SFRC Approves Nominations

On March 31, the Committee on Foreign Relations held a business meeting to consider eight nominations and seven pieces of legislation. The Committee favorably reported, by voice vote, the following nominees and pieces of legislation:

Nominations

• Esther Brimmer to be Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs
• Karl Eikenberry to be Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
• Timothy Geithner to be U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Fund, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
• Philip Gordon to be Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
• Rose Gottemoeller to be Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance
• Christopher Hill to be Ambassador to the Republic of Iraq
• Richard Verma to be Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs
• Melanne Verveer to be Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues

Read the whole statement here. The nominations will now go to the full Senate where all are expected to be confirmed. Ambassador Hill whose nomination was in the news a lot, is reportedly also expected to get the 60 votes in the 100-member.

Meanwhile, Fox News just reported on the reaction from the senator from Kansas "Brownback said he is not yet ready to place a hold on the nomination but he is "exploring other options just short of that."

Update 4/1/09 10:30 AM: I should note that the Democrats only have 56 seats plus 2 Independents who caucus with them in the Senate. That's still short of the 60 votes. As to the other options the senator is talking about, below is a memo from Harry Reid's office reprinted by Ryan Grim back in February that is instructive:

How Cloture Rule Allows Minority To Block Legislation Without "Actual Filibustering"

Under the 1917 rules change the very nature of the filibuster changed. Whereas before any Senator could block any bill by simply talking, this was no longer true. A cloture motion could stop a Senator from talking. At the same time the addition of this procedure added the ability of the minority to block bills without filibustering merely by voting against cloture.

Since the 1950's true filibusters (i.e. Standing on the floor and talking for ever), have been used, more often than not to delay the inevitable, or to block last minute action that the minority party does not like. For example the when Strom Thurmond filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours 18 minutes, the bill was eventually passed.

The last modern filibuster occurred in 2003 over some Judicial nominations. Harry Reid held the floor for nine hours where he read Searchlight (his first book) and I am not kidding, discussed the relative virtues of wooden matches.

Very technically if a single Senator wanted to employ every delay tactic possible, he could stall a single piece of legislation for a week and hold the Senate hostage, not allowing them to conduct any other business. This is basically the threat of the hold. Then the Senate needs to determine first will the Senator carry out the threat, can they be bought off, or is the bill worth a week of the Senates times. Hence a lot of important but minor bills get killed this way.

The byproduct of the cloture rule changes in 1917 and 1974 is you need to invoke cloture to proceed to a bill. Senators don't have to speak to vote against cloture. If you can't get 60, you can't move it to the floor. On the motion to proceed, if a Republican chose to get up they can speak about any topic they want, or they can sit down and begin an endless series of quorum calls. Or they can begin motions to proceed on their own set of bills.

Basically there is no way to force a Senator to speak or vote on any particular bill and if you can't get 60 you can't proceed to final passage.

The "PR Value" Of Making The Minority "Filibuster" For An Indefinite Period Of Time

It's true that if the Majority Leader doesn't file a cloture motion to cut off debate on the floor, the opponents of the bill which the Senate is on can continue to debate on it indefinitely. However, as mentioned in my previous email it will still not force them to do any kind of actual filibustering by forcing them to talk for unlimited hours (like we have seen in the movies).

Again, if someone wants to obstruct a specific piece of legislation, he/she can be forced to sit on the floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time.

As explained above a Senator doesn't need to talk for an indefinite period of time to sustain a "filibuster" under existing rules. All he or she has to do is suggest the absence of a quorum when no one has any more to say on the specific legislation he or she is trying to delay. If someone comes in and wants to speak to give that Senator a hand, he lets them call off the quorum and speak and then he puts another quorum call in. It only takes one member to keep that going, he/she can have colleagues spell them and work in shifts just making sure that if no one is speaking then the chair doesn't put the question, i.e. begin the vote on the amendment, by putting in a quorum call.

So, if anyone was expecting a Republican Senator could have been forced to stay up and speak for hours if not days obstructing the auto legislations or any other bill would most likely have been disappointed since it was a good bet that the Republican conference would have coordinated and keep the quorum calls going. As a result, the public would not see the Republicans out there filibustering they'd see a quorum call or, since after the first three hours of each day debate no longer has to be germane to the pending business, they may see a Republican senator speaking about anything they want.

So not sure how much of a PR value is there not filing cloture to cut off debate. If anyone thinks there would be a show for the networks for hours/days they would have been disappointed because after couple of hours the only thing for network and news media for cover would be some quorum calls.

So if the majority party tried to move to a vote, a minority senator could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum." One option short of placing a hold?

Related Item: CRS Report: Cloture Attempts on Nominations (December 2002) pdf

Diplopundit's Blog Index for March 2009

If you can't find the materials in the "tag cloud" in the right-most column here, you may want to scroll through my monthly post index. The February Index is here.

~ * ~

Farris v. Clinton: Race/Gender Discrimination Case...

Information Overload? Filter Failure? Here Comes Alltop ...

Insider Quote: Past is Present Even in the FS

That Unprecedented Title of Deputy Ambassador

Video of the Week: Rives on Mixed Emoticons

Video: New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Expanded PRT Model for Afghanistan – 215 New Civilians...

