The Peter Van Buren Chronicles -- John Brown Interviews State's FSO-Non Grata

John H. Brown, a Princeton PhD, joined the Foreign Service in 1981 and served in London, Prague, Krakow, Kiev, Belgrade and Moscow. He was a member of the Senior Foreign Service when he resigned from the FS in 2003 over Iraq. He blogs in John Brown's Notes and Essays and John Brown's Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review, Version 2.0.  Excerpts below from his interview with FSO Peter Van Buren.

Would you advise young -- and not so young -- people to join the US Foreign Service?

Before getting dumped into admin leave limbo, my position was at the Board of Examiners, where for over a year since returning from Iraq I administered the Oral Exam and helped choose the next generation of Foreign Service officers. I was competent at the task, got a good performance review and, after a year on the job, it was only after my book came out that State decided I could not work there.

So, I spent a lot of time around people interested in a Foreign Service career. They did not ask for advice and at the Board we did not offer it. However, since my book came out and I have gotten some media attention, ironically more people now approach me with your same question about joining the Foreign Service. Too much irony these days.

What I tell them is this: think very, very carefully about a Foreign Service career. The State Department is looking for a very specific kind of person and if you are that person, you will enjoy your career and be successful. I have come to understand that the Department wants smart people who will do what they are told, believing that intelligence can be divorced from innovation and creativity. Happy, content compliance is a necessary trait. The Department will not give you any real opportunity for input for a very long time, years, if ever. Even Consular work, which used to offer some space, now has fallen victim to standardization as posts must conform web sites to a single model, for example. There is no agreed-upon definition of success or even progress at State, no profits, no battles won, no stock prices to measure. Success will be to simply continue to exist, or whatever your boss says it is, or both, or neither. You may never know what the point is other than a Congressional delegation go away “happy,” whatever that even is.

At the same time, State has created a personnel system that will require you to serve in more and more dangerous places, and more and more unaccompanied places, as a routine. That sounds cool and adventurous at age 25, but try and imagine if you'd still be happy with it at age 45 with a spouse and two kids. What are your core obligations with a child who needs some extreme parenting as you leave your wife at home alone with him for a year?

Understand that promotions and assignments are more and more opaque. Changes in Congress will further limit pay and benefits. Your spouse will be un/under employed most of his/her life. Your kids will change schools for better or worse every one, two or three years. Some schools will be good, some not so good, and you'll have no choice unless you are willing to subvert your career choices to school choices, as in let’s go to Bogota because the schools are good even if the assignment otherwise stinks. You'll serve more places where you won't speak the language and get less training as requirements grow without personnel growth. As you get up there, remember your boss can arbitrarily be a used car salesman who donated big to the President's campaign. Make sure all these conditions make sense to you now, and, if you can, as you imagine yourself 10, 15 and 20 years into the future. It is a very unique person who can say “Yes” truthfully and after real soul-searching.

The full interview with Mr. Van Buren is here.



John also reviewed Peter's book for American Diplomacy here.  Plus here's a couple of other book reviews from FS folks below.

from Well, That Was Different

"If you’re going to torpedo your career, you should have a good reason.  And this is a story that needed to be told. I wish Peter Van Buren all the best in what appears to be his second career as a writer. And I hope that some day, a person in a position to make a difference will have read and carefully considered his story before pulling the trigger on a similar crusade mission."

from Dan Simpson of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Dan Simpson, a retired U.S. ambassador, is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette associate editor.  He previously served as United States Ambassador to the Central African Republic (1990–92), Special Envoy to Somalia, and Ambassador to the Congo-Kinshasa (1995–98).

"Mr. Van Buren's best question is, "So how did we end up accomplishing so little when we meant well?" He tries to answer it effectively from the corners of Iraq that he worked in, but I suspect that the real answer lies at a pay grade much higher than his in a maze of bad decisions, too-short tours of duty and massive American misunderstanding of Iraq and its people. The book is short, very readable and has humor as well as profound points in it. If the State Department is given the opportunity, Mr. Van Buren's next assignment is likely to be Mogadishu or Garry Trudeau's Berzerkistan."

Related articles

• Peter Van Buren: Veteran's Day: Knocking on Heaven's Door (huffingtonpost.com)
• Peter Van Buren: State Department Fixing the Facts Based on Policy in Iraq (huffingtonpost.com)

Former SecState Condi Rice's Comedy Hour - Everywhere Including The Daily Show

It's been hard blogging the last couple of days.  There doesn't seem to be any peace and quiet from the Greece debt crisis, the Herman Cain crisis, the defund UN crisis, the population crisis (there are now officially 7 billion of us, did you hear that?), less than 30-days Super Committee crisis, and all the other -isis. So I went and look up Jon Stewart for some laughs. And what do I get, Condi Rice at her finest! 

Yes, too bad, Jon Stewart did not invite Peter Van Buren for a tandem show on Iraq. That would have been spectacular.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

More here:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

I went to Foreign Policy for some serious reading and she's there too! Heeeelp! She's everywhere - saying things like "Leading from behind" is an oxymoron.  And that "We never expected to leave Iraq in 2011."

Can we please fast forward to Bob Gates future book already?  Why? Because at least, he doesn't give me a WMD headache as much as this one.

