Showing posts with label Functional Bureaus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Functional Bureaus. Show all posts

Sunday, January 8, 2012

New Bureaus and All That Jazz, and You Can Still Do More With Less

On January 4, the State Department announced the creation of the new Bureau of Counterterrorism.

Because the QDDR said so.  The new bureau will reportedly "lead in supporting U.S. counterterrorism diplomacy and seek to strengthen homeland security, countering violent extremism, and build the capacity of partner nations to deal effectively with terrorism." According to a recent official briefing, the new CT bureau will start with some 70 full time government employees including detailees, contractors, and the like but will eventually top off at approximately 120 staffers in all. It has  four functional directorates: Homeland Security and Multilateral Affairs; Operations; Programs, Policy, and Budget; and Regional Affairs.

The predecessor organization to CT was the Office for Combatting Terrorism, created in October 1972 upon the recommendation of a special committee appointed by President Richard Nixon following the Munich Olympics terrorist attack. The committee determined that an office was needed within the Department of State to provide day-to-day counterterrorism coordination and to develop policy initiatives and responses for the U.S. Government on the issue of international terrorism.

On Aug 1, 1976, the Department of State elevated the position of Special Assistant to the Secretary of State and Coordinator of the Office for Combating Terrorism to that of Director of the Office for Combating Terrorism, with rank equivalent to an Assistant Secretary of State. All Directors have been designated by the Secretary of State, not commissioned. The Department has changed the incumbent's title twice since 1976 to "Ambassador at Large for Counter-Terrorism" on Nov 4, 1985, and to "Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism" on May 1, 1989.

In 1994, Congress officially mandated the Bureau of Counterterrorism in Public Law 103-236 [H.R. 2333]. In 1998, Congress further defined the role of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism in Public Law 105-277 [H.R. 4328]:

There is within the office of the Secretary of State a Coordinator for Counterterrorism...who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.... The principal duty of the coordinator shall be the overall supervision (including policy oversight of resources) of international counterterrorism activities. The Coordinator shall be the principal adviser to the Secretary of State on international counterterrorism matters. The coordinator shall be the principal counterterrorism official within the senior management of the Department of State and shall report directly to the Secretary of State...The Coordinator shall have the rank and status of Ambassador at Large.
But CT did not get elevated into a bureau until now. 

Monday, November 7, 2011

Officially In: Tara D. Sonenshine to be Under Secretary for State/R

President Obama announced his intent to nominate Tara D. Sonenshine to be Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs ("R").

The WH released the following brief bio:

Tara D. Sonenshine is the Executive Vice President of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP).  Prior to joining USIP, she was a strategic communications adviser to many international organizations including USIP, the International Crisis Group, Internews, CARE, The American Academy of Diplomacy, and the International Women’s Media Foundation. Ms. Sonenshine served in various capacities at the White House during the Clinton Administration, including Transition Director, Director of Foreign Policy Planning for the National Security Council, and Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Communications.   Prior to serving in the Clinton Administration, Ms. Sonenshine was an Editorial Producer of ABC News’ Nightline, where she worked for more than a decade.  She was also an off-air reporter at the Pentagon for ABC’s World News Tonight and is the recipient of 10 News Emmy Awards for coverage of international affairs. 

She holds a B.A. in Political Science from Tufts University.

Her USIP bio has additional details:
Sonenshine recently completed a project with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen for the Genocide Prevention Task Force, which was jointly convened by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, The American Academy of Diplomacy and the U.S. Institute of Peace. Tara served in the Clinton Administration as both Deputy Director for Communications on the National Security Council and later as Transition Director for foreign policy planning. She is the winner of 10 News Emmy Awards for her international productions for ABC News' “Nightline.” She was a Contributing Editor at Newsweek magazine and President of WomensNewsLink.com. She speaks Russian and Spanish and is an expert on creating and sustaining public visibility around issues, and developing external relations. She is published in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, Huffington Post, Russkoye Novoe Slovo, and other outlets.
If confirmed, Ms.  Sonenshine would succeed Judith McHale who departed in June this year after a 2-year tenure.