Wanted: Expressions of Interest - Herat, MeS and ???...

SFRC Hearings: Nominations - Gottemoeller, Gordon...

Diplomatic Blogs: Truth, Power and Authenticity

DCMs in the News

SFRC Hearings: Nomination - Eikenberry

A War Fighter Pitches for State/USAID

A Confirmation Grilling - - But Was Not Hot

More State Department Nominations

SFRC Hearings: Nomination - Hill

An Idiot's Guide on How to Put Your Mistress on the...

Quote: The Difficult Task of Fighting Terrorists

Credit for Military Service Under Civilian Federal...

SFRC Hearings: Nominations - March

Do You Like Senate Holds and Jams?

Officially In: Philip Gordon to the EUR Bureau

66+ Ambassadorships Still Up for Grabs

Officially In: Johnnie Carson to the AF Bureau

Senator Brownback: Baghdad is Waiting

Video of the Week: Goleman on Compassion

Ordered Departure On at US Embassy Antananarivo

Officially In: J. Scott Gration, U.S. Special Envoy...

A Future of Honest and Respectful Diplomacy

Quote: Diplomats and Their Dark Arts

Six Years Ago Today at 9:34 PM ...

"No One Gets Killed on My Watch"

Diplomacy 2030: Leadership Challenges and Shortfalls...

Quickie: Beltway Views on Compromise and Negotiation...

Coming Soon - Civilian Surge for Afghanistan?

Tempest on the Hill Over Christopher Hill’s Nomination...

Huh? News: U.S.-born Children in State Foster Care...

Officially In: Daniel Rooney to US Embassy Dublin...

And These Are Genuine US Passports ...

Quickie: A Severely Stretched Service

Olson v. Clinton: Court Grants Summary Judgment for...

Quickie: CSI – Foggy Bottom

Diplopundit Turned One This Week

Video of the Week: Spring Break '09 Don't Go Wild

New Bureau Needed at State?

It’s Official: Daniel Fried, Special Envoy for Gitmo...

Authorized Departure On for US Embassy Antananarivo...

Officially In: General Eikenberry to Kabul and Others...

Do Politicians Dream of Electric Sheep?

Insider Quote: Engagement in Many Flavors

Who’s Gonna be Kicked Around Next?

Authorized Departure On for US Embassy Khartoum

Arabic 3.5: Better Than Nothing Part II

Insider Quote: A Case of Better Than Nothing?

Hibiscus Named After US Ambassador

Quick, Get the Duct Tape!

Snapshot: Unaccompanied Posts

Brief as Photos - 19: Ambassador to the South

Brief as Photos - 18: New Hire

Video of the Week: Why people believe in strange things...

Quote: Thumb drives are baddies

Diplomatic Bloggers: The Absent is Always Wrong

Quickie: Terrorized by Colonels with PowerPoint Slides...

Diplomatic Bloggers: No Blanket Ban but Better ...

FY10 Funding Highlights for State & USAID

Diplomatic Bloggers: To Blog or Not to Blog

What's State Doing with Question 21?

Diplomatic Bloggers: That “Official Concern” Thingy...

Quickie: The Super Sub-Secretaries of State

~ * ~

Farris v. Clinton: Race/Gender Discrimination Case Going to Trial

With “Stretch” and “Cede” Policies Up Front

On March 12, in a civil action lawsuit Farris v. Clinton, the United States District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina granted the defendant’s (Clinton/State Department) renewed motion for summary judgment with respect to Virginia Loo Farris’ retaliation claims but denies it with respect to the her discrimination claims. So there will be no trial for the retaliation claims but I understand that if no motion is filed, then it looks like this discrimination case proceeds to trial.

The original defendant to this action was Secretary Rice when this action was instituted. The court has substituted the current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton as the defendant in this action when she became SoS.

Virginia Loo Farris is an Asian-American woman formerly employed by the U.S. Foreign Service under the U.S. Department of State (“the Department”). She was a thirty-four year veteran of the Foreign Service. Ms. Farris alleges that the State Department unlawfully discriminated against her based on her race and gender and then retaliated against her for complaining about the discrimination. The Department previously filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied in June 2007 after determining that the plaintiff was entitled to discovery to develop the factual record. Following the close of discovery, the Department filed the instant motion for summary judgment. Because Ms. Farris has produced enough evidence to withstand summary judgment on her discrimination claims but not on her retaliation claims, the court grants in part and denies in part the Department’s renewed motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff claims the defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her race and gender by denying her bids for two positions: one as a USNATO Political Counselor, a principal adviser to Ambassador Vershbow, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.S. Mission toNATO (“the USNATO position”), and another as the Political Advisor to the NATO military commander in the Hague (“the Hague POLAD position”). Compl. ¶ 11; Def.’s Mot. at 5.

In denying the State Department’s renewed motion for summary judgment with respect to Ms. Farris’s race and gender discrimination claims, the Court states that its central task is to determine “whether the plaintiff has produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could determine that the defendant’s asserted non-discriminatory reason for not hiring her was pretextual and that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff based on her race and/or gender.”