Related articles

• Condi Rice Talks Freedom, War, Working For Bush (npr.org)
• Condi Rice Just Forgot About Pearl Harbor on Letterman (esquire.com)
• Condoleezza Rice Appears To Almost Convince Jon Stewart The Iraq War Was Justified (businessinsider.com)
• Jon Stewart and Condoleezza Rice Make Fun of Gaddafi, Spar Over Iraq [Video] (gawker.com)
• Condi Rice Throws Bush Under The Bus (oliverwillis.com)
• Condi Rice Reveals Muammar Gaddafi Made Her A Music Video CalledBlack Flower In The White House (perezhilton.com)

"Classified" Information Contained in We Meant Well - It's a Slam Dunk, Baby!

Days before Peter Van Buren's book hit the bookstores, the Public Affairs shop of the State Department wrote to Peter Van Buren's publishers requesting some redactions of "classified" information contained in the book under the guise of protecting U.S. national security interests.  The publisher declined and the book is currently on sale without those redactions.

So far, the State Department had the good sense not/not to buy all copies of Mr. Van Buren's book and make a bonfire out of them.

I have already read the book when I learned of the requested redactions.  I was, of course, curious which parts of what I was reading was considered "classified" material. I can now tell you which parts of the book the State Department wanted redacted. Three small sections of the book were deemed too sensitive that if published could "harm U.S. national security interest."

Below are screen grabs from the State Department/PA letter to the publisher, and right below each is the passage from the book, We Meant Well, released last September 27. The requested redactions are in bold and highlighted in yellow:


REQUESTED REDACTION #1

screen grab from State/PA letter to WMW publisher

Actual passage from WMW, published on September 27:

Tall and lanky, he had worked in Afghanistan— everyone of his generation had— but also in Mogadishu and some places I won’t even type the names of.

REQUESTED REDACTION #2

screen grab from State/PA letter to WMW publisher

Actual passage from WMW, published on September 27:

The Agency was quiet in Iraq because, as I said, this wasn’t their war. They had nailed their biggest coup early on, still said to be controlling most of the budget for Iraqi intelligence. To them, holding the money meant that they were running the Iraqis though, as we knew, spending money in Iraq did not always mean control and sometimes the project turned and ran you.

REQUESTED REDACTION #3

screen grab from State/PA letter to WMW publisher

Actual passage in WMW, published on September 27:

Now, a cynic might point out that years had passed since we’d nabbed Saddam and that we hanged him in 2006 about a mile from where we sat,but this wasn’t the night for it and we all took a moment to marvel at the plates and ask the person next to us what, if the room could talk, he thought it might say. Had Saddam deflowered virgins here, planned the invasion of Kuwait, and maybe met with al Qaeda right at this table, who knew? It was, of course, equally possible that in this room Saddam had met his Agency handlers in 1983 to discuss the war against Iran or receive info from Don Rumsfeld about the new weapons he was getting from the United States to kill Persians and Kurds.

So there you go -- a total of some 30 words that, as they've now been published, are  obviously, clearly and irrevocably harmful to U.S. national security interest.

Mogadishu is a classified item, Afghanistan is not -- who knew? 

The question is -- would this hold up in court?

Mr. Van Buren has posted in his blog a copy of the letter sent by Dana Shell Smith, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State (PDAS) of the Bureau of Public Affairs to the book publisher, Macmillan. Below is a copy of that letter, as well as the letter sent by AFSA to Ms. Smith, inquiring about official regulations and policies governing the notification of third parties on the alleged disclosure of classified information. It appears that the PA PDAS wrote to Macmillan about the alleged disclosure but never notified the employee/author of the book of its concerns prior to contacting the publisher. 

Ms. Smith had a stint as senior advisor to the Director General of the Foreign Service, so she should know these rules like the back of her hands. We hope to see her response to AFSA on this matter, or over at the Foreign Service Grievance Board or wherever else this case ends up.


"Classified" Info Allegedly Included in Peter Van Buren's book, We Meant Well

Related articles

• The Saturday Profile: U.S. Envoy, Peter Van Buren, Takes Caustic Pen to Iraq War (nytimes.com)
• We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People (csmonitor.com)

State Dept Angst Over Peter Van Buren's Book - It Never Got to Give an Affirmative Clearance

I just posted an update on Peter Van Buren's book saga in Could Not Stick to "No Comment," the State Dept Finally Has Nothing and Something to Say on Peter Van Buren's Case

Also, on September 30, the Public Intelligence Blog had this to say about Peter Van Buren's book:

"This is a great book, an important book, and I salute the Department of State people with integrity that approved it for publication, while scorning the seventh floor craven autocrats that have bullied the author for telling the truth."

Well, hold off on that salute, will ya?

Under 3 FAM 4172.1-3(C) the Review Office for State Department employees in the United States is, you guess it - the Bureau of Public Affairs (PA).

Now PA reportedly is in great angst over this book because the folks there perceive that the FSO-author did not act "in good faith in getting clearance."  A State insider who is not authorized to speak about this matter said that Mr. Van Buren submitted the book, and when 30 days had elapsed without a response, the author took that as State Department clearance per regulations in the Foreign Affairs Manual. 

And PA folks are now grousing that they never got to give an affirmative clearance. Oh, dear!

Hey, stop laughing over there!

Prior to the book's publication, I posted a scenario in my blog where somebody at the State Dept forgot that the manuscript of this book was in his/her inbox and did not take action during the "reasonable period of review" indicated in the FAM "not to exceed thirty days."

I don't know if forgetfulness was the culprit here, but if the 30-day comment period lapsed without a response from Public Affairs, how is that the author's fault or why would that be considered as not acting in "good faith"?