Related item:
President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts| Nov 4, 2011












Officially In: Anne C. Richard to State/PRM

President Obama announced his intent to nominate Anne C. Richard to be Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) at the  Department of State.

The WH released the following brief bio:

Anne C. Richard is the Vice President of Government Relations and Advocacy for the International Rescue Committee (IRC).  Prior to joining IRC in 2004, Ms. Richard was Director of the Office of Resources, Plans and Policy at the Department of State from 1999 to 2001.  From 1997 to 1999, she was Deputy Chief Financial Officer of the Peace Corps.  She has also served as a budget and policy advisor at the Department of State and as Budget Examiner at the United States Office of Management and Budget.  Ms. Richard was an International Affairs Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1993 to 1994 and was part of the team that created the International Crisis Group.  From 1985 to 1986, she was a fellow of the Robert Bosch Foundation in Germany.  

She received a B.S. in Foreign Service from Georgetown University and an M.A. in Public Policy Studies from the University of Chicago.
Ms. Richard was in the news sometime back about the militarization of U.S. aid in Afghanistan. She blogs here. Video clip below:


If confirmed, Ms. Richard would succeed Eric P. Schwartz who was confirmed by the Senate as Assistant Secretary of State for PRM on June 19, 2009. In June this year, University of Minnesota Provost Tom Sullivan named Mr. Schwartz as dean of the university's Humphrey School of Public Affairs.




Related item:
President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts| Nov 4, 2011





Wednesday, October 12, 2011

State Dept CA CIO Kirit Amin Rants on FSOs, Cronyism, Nepotism, "Doormats"... Two Days Later, Apologizes

In June, I wrote about the OIG review of the Consular Affairs Bureau's Consolidated Consular Database (CCD) ran under the umbrella of CA/CST.

To recap, the OIG arrived at the following conclusion:

The CCD is the backbone of all consular applications and services and supports domestic and overseas passport and visa activities. The CCD is the repository for data from all the individual consular sections and passport office databases. It uses state-of-the-art technology with agile and robust design for scalability and availability. The CCD is accessed by 11,000 Department users, as well as 19,000 users in other agencies (for example, DHS, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Social Security Administration.). The CCD is the personally identifiable data repository for American citizens services, passports, immigrant visas, and nonimmigrant visas. Because of the CCD’s importance to national security, ensuring its data integrity, availability, and confidentiality is vital

CST does not have adequate oversight of CCD operations. [REDACTED]

The report also reviewed leadership and management issues and its impact on CST, and points out that of the total 68 personnel working at CST only 6 are Foreign Service Officers.  Make a mental note of that. Read more here.

On October 5, 2011, Federal News Radio reports that "State's Amin leaving CIO role temporarily."  That's Kirit Amin who has been CIO at the Bureau of Consular Affairs for four years.  Excerpts below:
Kirit Amin, the chief information officer of the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, said he will take a 120-day reassignment with the State Department CIO.

He cited frustration with senior management decisions and the refusal of employees to change the way they work as some of the reasons for the move.

"I think we've made a tremendous difference in spite of opposition from people entrenched in the government for years," Amin said in an exclusive interview with Federal News Radio. " ... I was saying State was doing some contracts which are bad contracts — that was costing us far more than it should. I said 'Wait a minute,' and they want to cover it up. There is a lot of cronyism and nepotism going on at State."
[...]
"The State Department is ruled by the foreign service. These guys go overseas and have a good time and come here and have no idea what they are doing," he said. "The agency is ruled by them, and even Secretary Hillary Clinton is starting to admit to that. I think the civil service employees are treated like doormats. You fight with them for what's right and they can't take it."

The American Foreign Service Association has objected to Amin's comments, calling them "outrageous."
Read in full here.