Ms. Farris offers four rationales in support of her contention that the Department’s asserted nondiscriminatory reason was a pretext for unlawful discrimination: 1) statistical evidence (which did not fly), 2) the candidates’ respective qualifications for the USNATO position (here the court decides that no reasonable jury could determine that the plaintiff was significantly more qualified than the other candidate), 3) preselection and 4) failure to follow established procedures.

I am not surprised to hear that there is a dearth of Asian American women at the highest level of the State Department but it is still kind of shocking to see it in stark numbers:

“The statistics that the plaintiff offers, viewed in the light most favorable to her, show that as of 2000, while women were heavily represented among the civil service employee base of the Department, men comprised 72% of the senior ranks of the Foreign Service. The plaintiff also proffers statistics concerning the representation of Asian-American women in particular among the senior ranks of the Foreign Service: at the plaintiff’s seniority level, only 4 officers out of 390 were Asian-American women.”

The Court did note that what Ms. Farris’ statistics fail to address, is the only comparison relevant to this action, namely, the proportion of qualified Asian-American candidates to those chosen for senior-level Foreign Service positions.

Now, items #3 and #4 are where this gets rather interesting -- but more so when this gets to trial. Why? These may cast some bright sunshine on a few things that are particularly vexing in the Foreign Service when folks are “bidding” for their forward assignment every 2-3 years – oh, just things like preselection, “fair share,” “stretch” and “cede” policies.

I should note here that according to AFSA some 12 percent of overseas Foreign Service positions (excluding Iraq and Afghanistan) are now vacant, as are 33 percent of domestic Foreign Service positions. Furthermore, 19 percent of the filled slots are held by employees “stretched” into a position designated for a more experienced person.

On preselection, this is what the court record says – “The plaintiff next claims that the defendant preselected Goodman for the USNATO position because he was a member of a “good old boy” network, and that consistent with Goodman’s preselection, Thomas Tiernan, a human resources representative, pressured the plaintiff to withdraw her bid for the position.”

The Court states that it is “undisputed that as early as April 2000, the Department’s EUR Bureau strongly endorsed Goodman for the USNATO position.[…] On May 12, 2000, Tiernan e-mailed the plaintiff urging her to reconsider her candidacy for the position, Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 9; when she declined his advice, the defendant selected Goodman for the post in June 2000, Tiernan Dep. at 105.”

On the charges of failure to follow established procedures -- State maintains that “cedes are granted even when there are senior officers prepared to take the job. Simply put, plaintiff’s seniority does not trump the prerequisite experience for the position.” Apparently, it is the State Department’s view that “because the plaintiff was willing but not qualified to take the USNATO position, the defendant properly granted a cede to Goodman.”

Now, this is where I get confused. This seems to be saying that a "cede" occurs independent of any action from a specific candidate bidding on a specific position. But to cede means "to relinquish possession or control over something," except in this case, the employer is the one granting the cede, not the impacted employee. But why was she asked to reconsider her candidacy if it were not up to her to cede? On the fair share policy: Ms. Farris also claims the defendant violated the “fair share policy” as it is articulated in Department regulations. Pl.’s Opp’n at 28-30. “According to the plaintiff, the policy aims to prevent officers from “limit[ing] themselves to one geographic area and thus overly identify[ing] with such area; the rules also prevent an informal ‘revolving door’ that would deprive others of the opportunity to serve in more developed, favored posts.” Id. at 28.”

The Department’s response: “the policy is intended to ensure that it can staff its “hardship posts,” not to enable as many officers as possible to serve in favored posts, including those in Europe.”

The Court then says that to determine whether there is a genuine dispute as to whether the defendant violated the stretch policy by hiring Goodman, the court looks to the evidence proffered by both parties, viewing it in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.:

“Viewing the evidence in this light, the court concludes that there is a factual dispute with respect to whether the defendant’s decision to hire Goodman notwithstanding the plaintiff’s bid was consistent with standard practice within the Department. See Lathram, 336 F.3d at 1093-94. The court is in no position to resolve this dispute by crediting either party’s version of the facts, and contrary to the defendant’s assertions, it is far from clear from the evidence submitted that the decision to hire Goodman did not deviate from standard practice. Id. Thus, a reasonable jury could determine that the defendant failed to follow established procedures, which could in turn give rise to a determination that the defendant’s asserted nondiscriminatory justification for the hiring decision was pretextual. Brady, 520 F.3d at 495 n.3.

On The Hague POLAD position (see discussion starting on page 18). The Department does not contest the plaintiff’s account of the factual circumstances surrounding her requests to be considered for The Hague POLAD position. Id. At 13-15. Instead the Department exlains:

“that although it had already submitted its short list in November 1999, the position still appeared by mistake on the “open assignments” list. Id. at 13-14. Because Whitlock “did not have any involvement with [the Hague POLAD] placement,” he was unaware that bidding was closed on the position when he mistakenly told the plaintiff that the position was still open. Id. at 14. In December 1999, the position again erroneously appeared as an open assignment – this time on the “hard to fill” list – because the individual responsible for posting the “hard to fill” list was misinformed. Id. Finally, the defendant notes that the plaintiff would not have been offered the position even if she had been allowed to bid on it because she was less qualified than the successful candidate. Def.’s Mot. at 10, 29-30.”