For the FAM brainiacs out there, here are a couple of relevant sections for good reading:

3 FAM 4172.1-5 Materials of Official Concern Prepared in an Employee’s Private Capacity: Duration of Review
(CT:PER-584; 11-03-2005)
(Uniform State/USAID)
(Applies to all Employees in the United States and Abroad)
All public speaking, writing, or teaching materials on matters of official concern prepared in an employee’s private capacity must be submitted for a reasonable period of review, not to exceed thirty days, to the office specified in 3 FAM 4172.1-3(C). In the case of time-sensitive materials of reasonably brief length, the period of review should be abbreviated in an effort to accommodate the interests of employees.

3 FAM 4172.1-7 Use or Publication of Materials Prepared in an Employee’s Private Capacity That Have Been Submitted for Review
(CT:PER-584; 11-03-2005)
(Uniform State/USAID)
(Applies to all Employees in the United States and Abroad)
An employee may use, issue, or publish materials on matters of official concern that have been submitted for review, and for which the presumption of private capacity has not been overcome, upon expiration of the designated period of comment and review regardless of the final content of such materials so long as they do not contain information that is classified or otherwise exempt from disclosure as described in 3 FAM 4172.1-6(A).

But here's the funny thing.  Apparently, the State Department is quite serious about respecting that 30-day timeline when the situation calls for it. In fact, when Condolezza Rice's book was being circulated for clearance around the Department a year or so ago -- the Executive Office at State reportedly sent that around with "very tight short fuze clearance taskers" so that the 30 day timeline could be respected.

Obviously, they could have done the same with Peter Van Buren's book, but did not. I don't know if that's simple incompetence or if it's because a mid-level official is presumed not to have a whole lot to say?

Whatever it is, that salute may be uncalled for. And that's too darn bad.

Could Not Stick to "No Comment," the State Dept Finally Has Nothing and Something to Say on Peter Van Buren's Case

Image via WikipediaI don't know why I thought the State Department could hold its tongue and stick to its "no comment" response on the Peter Van Buren case. Apparently, somebody did not read the memo.

An unnamed State Department spokesman gave The Atlantic Wire a statement late last week.  Excerpts below:

"Regarding Mr. Van Buren, we do not discuss individual personnel matters," a State Department spokesman said in a statement to The Atlantic Wire today.
[...]
The State Department's statement to The Atlantic Wire did defend their policy of investigating information that is potentially "improperly disclosed", presumably in response to Van Buren's assertion that they are unfairly targeting him alone for linking to the WikiLeaks materials and publishing critical opinions on his blog.

"The Department of State has an obligation to try to ensure that official information is released in an authorized and appropriate manner, that classified and other protected material is not improperly disclosed, and that the views an employee expresses in his or her private capacity are not improperly attributed to the U.S. government.  Foreign Service Officers and other employees know that they are expected to adhere to the rules associated with meeting these obligations.

All Department employees who write for publication in their private capacity on matters of official concern are required to have their work reviewed by the Department in compliance with longstanding clearance requirements and procedures set forth in the Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual."  

I expected the State Department to stick to its "no comment." But if it had to say something about this, I also expected its spokesman to say something a tad more creative not something as lame as this.

Remember that Chinese saying - more talk, more mistake, no talk, no mistake?

Peter Van Buren's book apparently had been cleared by the appropriate channels in the Big House in compliance with the requirements in the FAM, so why bring that up? Is the spokesman saying without saying that Mr. Van Buren's book did not follow the appropriate clearance procedures, that's why he is under investigation? C'mon folks, either the book was officially cleared or not; you can't have it both ways. If it was cleared, then stop harassing the guy so he can sell the book. If it was not cleared, why have you not frog-marched the author out of C. Street -- given that you talk about  "classified and other protected material" in the same statement?

As to clearance of blog posts and tweets, best not go there since that's a tricky, tricky thing that may show a rather selective flavor.

And oh, a note on disclaimers -- the spokesman's statement says that the State Department obligations include ensuring that "the views an employee expresses in his or her private capacity are not improperly attributed to the U.S. government."

Well, hookay, but what kind of disclaimer would be acceptable when the guy already had this marked prominently on page 6 of his book:

The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, or any other entity of the US government. The Department of State had the chance to review this book in manuscript form before publication, as required by 3 FAM 4170. Th e Department of State does not approve, endorse, or authorize this book.

If that disclaimer is not acceptable, then I don't know how else you can write a disclaimer that would say the same thing and be acceptable.

Remember that Chinese saying - more talk, more mistake, no talk, no mistake?

Make that spokesman write this a hundred times on the "R" Front Office's whiteboard, please.

The State Dept Gets Van Burened While the Spokesman Talks About Our $3 Billion F-16s Fire Sale to Support a Peaceful Iraq

Image via WikipediaI was expecting a tsunami to hit Peter Van Buren's cubicle in Foggy Bottom today.

Apparently, the tsunami ordered is on hold perhaps because Mr. Van Buren is on leave?

Instead, the State Department got Van Burened today with Peter Van Buren's story splashed across multiple media outlets. The State Department spokesman made the best possible response with a "no comment" to media inquiries; or she would have been there till midnight answering questions on pages x, and xx, and xxx and on and on. Too bad, I would have like to know if the Green Grass ambassador also ordered frangipanis?