Federal News Radio then reports that Daniel Hirsch, state vice president of AFSA, took exception to those comments. Also dated October 5, AFSA objects to Amin's characterization of Foreign Service:
In an emailed statement to Federal News Radio, Hirsch wrote, "These outrageous comments raise serious questions about whether Mr. Amin even understands the basic mission of the agency he is working for, much as protesting that the Department of Defense is "ruled" by the military would raise questions about whether a person understood the purpose of that agency."

On October 6, by great coincidence, Bob Gourley of Sys-Con Media has a piece on the Department of State’s Consular Systems and Technology: A Track Record of Innovation, and Kirit Amin.   
This year, CST also won two awards from the Association For Federal Information Resources Management (AFFIRM), a Leadership Award in Service Excellence for the CEAC team and a Leadership Award in Service of the Country to Kirit Amin.

Leadership Award for Service to the Country: Kirit Amin, CIO, Bureau Consular Affairs, Office of Consular Systems & Tech, US Department of State Presented for excellence in government information services improvement or effectiveness on a national level by leveraging information for mission accomplishment.

On October 7, Mr. Amin released an open letter to AFSA, published by Federal News Radio.
On Wednesday, Federal News Radio reported that I was to be seconded to the Information Resources Management Office within the State Department. That was not incorrect. An article based on the phone conversation that I had with Jason Miller, Executive Editor of that outlet, contained elements of an interview that characterized my opinion on a number of concerns within the State Department, including my comments about professional, Foreign Service Officers who work here. It is worth mentioning, that those comments as stated in the article had nothing to do with, or any relationship to that new assignment.

To my colleagues and peers at AFSA, I offer my complete and sincere apology. The phone conversation with Miller, someone who I have worked with and known for some time, could not have come at a more inconvenient time. I had just learned of my new assignment and was working to put together a transition strategy to honor that obligation, when I took the call. It is never wrong to work with members of the media however in this age of instant communications I should have remembered that an instant answer is not always required.
[...]
During my four years of working at the Bureau of Consular Affairs, I have had the honor to work with talented, dedicated and brave FSOs as they were serving their country, often in very dangerous postings around the world. I have been privileged enough to become close friends with a number of them. Because of that special consideration, I sincerely regret and apologize if my words brought discredit to them or Foreign Service Officers in general.
[....]
I am confident that those of you that recognize the work represented by my team are also aware of my professional frustration of not being able to make the changes more quickly; especially, when I am so sure that they would enable us to serve the FSO community more expeditiously. That every manager, director and senior leader that I know, in government and the private sector, shares this frustration, is little solace.
Read in full here.

I don't know how this will end. But one of the possible scenarios would be Mr. Amin's resignation to spend more time with his family.







Tuesday, October 11, 2011

How to Cover Your Ass When Handling the State Dept "Clearance" Mailbox

In the NYT profile of Mr. Van Buren, the writer notes: "As the Foreign Service requires, Mr. Van Buren submitted his manuscript for review in September 2010, shortly after he returned from Iraq. The rules state that the review must be completed within 30 days. When he heard nothing, he took that as assent."

A State Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to NYT also said that "publishing without awaiting the required review amounted to a violation." 

I bet that official did not have time to read the darn FAM 4170.

As you can imagine this just cracks me up.  And makes me dammit, tantrumy (like stormy and such).

Given the reactions from the State Department, it seems to me that this manuscript dived into the cracks, head first, and the agency realized it too late. In short, no one may have actually read this manuscript before it went to press. But instead of somebody owning up to the snafu (it was after all submitted for clearance), the organization is going after the author. Why didn't they fire the guy who messed up in clearing this book? If he/she did his/her job -- who knows what could have happened?  This case could have ended up litigated in court. And you know how long court cases travel through that system. Entirely possible that by the time the court decides on the case, we would already have been out of Iraq  and the book would have been OBE as they say; as in overtaken by events = no buzz.

But here's what I think happened with that controversial 30-day clearance process. You are welcome to take this with a dash of salt since obviously I did not do the monitoring of that mailbox in the Big House:

Step 1: Employee sends request for clearance to the "Clearances" mailbox. Manuscript attached.