Read the whole thing here.

I supposed that a lot of mid-level and senior officers would like to see how this case turns out. As well as junior/mid-level officers who may be interested in "stretch" and "double stretch" assignments. The entire assignment process could be on trial with this case. Who knows what will happen next? I happen to think that transparency in the bidding and assignment process is swell -- if that elephant actually walks as well as it talks. Is it time for State to rethink this whole process? Patricia H. Kushlis of Whirled View recently penned a piece entitled Clean Up Time at Foggy Bottom? It is a good read but you won't see it published in the in-house magazines.

I can't help thinking that the courts do have a way of inflicting change on organizations whether they are ready for it or not. In 1968, Foreign Service Officer Allison Palmer filed a sex discrimination case that she won three years later. Her victory, according to U.S. Diplomacy resulted in an order from management barring all discrimination in assignments. As an aside, I 'd like to note that the State Department did not overturn its ban on the marriage of female diplomats until 1972. And until the early 70's Foreign Service Officers were still evaluated partly on the performance and personal qualities of their wives. To think that this was considered normal in those days ...

In 1977, another sex discrimination, this time a class action suit was filed by Carolee Brady Hartman against the U.S. Information Agency and the Voice of America. It was fought for 23 years and in 2000 finally resulted in a settlement that paid $532,000 to each of the nearly 1,100 women involved in the case. I don't know if this is the case that will break the transparent elephant's back, let's wait and see ... shall we? Related Items:

• Farris v. Clinton Civil Action No.: 05-1975 (RMU) March 12, 2009
• Farris v. Rice Civil Action No.: 05-1975 (RMU) June 12, 2007

Information Overload? Filter Failure? Here Comes Alltop…

Aggregation Without the Aggravation

There are several places I visit at least once a day to keep up with what’s going on. I usually stop at the larger news aggregator because it saves time. But I’ve always wanted a personalized aggregator for the news outlet and blogs I’m most interested in. I haven’t found one that fits my idiosyncrasies like a glove, but I’ve found that Alltop is a good place to start.

Alltop says that its purpose is to help you and me answer the question, “What’s happening?” in “all the topics” that interest us. Whereas a search engine might be great in answering a query such as, “How many people live in China?” Alltop’s intent is to answer the question, “What’s happening in China?”

This grand aggregator, collects the headlines of the latest stories from the best sites and blogs on the web and then they group these collections — “aggregations” — into individual web pages. They display the five most recent headlines of the information sources as well as their first paragraph. The feeds are refreshed approximately once every hour, so it should be as current as they come.

It says upfront that Alltop pages are starting points—they are not destinations per se. “Ultimately, our goal is to enhance your online reading by displaying stories from sources that you’re already visiting plus helping you discover sources that you didn’t know existed.”

It’s not there yet in my case, but it’s doing a fine start. And if you submit your feed, and other feeds you’re interested in, Alltop will build it into their system. The site must have RSS feeds however, or they cannot be imported into Alltop.

Imagine if you are a Political Officer in Latin America and have the option of being able to check with one click of a mouse “one online rack” that contains all the headlines of the newspapers and blogs in your region -- wouldn’t that be super? Alltop is not quite at that level yet, and inclusion depends on availability of feeds but, if you want it done and you send in the feeds, they might just build you one.

Here are the things I like best about Alltop:

#1. I can go to one page and scroll through the headlines of the sites I’m interested in quickly. Saves time, mouse clicks and my eyesight. See Diplopundit’s Alltop page. And if you’re a speed reader and a news junkie rolled into one, you probably will find this really cool.

#2. Pointing the cursor over a headline prompts the display of date and first paragraph so I can decide quickly if I want to read more or skip the item.

#3. If I have already read a specific article without using Alltop, the headline of that article is grayed out in my Alltop page, which allows me to skip it quickly.

Here are the things that need some refinement:

#1. The topics are currently limited, but they welcome suggestions for additional topics and you can submit additional sites. Requests for inclusion can be submitted here: http://alltop.com/submission.

#2. I don’t know many feeds run through Alltop, but government agencies and think-tanks even those with multiple feeds are not really represented at this time. They did say if you submit the feeds, they will build the page.

#3. Some topics (see Politics) are so extensive that its Alltop page is quite long. The politics page is a mish-mash of feeds from online newspapers, individual blogs, organizations, global affairs, etc…. it’s almost as wild to navigate as the web. Well not nearly as wild but you get the drift. I would like the additional functionality of creating my own tabs or breaking down my page into several main topics (similar to Huffington Post) instead of lumping everything into one single page. This would allow me to create a tab for world affairs, politics, technology or whatever else interests me.

#4. I would like the added functionality of a site/blog look-up to help me build my My.Alltop page. Right now, I either have to scroll through the topics listed or browse the alphabetical listing. This takes way too much time. I already know which news outlets and blogs I want, I should be able to just look them up and add them to my page without having to dig them from the ever-expanding topics and ABC-listing #5. I’d like to be able to pick the color displayed, but -- I can live with orange.