Tomgram: Peter Van Buren, WikiLeaked at the State Department

CBS: When freedom's not free at the State Department

HuffPo: The Only Employee at State Who May Be Fired Because of WikiLeaks

Salon: Interrogated by the State Department

The Guardian

SpyTalk: State Department Harassing Officer Who Revealed Iraq waste

Mother Jones: The Only State Dept. Employee Who May Be Fired Because of WikiLeaks

Wired: State Department Employee Faces Firing for Posting WikiLeaks Link


A couple of days ago, NPR did a radio interview with Mr. Van Buren and it also did an accompanying piece entitled, The Greedy Battle For Iraq's 'Hearts And Minds'. Quick excerpts below:

Van Buren says many of his State Department colleagues who have read the book agree with him in private but have publicly shunned him for speaking out about what he saw in Iraq.

"Many of them accused me of picking on them or ... blaming them for things that I knew were institutional," he says. "They didn't make these decisions because they were stupid. I didn't make these decisions because I was stupid. We all knew we were told we were to do these things, and they're a little angry at me for labeling them as complicit in this when they knew that they weren't."
[...]
"Everyone in Iraq was there on a series of one-year tours, myself included," he says. "Everyone was told that they needed to create accomplishments, that we needed to document our success, that we had to produce a steady stream of photos of accomplishments, and pictures of smiling Iraqis and metrics and charts. It was impossible, under these circumstances, to do anything long term ... We rarely thought past next week's situation update. The embassy would rarely engage with us on a project that wasn't flashy enough to involve photographs or bringing a journalist out to shoot a video that looked good. The willingness to do long-term work ... never existed in our world."

Check it out here.

The good news is the New York Times has so far ignored the book.  That is always a good thing, see because landing there can get you usually toasted according to an early warning system. The book also has not made an appearance in WaPo or in Al Kamen's In the Loop column, landing there can also get you toasted with garlic. We are hoping that the Colbert Report would come knocking on Mr. Van Buren's door. The tragicomedic account with a dash of abrasive seems appropriate in that format. But one can hope.

Since there was no tsunami, we had to look around and see what else is going on in Iraq. Apparently, the United States of America is selling Iraq a dozen and a half of those F-16s at a total cost of $3 Billion. Well, at least some folks will be happy, and working, and putting together those planes. And this should calm some worries about the future of the F-16s.

Here is the Spokesman talking about "the cornerstone of the kind of cooperation that we hope to have in the future to support the secure, peaceful, democratic development of Iraq." Stop laughing, you over there!

QUESTION: Yes, two quick ones. One – I think this came up yesterday – an advisor to the Iraqi prime minister said that Iraq has signed a contract to buy 18 F-16s. Any comment on that?

MS. NULAND: Yes. Iraq has now made its first transfer payment for the purchase of 18 F-16 fighter aircraft, initiating this foreign military sale. These aircraft are going to help provide air sovereignty for Iraq and to protect its territory and deter or counter regional threats.

They also, as a significant military sale between us, are a symbol of the commitment that we’ve made to the Iraqi Government to have a long-term strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq on equal, sovereign terms.

And we expect foreign military sales of this kind, including items like the F-16, to serve as the cornerstone of the kind of cooperation that we hope to have in the future to support the secure, peaceful, democratic development of Iraq.

QUESTION: A couple things. How much was the first transfer payment?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have a number on the first transfer, but the total value of the sale is approximately $3 billion.

QUESTION: And then are they – and this displays the full extent of my knowledge about F-16s – but are they the A/Bs or the C/Ds?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that one. Actually, you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to send you to the military on that one to DOD.

QUESTION: Oh, come on. Oh, come on.

MS. NULAND: I don’t have which kind of F-16s we’ve got here.

I suppose some of our soldiers will be left in Iraq teaching them to fly those planes, do airplane maintenance, and such other things. Will they buy tanks, too, and drones, etc.,etc?  I think we know how this will end, sort of --- no permanent bases, just visiting.

Forever?

New FS Blog: We Meant Well, Plus a Book Coming Out This Fall

From We Meant Well Blog

The new FS blog, We Meant Well is by FSO Peter Van Buren and is a companion to his forthcoming book (coming out this fall from MacMillan), We Meant Well, How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People.

One of his new blog posts -- Bureaucratic Chlamydia: What to Wear to a War?

The first part of my book details the half-assed nature of preparing people like me to live and work in a war zone. State Department personnel are recruited for Iraq without much attention to their background, physical fitness or experience. This is not much of a problem for the majority who will serve at the World’s Largest Embassy in Baghdad, a $1 billion dollar complex constantly referred to as “bigger than the Vatican,” a really odd comparison until you remember the Vatican burned people at the stake for believing the earth was round.

In yesterday's post in FP's The Best Defense, Tom Ricks writes about playing the Iraqi base bingo and this --  

Here a Foreign Service officer speculates on which bases the United States government might like to keep in Iraq after this year. But I disagree with his notion of forward bases on the doorsteps of Iran and Syria.

Ricks was talking about Van Buren's picks on locations of permanent bases --FOB Hammer, Victory Base Complex (VBC) and  Al-Asad Airbase.

The book presumably received clearance through the appropriate State channels, but  Mr. Van Buren told me that the book was cleared as per 3 FAM 4170. I expect that the book and the blog will get a lot of eyeballs from Foggy Bottom and elsewhere. USIP has a collection of personal accounts on the PRT experience in Iraq and Afghanistan with the latest from 2009, but I think this is the first book to come out from a State Dept officer assigned to one of those PRTs.      