Step 2: "Clearances" mailbox acknowledged receipt of manuscript

Step 3: 30-days later, employee sends follow up inquiry about requested clearance per timeline specified in the FAM

Step 4: "Clearance" mailbox mails out the following response:
Dear You:

Your email inquiry referred to “I replied to your message.” I just want to clarify that Jane Doe who works at "Clearances” mailbox was the one who replied to you in that message and she has been ill.  I and other colleagues are covering the “Clearances” mailbox in Ms. Doe's absence in addition to our regular jobs.

Such being the case, we will have to begin from the beginning with this clearance request of yours, or forego review/clearance due to our delay in responding to you.  I recommend doing the former, not the latter. Also please note that the 30 day review period = business days and does not include weekends or holidays.

Step 5
: Employee ignores the recommendation and publishes the book ... [A recommendation by its definition is not an order but an advice that the recipient is free to ignore, see?].

Step 6: BAM! Just like that. Days before the book lands in bookstores, the Front Office SCREAMS: How did that manuscript get clearance?

Step 7: What happened? Do you know what happened? I don't know, do you? What happened? She doesn't know. He doesn't know. Does anybody know? Somebody please tell me WHAT HAPPENED! Nobody knows what happened? Well, for sure that man is evil for publishing that book! Get your pitchforks!
Okay, okay ... evil and pitchforks are all made up. Pardon my active imagination; I was born this way.

And that dear readers is how a manuscript submitted for clearance can fall into those famous cracks.  Can our friends over at Public Affairs confirm or deny more or less if this was how it went down with Peter Van Buren's book? What, I don't have friends left there anymore?  Okay...so, really -- which one of the very Special Assistants at the Front Office dropped this ball?

Accountability Jane - they don't make them like they used to anymore.

While I was writing this down I remember Harrison Ford in Clear and Present Danger. Remember that scene between Jack Ryan and Ritter?
Jack Ryan: If I go down you're coming with me.

Ritter: Wrong again. I have an *autographed get-out-of-jail-free card*! "The President of the United States authorizes Deputy Director of the CIA Robert Ritter to conduct 'Operation Reciprocity' including all necessary funding and support. This action is deemed important to the national security of the United States etcetera, etcetera, etcetera." You don't *have* one of these, do you Jack?

You will note that in our brief imagined response above, the most important component is CYA. Yes, as in Cover Your Ass even on a paper trail.  It wasn't me.

That's an institutionalized part of bureaucratic life. In fact, there ought to be a Cover Your Ass Lessons Learned Center. Except that Congress would never go for that. 

Anywho - I'd like to know who dropped the ball on this ... c'mon fess up.

And stop squeezing the guy about a three-year old taxi receipt in Peru, and elsewhere. If you keep at it, he may have to send you a thank you note and Godiva chocolates for helping him break into Amazon's Top 50 books. Pardon me?  Um, he is already in the Top 100. Can you imagine what happens if he actually gets fired? Um, hello bestseller?

While I'm on the subject of this book, Mr. Van Buren will do his only Washington DC area book signing today, October 11, at 6:30 pm, at the Washington flagship Barnes and Noble store, 555 12th St NW.  I understand that the first three in line buying a book will receive a special "Classified" carry bag.*


When pressed about the carry bag, the author emphasized that "*No actual classified material was used or injured in the production of this bag." Also that "offer is void where patrolled by drones or tigers."

Alrighty then, that settles it. See you there?!





Thursday, October 6, 2011

Asst Sec'y for Something Affairs Formally Announced Forensic Document Design and Integrity Coordination Unit Created in 2009?


This came out recently as a notice from the Something Affairs Bureau (SAB):

"Assistant Secretary [REDACTED] formally established a Forensic Document Design and Integrity Coordination Unit (FDDI/C) within the Something Affairs Front Office in 2009.  FDDI/C advises on and coordinates all issues involving the development, evaluation, and selection of document security features, as well as quality assurance processes of new improvements to all of Something Affair's secure documents to include the U.S. Passport, U.S. Passport Card, U.S. visa foils, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, Consular Report of Death Abroad and the Border Crossing Card.
yadda yadda yadda  is developing material testing procedures to provide quality assurance evaluation for all of Something Affairs' secure documents."