Alltop is owned by Nononina, a “two guys and a gal” in a garage operation—according to its website one guy in a home office (Will Mayall), one gal on a kitchen table (Kathryn Henkens), and one Guy in United 2B (Guy Kawasaki). “They’ve been working together since the previous century and are still friends.”

This post is cataloged under “technology and work” where I occasionally write about online thingies that I find interesting or could be useful at work. I have no personal investment in Alltop or Nononina. Have fun building your own page!

Insider Quote: Past is Present Even in the FS

"You see, you can change your life; you can move half way across the world, but you can never totally leave your past behind. In some unplanned way, when you least expect it, it will hit you like it happened yesterday. If your past contains some pain, and frankly whose doesn't, thankfully these moments will diminish as you get further away from the events."

Becky Boo Travel Tales │You can run but you can’t hide (FS Specialist Blog)

That Unprecedented Title of Deputy Ambassador

Last week was the confirmation hearing for General Eikenberry, the Obama Administration’s nominee for the next US Ambassador to Kabul, Afghanistan.

Senator Lugar asked the nominee, “How competent will be police ever become?” He wondered -- after all is said and done, what will be the judgment of the Afghan people when this is all over. And how diplomatically can all this be put together -- will this work out? Will the plans we have be acceptable to the Afghans as opposed to being resisted by them? Why would we be more successful with more troops coming in now than we have been in the past?

General Eikenberry’s response -- “every poll shows that over 90% of the Afghan people firmly reject the Taliban – reject the dark Taliban primitive ideology.” Jeff Stein of CQ has a post on that 90% poll number.

General Eikenberry cited a few things that must be done in Afghanistan -- to change things in parts of Afghanistan where the Taliban is strong— also more security (not just how many troops, but what are they doing), the need to help and increase the rule of law and the need to think through very clearly the reconstruction program. He also mentioned the need to have more civilians out in the outer regions … You can see a video of the hearing here (1:43 min). His prepared testimony is here. The nominee was accompanied to the hearing by his wife, Ching (who is going with him to Kabul, if he is confirmed; post is currently an unaccompanied assignment) and Ambassador Frank Ricciardone who is now, I supposed, officially the next DCM new Deputy Ambassador to Kabul (or just as soon as the general is confirmed).

Reports called the use of the “deputy ambassador” title as unprecedented. True -- you normally do not use that in the Foreign Service. The second ranking official in an embassy is called the Deputy Chief of Mission – but the use of “Deputy Ambassador” is not unprecedented.

As far as I could tell, and now confirmed by the Historian’s Office -- the title of ‘Deputy Ambassador’ had been previously used in Vietnam from 1964-1973. In fact, career diplomat, U. Alexis Johnson arrived at Saigon on June 28, 1964, as the first of a series of Deputy Ambassadors to Vietnam.

The Deputy Ambassadors and their periods of service in Vietnam are: U. Alexis Johnson (Jun 1964-Sep 1965), William J. Porter (Sep 1965-May 1967), Eugene M. Locke (May 1967-Jan 1968), Samuel D. Berger (Mar 1968-Mar 1972) Charles S. Whitehouse (Mar 1972-Aug 1973). We did have our accredited ambassadors in Vietnam when these men served there as deputy ambassadors. But we left in April 1975 and did not re-established diplomatic relations until July 1995. I’m not sure we want to draw any real parallel from this...

So there … the question is -- who decides if you get this title or not? Or how do you get this specific title from the bureaucracy if you feel like using 'DA' instead of 'DCM'? It could not be the number of ambassadorships under your belt, because see – like Ambassador Ricciardone (Philippines and Egypt), the current DCM in Kabul, Christopher Dell is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service and had two prior ambassadorships (Zimbabwe and Angola). It could not be for importance of location – after all, wasn’t Iraq for a while, our most important foreign policy engagement? The most recent DCM there was Patricia Butenis (previously ambassador to Bangladesh) and her replacement reportedly is Robert S. Ford (previously ambassador to Algeria); neither of them had been introduced, as far as I know, as Deputy Ambassador to Iraq.

Anyway, I am stumped silly – I can't find anyone who will give me a straight response, must be kind of like that special handshake thingy. Do enlighten me if you know -- so I can get some decent sleep ...

Video of the Week: Rives on Mixed Emoticons

Flat pages can't contain Rives' storytelling, even when paper is his medium. The pop-up books he creates for children unfold with surprise: The Christmas Pop-Up Present expands to reveal moving parts, hidden areas and miniature booklets inside. On stage, his poems burst in many directions, too, exposing multiple layers and unexpected treats: childhood memories, grown-up humor, notions of love and lust, of what is lost forever and of what’s still out there waiting to unfold.

On his Bravo special, Ironic Iconic America, he and costar Bar Rafaeli tour the United States looking for wonderfulness, on "A Roller Coaster Ride Through the Eye-Popping Panorama of American Pop Culture."

from www.ted.com

Video: New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

President Barack Obama A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Washington, DC March 27, 2009 (20:37 min)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

A U.S. Army soldier searches a mud hut during a weapons cache patrol in Bagram, Afghanistan, March 2, 2009. The soldier is assigned to the 101st Airborne Division's Company A, 1st Platoon Personnel Security Detail. U.S. Army photo by Spc. Phoebe R. Allport

In announcing a new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, Pres. Obama said that an additional 4,000 trainers and advisors will be sent to the region to assist the Afghan army. In his remarks, the President stated that "The safety of people around the world is at stake". The video is here; will try and see if I can embed it here later.