In 2009, Mr. Van Buren, a Foreign Service Officer with two decades of experience received a nod to go to a PRT in Iraq only to have the offer rescinded by MED. It turned out, he actually did go to that Iraq PRT assignment in 2009-2010. We have yet to read his insider account of that experience, but below is a pre-publication review from Library Journal:

Van Buren, Peter. We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. Metropolitan: Holt. Oct. 2011. 288p. ISBN 9780805094367. $25.

A Foreign Service officer for more than two decades, Van Buren led the State Department Provincial Reconstruction Team in its effort to win over the Iraqis through invigorating social projects—like sports murals in violence-wracked neighborhoods and pastry-making classes to help folks supply goods to nonexistent cafés on rubble-strewn streets without water or electricity. Talk about the arrogance of trying to remake a world in our image without even knowing the world we are trying to remake. Billed as bitingly funny, though I’m not sure I’m laughing; an important book from someone who was there.

More about the book from the website:

From a State Department insider, the first book recounting our misguided efforts to rebuild Iraq—a shocking and rollicking true-life cross between Catch-22, Dispatches and The Ugly American.

Charged with rebuilding Iraq, would you spend taxpayer money on a sports mural in Baghdad’s most dangerous neighborhood to promote reconciliation through art? How about an isolated milk factory that cannot get its milk to market? Or a pastry class training women to open cafés on bombed-out streets without water or electricity?

According to Peter Van Buren, we bought all these projects and more in the most expensive hearts-and-minds campaign since the Marshall Plan. We Meant Well is his eyewitness account of the civilian side of the surge—that surreal and bollixed attempt to defeat terrorism and win over Iraqis by reconstructing the world we had just destroyed. Leading a State Department Provincial Reconstruction Team on its quixotic mission, Van Buren details, with laser-like irony, his yearlong encounter with pointless projects, bureaucratic fumbling, overwhelmed soldiers, and oblivious administrators secluded in the world’s largest embassy, who fail to realize that you can’t rebuild a country without first picking up the trash.

Darkly funny while deadly serious, We Meant Well is a tragicomic voyage of ineptitude and corruption that leaves its writer—and readers—appalled and disillusioned but wiser.

We're looking forward to reading the book.

Related articles

• Graham: Iraq may "go to hell" without U.S. troops (cbsnews.com)
• Service members build, deliver wheelchairs to Iraqi children (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• 'Wolfhounds' bring potable water to al Alam Nahiya, Iraq (waronterrornews.typepad.com)

Career Diplomacy | Life and Work in the Foreign Service, 2nd Edition - Now Out

Career Diplomacy: Life and Work in the U.S. Foreign Service, Second Edition by Harry W. Kopp and Charles A. Gillespie is now out.

"Career Diplomacy—now in its second edition—is an insider's guide that examines the foreign service as an institution, a profession, and a career. Harry W. Kopp and Charles A. Gillespie, both of whom had long and distinguished careers in the foreign service, provide a full and well-rounded picture of the organization, its place in history, its strengths and weaknesses, and its role in American foreign affairs. Based on their own experiences and through interviews with over 100 current and former foreign service officers and specialists, the authors lay out what to expect in a foreign service career, from the entrance exam through midcareer and into the senior service—how the service works on paper, and in practice."

It's probably the best book out there to give you just the right flavor of foreign service life and work.

Quick notes on the authors:

Harry Kopp }  is a former foreign service officer and consultant in international trade. Kopp was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for international trade policy in the Carter and Reagan administrations. His foreign assignments included Warsaw and Brasília. He received meritorious and superior honor awards from the Department of State and a meritorious service award from President Reagan. Kopp left the foreign service in 1985. He is now president of Harry Kopp, LLC, a consulting company, and Venture Factors, Inc., a division of Zabaleta and Company. Kopp has published in The New York Times and many other publications. He also wrote Commercial Diplomacy and the National Interest (American Academy of Diplomacy and the Business Council for International Understanding, 2004). More information about Mr. Kopp can be found at: www.HarryKopp.com.

Tony Gillespie } Charles A. Gillespie entered the foreign service in 1965 and retired in 1995. His career included assignments as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs; American ambassador to Grenada, Colombia, and Chile, and Special Assistant to the President on the National Security Council Staff. He received meritorious and superior honor awards from the State Department. After retiring, Gillespie joined The Scowcroft Group, a consulting company. He was a member of the American Academy of Diplomacy, the Business Council for International Understanding, and the Forum for International Policy. Gillespie passed away March 7, 2008. (Read his obituary in the Boston Globe or the LA Times ).

A good description of the book contents is here.

Q&A is also available here. Includes some interesting nuggets like those posted below:

How do you “manage up”?

Answer: In the foreign service or any other hierarchy, you want to make the boss look good. Managing up means giving the boss what the boss wants, adapting to the boss’s style, and making his or her work easier, more effective, and less time-consuming.

A personal example: My first day on the job as deputy chief of mission at a large embassy, the ambassador told me my role. “It’s your job to know what I’m doing and thinking,” he said, “but it’s not my job to tell you.” He was telling me to manage up.

Why do consular officers still get looked down upon by some other cones?

Answer: I am tempted to put up some bumf denying this in-house snobbery, but the truth is that within the foreign service, the political cone enjoys the most prestige, the consular and management cones the least. Political work is generally considered more glamorous, not because it is conducted in the swank capitals of Europe (where in fact its prestige is in decline), but because foreign service officers themselves consider it more tightly linked to issues of national security and high policy than other foreign service work. The political cone produces the most ambassadors.

More information about Career Diplomacy, Second Edition can be found at the Georgetown University Press's website at http://press.georgetown.edu/book/georgetown/career-diplomacy

Check out the book's website here.

