar businesses from requiring people to supply their Social Security number when purchasing a good or service."

"A Social Security Administration spokesman said the government has long cautioned the private sector against using a Social Security number as a personal identifier, even as it insists "there is no fool proof method for predicting a person's Social Security Number.""

&

"Introduced in the 1930s as a way to track individuals for taxation purposes, Social Security numbers were never designed to be used for authentication. Over time, however, private and public institutions began keeping tabs on consumers using the numbers, requiring people to present them as proof of identity, such as when applying for loans, new employment, or health insurance."

WP - Safe and Sound in Cairo

From my archive of press clippings:

Washington Post


Safe and Sound in Cairo

By K.C. Summers


Special to The Washington Post Sunday, June 21, 2009


Q. My 30-year-old daughter and a woman friend are traveling to Cairo in July. Any safety concerns they should be aware of? Also, any suggestions on places to stay? She says she can get a room for $15 -- how safe is that?

Sharon Henderson, Martinsburg, W.Va.

Read the answer to this, and other questions, here.

______

Send queries by e-mail (travelqa@washpost.com)or U.S. mail (Travel Q&A, Washington Post Travel Section, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071). Please include your name and town.