Excerpt below from the Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama on A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Washington, DC March 27, 2009. Read the full text here.

To advance security, opportunity, and justice – not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces – we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers. That is how we can help the Afghan government serve its people, and develop an economy that isn’t dominated by illicit drugs. That is why I am ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. And that is why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations – an effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in the Hague.

At a time of economic crisis, it is tempting to believe that we can short-change this civilian effort. But make no mistake: our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don’t invest in their future. That is why my budget includes indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs. These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run – because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility.

As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong Inspector General at both the State Department and USAID, and include robust funding for the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction. And I want to be clear: we cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. Instead, we will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior, and sets clear benchmarks for international assistance so that it is used to provide for the needs of the Afghan people.

In a country with extreme poverty that has been at war for decades, there will also be no peace without reconciliation among former enemies. I have no illusions that this will be easy. In Iraq, we had success in reaching out to former adversaries to isolate and target al Qaeda. We must pursue a similar process in Afghanistan, while understanding that it is a very different country.

Read the full transcript (pdf)

Expanded PRT Model for Afghanistan – 215 New Civilian Positions?

Extracted from SIGAR January 2009 Report

When I read that news clip on the Secretary’s cable recruiting 14 officers for Herat and Mazar e-Sharif -- I thought wow! I actually expected that the call up would be for a far higher number than that.

It looks like the personnel requirement may actually be more than what is currently announced. After some digging, I found the report submitted by SIGAR to Congress in January this year. In it the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) writes about an expanded PRT model for Afghanistan proposed by US Embassy Kabul.

It is not just talking about Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), but also Provincial Governance and Development Offices (PGDOs), District Support Teams (DSTs) and the creation of Fly-Away Teams of one to three civilians (State/USAID/USDA).

SIGAR states that since 2001, the United States has appropriated over $32 billion in reconstruction assistance to help reconstruct and secure Afghanistan but that conditions in Afghanistan—economic, geographic, and demographic, and political—offer unique challenges to the feasibility and sustainability of reconstruction efforts.

That said it points to a new proposal from late last year for beefing up the civilian presence there:

“Altogether, the Embassy’s recommendations on expanding the PRT model in Afghanistan would include 215 new positions: 82 from State, 105 from USAID, and 28 from USDA. Many of the new personnel would be integrated into and supported by international forces, and State has therefore recommended creating bilateral memoranda of understanding with the United States’ Coalition partners. The timeline for implementing the proposed increase in civilian personnel is dependent on identifying and securing additional resources (see p.11).”

It is entirely possible that the new administration will not buy into all that’s in the proposal – but considering that Afghanistan is front and center in the new administration’s efforts in the region – I won’t be entirely shocked if the civilian numbers will go higher than 14 or higher than what is in this report.

If you are considering service in any of the Afghanistan PRTs, check out this DOD report on Afghanistan. It includes a section on US-led PRTs, including each team’s one-year and three-year goals in each area of operation.

Related Items:

• SIGAR Report to Congress, January 2009 (pdf)
• Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan January 2009 (pdf)
• GAO: Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan and Iraq (October 2008) pdf
• Flag Officer Afghanistan Reading List (pdf)
• White Paper of the Interagency Policy Group's Report on U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan: Af/Pak- Word Document

Related Posts:

• Coming Soon - Civilian Surge for Afghanistan?
• A Diplomatic Surge? What’s the Campaign Plan?

Wanted: Expressions of Interest - Herat, MeS and ???

Photo by US National Guard Army Staff Sgt. Russell Lee Klika See Afghanistan Today Photo Essay

Lots of staffing news lately – the State Department is hiring, USAID and MCC are hiring and if you work for the Feds already but do not like your job – State may have a job for you in its new Civilian Response Corps. Reports here and here put the number of new hires for the State Department alone at approximately 2,300 in 2009. That’s 1,200-1,500 new career Foreign Service and Civil Service employees above attrition.

In a related, but expected development – Secretary of State Clinton reportedly sent a cable to Foreign Service officers last weekend announcing plans to create more diplomatic positions in Afghanistan. I doubt if anyone in the FS community was taken by surprise, especially after the President’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. “As part of our expanding efforts in Afghanistan, the department intends to create 14 additional FS positions in Herat and in Mazar-e-Sharif in 2009,” Secretary Clinton wrote. According to AFPS the State Department is “soliciting expressions of interest now” for the seven positions in both Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif. The initiative reflects an ongoing expansion of the State Department’s efforts in Afghanistan that began last fall. Reports indicate that the State Department has allocated 28 new positions to Afghanistan with supplemental funds authorized in fiscal 2008.