Al Kamen's In the Loop Iraq Naming Opportunities Contest - Deadline April 11

Image via WikipediaNot one to ever pass an opportunity for a contest, WaPo's Al Kamen has a new In the Loop contest inspired by a report that "The State Department plans to spend up to $250,000 for 21 12-foot light poles and cables to upgrade lighting in the 104-acre U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad along “Negroponte Way,” a pathway up to the embassy."

Apparently the former Ambassador John Negroponte was none too happy with this:

Negroponte Way? As in the former ambassador there, John Negroponte? Indeed, the same. Negroponte, now an international business consultant here, says he didn’t know of the plan to name the walkway for him. He said he saw his name engraved in a stone when, as deputy secretary of state, he returned to Baghdad a couple of years ago for the new embassy’s ribbon-cutting ceremony.

“It was done without prior consultation or approval on my part,” Negroponte said. “I objected at the time and, subsequently, in a message to the embassy, asked that my name be removed.”

So here is the In the Loop contest details - note the deadline is Monday, April 11.

Yes, it’s the first Loop Iraq Naming Opportunities contest for 2011, to propose to embassy officials — and a grateful Iraqi nation — the streets and places that might be renamed for deserving American officials.

For example, the Kurds might want to name a mountain “Snowflake Peak,” in honor of former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s famous Pentagon action memos. Or maybe there’s a tunnel, overpass, bridge, river, building, city or such that needs a new name, such as the L. Paul Bremer cul-de-sac?

Send your entries to NamingOpps@washpost.com. The contest deadline is April 11. You must include a telephone number to be eligible. Winners, to be chosen by an independent panel of experts, will receive mention in the column and one of those coveted In the Loop T-shirts. Ties broken by date of entry. Don’t delay!

Read WaPo's original post here.

You know, of course, that the official residence of the US Ambassador in Japan was called at one time “Hoover’s Folly,” right?  The chancery and the residence with imported Georgia walnut wall panels and Vermont marble flooring, were completed during The Depression at a cost of $1.25 million dollars.

The following is not very original but since the US Embassy in Baghdad cost $592 million 736 million to build (according to the CRS) and about $1.8 billion in operational cost annually (a drip compared to DOD funding in Iraq), I think we can call it any of the following:

Georgie Boy's Grand Folly
Dubya's Grand Folly
The Bush Baghdad Money Sinkhole or TBBMS
Baghdad Blenda, that Elephant is Dazzling

The water and waste treatment facilities? We might call it Condoleezza's Water & Waste Management Disruption Tower or Condi's W2MD Tower, for short.

The power station? Why not Rummy's Light Footprint Station?

The cinema at the embassy - for sure, Dick Cheney's Mushroom Cloud Cinema

What else?

Future of Hope Alley - after L. Paul Bremer's My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope

End of Evil Way - after Richard Perle's An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror

Political Lives Parking Lot 1 or PLPL1 for short - after Tony Blair's A Journey: My Political Life

Gym: Stuff Happens Sports and Recreational Facilities, after you know who.

Cafeteria: Slam-Dunk Corner in honor of George Tenet

Anyway, so you're going on a date at the Dick Cheney's Mushroom Cloud Cinema, and you've just park your official vehicle at the PLPL1 when your phone rings:

Caller: Where are you?
You: Just pulled in at the PLPL1. Where are you?
Caller: Waiting for you at the End of Evil Way. Can you please hurry, we'll be late.
You: I'm coming on the running, will take the shortcut by foot at Future of Hope Alley.
Caller: Okay, see you in five, bye.

What, too lame? If you got a better dish, send it to In the Loop.

Related articles

• Angry crowds in Baghdad, Falluja protest conditions in Iraq (cnn.com)
• Iraqi cleric threatens action if U.S. forces remain (ctv.ca)
• Gates in Baghdad for talks with Iraqi officials (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Artful Diplomacy: 80,000 stockpiled tons of frozen chicken for F-16s?

Ben Berkowitz wrote a special report on weapons and the art of diplomacy here.  I'm sure this would make for some uncomfortable reading out there. And for diplomats who had to rope in sponsors contributors for the official USG 4th of July receptions, this is the answer begging for questions.

But the thing about F-16s and 80,000 stockpiled tons of frozen chicken sure gets your attention.

I must say that had this deal went through, some lucky guy would have been put in for the Charles E. Cobb, Jr. Award for Initiative and Success in Trade Development which recognizes outstanding contributions toward innovative and successful trade development and export promotion for the United States, including "energy and imagination in assisting U.S. manufacturers, retailers and distributors, banks investment firms, venture capital organizations, travel agents, airlines, and other exporters of U.S. goods and services."  The award includes a certificate signed by the Secretary and $5,000.

Or the Herbert Salzman Award for Excellence in International Economic Performance for outstanding contributions in advancing U.S. international relations and objectives in the economic field. This award includes a certificate signed by the Secretary and $5,000.

Or who knows? Perhaps even the Secretary’s Distinguished Service Award. This one is presented at the discretion of the Secretary in recognition of exceptionally outstanding leadership, professional competence, and significant accomplishment over a sustained period of time in the field of foreign affairs. Such achievements must be of notable national or international significance and have made an important contribution to the advancement of U. S. national interests.