Wait ...wait a minute ....

This doesn't have anything to do with our post on September 8, 2011 on Spouse of Former Asst Sec'y for Something Affairs Lands Senior Job at Something Affairs?  It doesn't. Right-o. It doesn't have anything to do with it. The two are absolutely not connected whatsoever.

Thank you, that's good to know; did not want to upset our friends at the Something Affairs Bureau.

That is a strange notice though, don't you think? If the Unit was created in 2009, why would the A/S announced it like now? Perhaps the domestic staffers of Something Affairs did not know that they have a Forensic Document Design and Integrity Coordination Unit?  Perhaps the overseas staffers of Something Affairs did not know that they have a Forensic Document Design and Integrity Coordination Unit since 2009 - they are abroad, after all?  Perhaps the Unit has a new person in charge? Perhaps the Unit has a new fax machine?  Perhaps ... perhaps .... otherwise, it's kinda hard to imagine somebody writing a late announcement like this. And not just late, late but like two years late. If I were A/S, I would fire that announcement drafter already because really -- how long does it take to write a 500-word announcement?

And not to pick on our friends over at SAB or anything but since when has the Consular Report of Death Abroad been considered a "secure document?"  This document is not controlled or numbered in anyway. It's not hidden in the vault under lock and hard to remember combination. If you look in the ACS shelves, you'll probably find these forms hanging out over there without a care in the world.

Pardon me? What, not anymore?  Oh, sorry, you don't actually type on it anymore.

The Consular Report of Death Abroad is now automated, so those forms are not palling around under the shelves anymore.  Although now online, apparently this document still has no control number of any sort.  My beer-buddy complains that it is the most non-user friendly computer thingee to fill out online.  So, this might just be a project that the Forensic Document Design and Integrity Coordination Unit (FDDI/C) can really sink its baby teeth in. The document provides essential facts about the death, disposition of remains, and custody of the estate of the deceased American and generally used in legal proceedings in U.S. as proof of death.  So, of course, it must be made secure, that is, if it's not secure yet.

Why didn't you just say so?
 



Wednesday, October 5, 2011

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.





Thursday, September 8, 2011

Spouse of Former Asst Sec'y for Something Affairs Lands Senior Job at Something Affairs?

A note from a long time employee landed in our mailbox recently, tweaked to protect identifying punctuation marks -:) Below is a quick summary: 

  • The State Department's Something Affairs Bureau (SAB) is serious about that leadership precept of hiring the best team possible. 
  • Need proof? SAB hired XXXX about a year ago as a ZZZZ, a position that "never existed before" in the Something Affairs Bureau.
  • The writer notes that I may not recognize the new hire's name but that I might recognize the person's other name, which is Spouse of Former Assistant Secretary for Something Affairs.
  • The note ends with something like "SAB is serious about hiring the best!"

Yeah, you go, dear! I don't know all the details but sounds impressive... sign me up!

Now -- if I marry that good looking Consul General over there, may I get a job that never existed before, too?

No? You mean a spouse of the Consul General is not high enough for a personalized job creation? Dammit! Now I have to find an Assistant Secretary to snag. Life just isn't fair and shhh! I'm not/not getting any younger!  

Wait -- if I cannot find a willing or available Assistant Secretary, would a Deputy Assistant Secretary do? Please, pretty, please? The DASes are almost as good as the AS.  I promise I'll be very good. And I will come up with my very own job title (never before seen anywhere), so you won't even have to worry about that. Deal?

Oh, the things you do for a job these days! But if I get a personalized job creation at the Something Affairs Bureau, that will give me health insurance, TSP, social security retirement, sick leave, etc. etc.!

Now, I gotta chore to run ...

BTW -- names and suggestions for blind dates with a dashing someone preferably ranked Assistant Secretary but no lower than a DAS accepted via email until further notice.  