CIA World Factbook Map, 2007

Some Quick Facts as of 3/09 (see pdf file)

• Commander: General (USA) David D. McKiernan

• 42 Troop Contributing Nations

• ISAF Total Strength: approx 61,960

• ISAF AOR (Afghanistan land mass) 650,000 km²

• 26 Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)

As of May 2008, the United States was leading 12 of 26 PRTs and 13 other coalition countries were leading the remaining 14 PRTs in Afghanistan.

The GAO reports that as of April last year, 10 of the 12 U.S.-led PRTs included 88 or more military personnel—the majority of whom provide security and other support for the PRTs—and 3 civilian personnel from State, USAID, and USDA. The total number of U.S. government personnel assigned to U.S. PRTs in Afghanistan increased slightly from 1,023 personnel in 2007 to 1,055 personnel in 2008—which includes 1,021 military personnel from DOD and 34 civilian personnel from State, USAID, and USDA. DOD is responsible for paying nearly all of the costs associated with operating PRTs, such as providing their security and life support.

All PRTs in Afghanistan are under ISAF’s operational command, but individual nations, including the United States, lead PRTs and determine their size and structure. U.S.-led PRTs in Afghanistan are led by DOD and are composed primarily of U.S. military personnel. How is this going to change with additional civilian personnel? Probably won't change very much since the civilian surge appears to be heading to the Regional Commands in the North and in the West where we have just one US-led PRT (Farah).

Quick background -- ISAF was formed under a United Nations (UN) mandate in December 2001 to assist the government of Afghanistan in creating a secure environment to enable reconstruction. From 2003 to 2006, ISAF created PRTs, while Operation Enduring Freedom established 17 additional PRTs and transferred them to ISAF. All PRTs came under ISAF’s command on October 5, 2006, when ISAF assumed authority over eastern Afghanistan from the U.S.-led coalition and the United States assumed command of ISAF’s Regional Command East.

The GAO report also indicates that in January 2008, the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (William B. Wood) requested an additional 16 State and USAID staff to support PRTs in Afghanistan. In the request, the Ambassador proposed that some of these staff be placed at regional commands and brigades to provide functional expertise as needed. So over a year later, it looks like he's getting about as many as he wanted but not necessarily where he wanted them. But -- there will soon be a new ambassador in Kabul. The new guy may decide later that he needs more -- not just in the PRTs but also in the regional commands.

State's solicitation of interest is for assignments in Herat and Mazar e-Sharif. Herat falls under the Regional Command West, with four ISAF PRTs currently led by Italy. Mazar e-Sharif is in the Regional Command North with five ISAF PRTs led by Sweden. With this new civilian "surge," the total PRTs should be about comparable in size with the PRTs in Regional Command East where most of the US-led teams are concentrated in .

From ISAF Facts and Figures, March 2009

I suspect that this call up is just part I of the civilian surge; we may yet see additional PRT staffing needs in Regional Command South, where there are currently only 4 ISAF PRTs in operation. We might even see an even further expansion of RC-West and RC-North, after this initial call up depending on how things work out there. But like they say, this is the bright hot spot right now -- if you can't get into the AfPak team in Foggy Bottom, I'm betting that this is the next best thing... Check out this Flag Grade Reading List for Afghanistan Service if you're thinking about a tour in Afghanistan.

Related Items:

• GAO: Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan and Iraq (October 2008) pdf
• Flag Officer Afghanistan Reading List (pdf)
• White Paper of the Interagency Policy Group's Report on U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan: Af/Pak- Word Document

Related Posts:

• Coming Soon - Civilian Surge for Afghanistan?
• A Diplomatic Surge? What’s the Campaign Plan?

SFRC Hearings: Nominations - Gottemoeller, Gordon

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE 111^th CONGRESS 1st Session

Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009 Time: 3:00 P.M. Place: 419 Dirksen Senate Building Presiding: Senator Shaheen

Senator Shaheen's Opening Statement (pdf) Senator Lugar's Opening Statement (pdf)

Nominees:

The Honorable Rose E. Gottemoeller (pdf) to be Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance (VCI)

Philip Gordon (pdf) to be Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR)

Diplomatic Blogs: Truth, Power and Authenticity

The FCO hosted a digital diplomacy event yesterday. You can read Stephen Hale’s post here or check out their Bringing Foreign Policy Home page here. The FCO has linked to some bloggers who have offered reflections, not all positive, on their digital diplomacy efforts: Tony Curzon Price, Simon Dickson, Ian Brown, John Duncan.

I should note that the FCO probably has the largest number of ambassadors who have waded into blogging. In addition to the Foreign Secretary, there are about a dozen of them (check out this page) plus other FCO officials. By contrast, in the State Department, outside of the occasional postings you see in DipNote by US ambassadors, only a couple have official blogs (Ambassador Kinney in the Philippines and Ambassador Stephens in South Korea). There are a few other blogs run by PD sections -- like the ones in London and Sri Lanka, but there is no aggregator for all of them.

I am republishing Tony Curzon Price’s piece below (with permission) entitled Blogs, truth and power at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office because his point on an agency seeking to influence in a transparent and authentic way should be food for thought for the State Department and its bloggers as it expand into digital engagement.