Probably needed to calculate how many F-16 American jobs =80,000 stockpiled tons of frozen chicken. Did not work out. Now, we'll never know.  Excerpts from Weapons and the art of diplomacy:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - When Lockheed Martin wanted to sell C-130 military transport planes to the government of Chad in early 2007, the U.S. embassy in N'Djamena was ready to lend a hand.
[...]
The embassy in Chad is hardly an outlier. A review of thousands of pages of diplomatic cables from the last decade, obtained by WikiLeaks and provided to Reuters by a third party, paints a picture of foreign service officers and political appointees willing to go to great lengths to sell American products and services, and to prevent similar sales by other countries.

To be sure, that has been a big part of their job since the end of the Cold War. Nor do the cables point to any wrongdoing. But in some cases, the efforts were so strenuous they raise the question of where if anywhere the line is being drawn between diplomacy and salesmanship.

"The U.S. Government has broad, though not unlimited, discretion to promote and assist U.S. commercial interests abroad. We, of course, cannot do so in contravention of local laws," a State Department spokesman said in response to queries on a series of cables.
[..]
Seasoned diplomats point to a shift in the early 1990s, after the introduction of what was sometimes referred to as a "Bill of Rights for U.S. Business" by former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger. A career foreign service officer, Eagleburger wanted corporate America to have a say in matters of interest internationally -- a big change from how things had been done.

"Until (then), U.S. diplomats were not particularly encouraged to help U.S. business. They were busy fighting the Cold War," said one former U.S. diplomat in Asia. "All of a sudden, we were given new direction: if a single U.S. company is looking for business, we should advocate for them by name; if more than one U.S. company was in the mix, stress buying the American product."
[...]
Marcelle Wahba, the career diplomat who was ambassador to the United Arab Emirates at the time, said such interactions were what was expected of American diplomats by the turn of the 21st Century.

"For the ambassador, I can't think of a time when a month went by when a commercial issue wasn't on my plate," she said in an interview with Reuters. "Some administrations put more of an emphasis on it than others, but now I think, regardless of who's in power you really find it's become an integral part of the State Department mandate."

One cable that underlines the persistence of U.S. diplomats trying to close a deal involves weapons and lots and lots of frozen chickens.

In 2005, the Thai government started shopping for new military fighter jets among Lockheed Martin, Russia's Sukhoi and Sweden's Saab.[...] For the embassy in Bangkok, winning achieved two goals: helping Lockheed and keeping the Russians from selling planes. There was, however, a small complication with the terms -- the Thai government didn't want to pay cash. Instead, it proposed trading 80,000 stockpiled tons of frozen chicken.
[...]
"By the time I was retired from the Foreign Service, which was 1998, things had changed fundamentally and being an active participant in the commercial program and promoting trade using the prestige of the ambassador and receptions held at the embassy or at the ambassador's residence was an important part of what I did," said Tom Niles, the former U.S. ambassador to Canada, the European Union and Greece.
[...]
"We might have been a little bit late to the game. The Europeans understood the crucial role of foreign trade in the growth and development of their economies before we did," Niles said.

Wahba, the former UAE ambassador, concurred.

"Oftentimes European ambassadors, that's all they're there for," she said, adding it would be hard to see the reason otherwise for some countries to have embassies in the first place.

Read this pretty interesting report in full here. Sorry, I still can't get my head around the 80,000 tons of frozen chicken, can you? I mean -- would we have known if that chicken in the local grocery store was swapped for F-16s? Most probably not. It's not like that's the best c'mon to pitch stockpiled frozen chickens. 

In How to Run the World Parag Khanna writes, "It’s only a matter of time before an uber-corporation issues its own passport with pre-negotiatied visa-free access to countries large and small." You think? Note the "new diplomacy" and the corporate logos here?

Related articles

• Three Tenets of Effective Diplomacy (blogs.hbr.org)
• Clinton warns diplomacy, development must be funded (cnn.com)
• Long live wiki-diplomacy (cnn.com)

George P. Schultz writes Ideas and Action: 10 Commandments of Negotiations

Image via Wikipedia
We missed that PBS controversy over the airing of the Turmoil and Triumph series based on George Schultz's 1993 book this past summer.  Michael Getler, the PBS ombudsman, wrote in a column on PBS.org that the series suffered from “at least the appearance of a conflict of interest” due to the financial contributions. From NYT Media Decoder:

"Even before the first installment of the series, “Turmoil and Triumph,” had its debut last Monday, it was knocked by television critics for being too long and for treating its subject with reverence. Mr. Getler said he thought the “deification of Shultz” was both unnecessary and distracting."

Check out the website of Turmoil and Triumph: the George Schultz Years here.

Now, George P. Shultz, the 60th U.S. Secretary of State who served from 1982 to 1989 ( 6 years & 188 days, the longest tenure since Dean Rusk in the 1960s) has written a new book Ideas and Action: Featuring the 10 Commandments of Negotiations.


We have not read the book but his publicist sent us the book announcement excerpted in part below:

IDEAS & ACTION, Featuring the 10 Commandments of Negotiations, a new book by former Secretary of State George P. Shultz published by Free to Choose Press, is a fascinating, first-person account of lessons learned by one of America's most unique and admired public servants.  In his long career in academia, business, and diplomacy, Shultz has spearheaded negotiations on labor disputes, arms control, and the release of political prisoners. Esteemed by Republicans and Democrats alike, Shultz served in the administrations of Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan.  He was a Marine in the South Pacific during World War II, earned a Ph.D. in industrial economics from MIT, and was Dean of the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business.  As he says in the introduction to IDEAS & ACTION, "We have grown accustomed to drawing a bright divide between the world of ideas, a world dominated by ivory towers, and the world of action, a world dominated by oval offices, market floors, and fields of battle.  My life and career, however, have known no such bright dividing line."