Tony Curzon Price is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. He received a PhD in economics from University College London (UCL), and worked as a jobbing economist for more than ten years. He founded a high-tech electronics company, Arithmatica, in 1998 and lived in Silicon Valley from 2001 to 2004.

Blogs, truth and power at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office By Tony Curzon Price

I went to a fascinating meeting at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office on their "digital diplomacy" initiative. The ambassadors are blogging -- you can see them aggregated here.

You might think that encouraging blogging at all levels by the foreign office would be a marketing disaster waiting to happen: surely someone was going to put a foot into a pretty well-laid trap very soon. How can "our man in Lisbon" (blogging here, in Portuguese) avoid being drawn into a debate on the state of the PIGS or the Portuguese criminal justice system that will reflect badly on the brand --- UK Plc, mostly --- he is promoting and representing?

Well, the question answers itself: it is not for nothing that he is "our man". Actually, the FCO has always needed a culture of "presumption of competence" because representatives were sent many days' travel away from any check on their power. Delegation had to be real. So there is almost no institution in the world (the Catholic Church springs to mind as a contender for that title) more suited to showing off its organisational discipline under decentralisation than the old imperial foreign ministries.

The result of all this is fascinating. Read John Duncan, for example, on Arms Treaty Negotiations. Remember that it was the failure of the chemical and biological weapons negotiations that left the door wide-open for the accusation that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. A working treaty here could have prevented the Iraq war. Will the sort of transparency that comes from this sort of blogging raise these issues to the level of importance they should have?

Ian Brown, from the Oxford Internet Institute, raised the question of how an Ambassador's blog could be authentic. Surely they're just shilling for her Majesty's government, even the blog from news-poor Zimbabwe?

This is obviously the big question for government use of new media. Just as technology allowed disintermediation of finance---and so all the excesses that we are now paying for---so that disintermediation is now hitting the production of knowledge. And we don't want to happen to knowledge what happened to money ...

My own take on this is that there are two views of the business of knowledge making: you are either trying to influence outcomes, or you are trying to "speak truth to power". In the new media, you can't afford to pretend to be doing the one when you're doing the other. The FCO cannot - just cannot - speak truth to power, because it is power. But it can transparently and authentically try to influence.

The bigger question of whether there is anyone left who has the legitimacy to speak truth rather than simply seek influence is a big question for our time. Like the analogy with finance, we now operate, as it were, without a gold standard. Beware, therefore, the inflation of all claims.

DCMs in the News

Deputy Chiefs of Mission (DCM) are not as often in the news as ambassadors. In most cases, the top two embassy officials have the outside/inside arrangement, with the ambassador dealing with outside matters (bilateral relations) and the DCM dealing with the inside matters of running the diplomatic mission.

But this past week we have three of them in the news!

In Africa: U.S. Embassy Khartoum Charge d’Affaires Alberto M. Fernandez and USAID officials traveled to El Fasher, North Darfur, including a visit to Zam Zam Internally Displaced Person (IDP) Camp, and reported that “the arrival of more than 36,000 IDPs fleeing recent fighting in the past two months between armed opposition groups and the Sudanese government in South Darfur has severely strained Zam Zam camp's limited resources.”

In Central and South Asia: India’s Business Standard reports that despite the presence of Steven J. White, regarded by many as a competent deputy chief of mission of the US embassy in New Delhi, reports indicate that Ambassador A. Peter Burleigh, is going to “temporarily” fill in as ambassador to India. I could not find an official statement from the State Department but PTI has quoted the Acting Spokesman:

"Ambassador A Peter Burleigh's temporary appointment as Charge d'Affaires reflects the strong emphasis the US places on highest-level representation and continuity in US-Indian relations," Gordon Duguid, Acting Deputy Spokesman of the State Department, told PTI.

In Foggy Bottom: Spencer Ackerman reports on Holbrooke’s Bureaucratic Switches at Foggy Bottom, concerning Paul W. Jones, the former deputy chief of mission in the Philippines. Jones has reportedly been installed about two weeks ago as deputy assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia (SCA) and will be “dual-hatted, still reporting to Holbrooke, but also to Assistant Secretary Richard Boucher.” If true, a couple of folks have not received the memo: in the US Embassy Manila website, Jones is still listed as the deputy chief of mission; the SCA Bureau does not have any Jones listed -- yet.

Read Spencer Ackerman's Holbrooke Emerges as Power Center at State

SFRC Hearings: Nomination - Eikenberry

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE 111^th Congress 1^st Session

March 26, 2009, Thursday Time: 9:30 A.M. Place: 419 Dirksen Senate Building Presiding: Senator Kerry

Senator Kerry's Opening Statement (pdf) Nominee:

Lt. Gen. Karl W. Eikenberry (pdf) to be Ambassador to Afghanistan

Political Appointee. Most recently Deputy Chairman of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Military Committee in Brussels, Belgium. Read more here

See video of hearing from c-span here. Related Items:

• President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts 3/11/09
• Goldsboro News-Argus: GHS Grad Will Command Forces in Afghanistan (2005) (includes additional bio information not included in the official biography)

Related Posts:

• Officially In: General Eikenberry, Hill and Other Nominees
• Quickie: A New Ambassador to Kabul?