Image from Amazon.com

The book includes sections on:

• Keys to good management -- Shultz shares insights gleaned from his vast experience as a labor negotiator, university president, and business leader, including the importance of letting employees know that their opinions matter and giving them a stake in outcomes, taking responsibility for decisions, and having a long-term strategy.

• Civil rights -- Shultz recalls his time as a labor negotiator in Texas in the early 1960s and as the chairman of a committee tasked by President Nixon with ending school segregation. 

• Human rights -- Shultz recounts the delicate negotiations with Soviet leaders to obtain the release of dissident Soviet Jews, one of his proudest achievements as Secretary of State.

• Success in Negotiations: Ten Commandments -- Shultz imparts wisdom that has practical applications for all readers as he outlines ten principles for negotiations in work, business, and diplomacy.  He illustrates each commandment with examples taken from his long career, from the Geneva and Reykjavik summits to the release of imprisoned American reporter Nicholas Daniloff, from the air-traffic controllers' walkout in 1981 to the war in Grenada, and more.

• A World Free of Nuclear Weapons -- Shultz continues to be a leading figure on the international stage.  Along with Henry Kissinger, former senator Sam Nunn, and former Secretary of Defense William Perry, Shultz is a tireless advocate of nuclear disarmament.

Mr. Shultz's publications include Putting Our House in Order: A Citizen's Guide to Social Security and Health Care Reform, with John B. Shoven (2008), Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State (1993), Economic Policy Beyond the Headlines (1977), and many more.

The 3-hour DVD of T&T and the new book are available to purchase here.

Related articles

• Shultz to Obama: 'You're out of your mind' (washingtontimes.com)
• PBS chief defends airing of George Shultz film (pbpulse.com)
• PBS Ombudsman Criticizes Shultz Series (mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com)

Video of the Week: Condi not going to chirp at the people inside

The former Secretary of State, Condi Rice is still doing the rounds plugging in her new family memoir and end up of all places -- with Jon Stewart in The Daily Show!   It's quite fun to watch... but of course, you'll have to wait for that other future book in this series that will "talk" about her other gigs as controversial national security adviser and later as USG's top diplomat. 

But -- you'll be pleased to know that she is not/not going to "chirp at the people inside." Watch:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Condoleezza Rice Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Michael Shaw, publisher of progressive site on visual politics, the BagNewsNotes writes: "Can't we just be honest about the function of this, as well as so many other so-called blockbuster political biographies, though? The objects above represent just the latest PR act of "wiping the slate clean," of reintroducing a notorious public figure, of cementing a personality and reputation make-over by interjecting someone who has otherwise been laying low back into the media sphere by way of a "comeback tour."

Oh, Michael, Michael, must you say that out loud?

 

Related articles

• Rice will return to White House for private meeting with Obama (washingtonpost.com)
• Growing Up Condi (thedailybeast.com)
• Um, Can Condi Bench More Than You? [Femiladyism] (gawker.com)

NYT Review on Condi's book: "rarely a hair out of place"

Image by World Economic Forum via FlickrYou know, of course, that the former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, also known as 66th  has written a memoir, "Extraordinary, Ordinary People A Memoir of Family" (342 pages. Illustrated. Crown Archetype. $27), right?   NYT's Dwight Garner has written a review of the book in its Books of The Times. Excerpt below:

For all this, “Extraordinary, Ordinary People” is often aloof. There are few unguarded moments, little humor. There’s rarely a hair out of place. (She does talk about several of her boyfriends over the years, including, in the mid-1970s, the Denver Broncos kick returner Rick Upchurch.) Like so many public figures and those in government and politics especially, Ms. Rice is not especially reflective. Her energy is directed out, not in.

It’s frustrating. Here’s a woman, you think, who has been secretary of state and provost of Stanford University. During the fall of the Berlin Wall, she was George H. W. Bush’s adviser on Soviet policy. Her doctoral dissertation was published by Princeton University Press. Surely there’s a keen and kaleidoscopic mind in there. But that mind is rarely apparent in this softly flowing book. Reading it, from the perspective of ideas and intellect, is like watching a Toyota Prius compete in the Indianapolis 500.
[...]
“Extraordinary, Ordinary People” follows Ms. Rice to the University of Denver, where she studied international politics with the former Czech diplomat Josef Korbel, the father of Madeleine Albright. Korbel would become the first of her many influential mentors, who would come to include Brent Scowcroft, George H. W. Bush’s national security adviser, and George Shultz, secretary of state under Ronald Reagan.

This book takes us through her years at the National Security Council under Mr. Scowcroft and her disputatious tenure as the Stanford provost, where she slashed budgets and alienated much of the faculty. Ms. Rice skims quickly over both of these periods. Much fuller accounts can be found in the New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller’s comprehensive biography, “Condoleezza Rice: An American Life” (2007).
[...]
The most ringing line here may belong to Barbara Bush, then first lady, who said to Ms. Rice as she was preparing to leave the White House to return to Stanford: “You are such a good friend of the Bushes. This won’t be the last we see of you.”

Active links added above.  Read the whole thing here.

 

Related articles

• Growing Up Condi (thedailybeast.com)
• Condoleezza Rice admits to mistakes (telegraph.co.uk)
• 'Extraordinary, Ordinary People': Condoleezza Rice's incomplete tale (seattletimes.nwsource.com)