Friday, July 29, 2011

Cops Kabul Edition: Building Afghanistan's National Police at $1.26 Billion

Afghan National Police (ANP) recruits listen t...Image via WikipediaAfghanistan has an annual revenue of $1 billion. And we're spending $1.26 billion to train the Afghan National Police. Both OIGs for the State Department and Defense Department are not impressed at how State is handling the DOD funds for the police force we're building there.

The joint OIG report recommends that "DoD and DOS officials [....] develop procedures for monitoring the obligation and expenditure of DoD funds for the ANP training program and initiate a potential Antideficiency Act violation investigation. Also, DOS should increase the scope of the pre-payment invoice reviews to identify and reject costs that were not authorized or services not provided before payment." From the summary of the report:

DOS officials did not appropriately obligate or return to DoD approximately 172.40 million of approximately $1.26 billion of DoD funds provided for the ANP training program. This occurred because DOS lacked adequate procedures for obligating, monitoring, and deobligating DoD funds for the ANP training program. Moreover, DoD officials did not validate whether the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) officials obligated funds in accordance with the reimbursable agreements. In addition, the DOS contracting officer’s representative approved contractor invoices for payment for approximately $2.07 million that were either not authorized or were for services not provided. This occurred because DOS officials did not always perform a detailed review of invoices before payment and relied on a post-payment review of invoices to identify overpayments and obtain refunds from the contractor. As a result, we identified total potential monetary benefits of approximately $124.62 million.*

When recovered, these funds could be used for valid ANP training program requirements or other DoD requirements. In addition, if not corrected, incorrect obligations of approximately $74.91 million could result in potential Antideficiency Act violations.

Here is what $1,000,000,000 dollars look like (via wtfnoway.com visualizing the U.S. debt): So these pallets of money plus change is what we're spending on building a police force in Afghanistan. So hey, State can't make heads or tails over this big chunk of money; can you blame them for mishandling the funds?


image by wtfnoway.com

In 2006, an Interagency Assessment of Afghanistan Police Training and Readiness summarized the end-state of the police program in Afghanistan as follows:
"The intended end state of the U.S.-funded APP is an effective, well-organized,professional, multiethnic national police force that is trained and equipped to provide a safe and secure environment for the people of Afghanistan and a force committed to the rule of law. The ANP need to be led well, paid decent salaries, and trained and equipped to carry out their assigned security and law and order missions. The program’s goal is to establish a self-sustaining ANP – a police force able to attract and retain qualified candidates and to operate with minimal international assistance."
The same assessment also made the following point:
"The high illiteracy rate among the police recruits is problematic. Obviously it is easier for the recruits to process the subject matter when they can read and write. In addition, the assessment team observed that the classes for literate recruits have more lively discussion and more student participation than do the illiterate classes. Nevertheless, there is no discernable difference between the literate and illiterate students during the practical exercises, such as high-risk traffic stops, handcuffing, building searches, full contact baton training, and vehicle searches. It must be noted that illiterate policemen cannot perform the full spectrum of professional police duties. Thus, to the degree that the ANP is manned by illiterate personnel, it cannot meet the performance standards of a fully professional police force."
Apparently we also reformed its pay structure, so that its Lt. General gets paid seven times its previous salary but a lowly patrolman gets $80 dollars a month, $10 dollars more than its previous salary:
Before Reform After Reform
$107     Lt General       $750
$103     Maj General    $650
$95       Brig General    $550
$92       Colonel            $400
$88       Lt Colonel       $350
$83       Major              $300
$78       Captain           $250
$69      1st Lieutenant  $200
$66      2nd Lieutenant $180
$62      Sergeant           $115/$140/$160
$70      Patrolman         $70/$80

Pay per month in USD
Finally, the assessment notes that the Afghan government does not/not have the revenue to pay its police.


Imagine an end-state of the police program in Afghanistan that is self-sustaining, professional and multi-ethnic and blah, blah, blah ....presumably composed of the Pashtuns and the Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Aimaks, Turkmen, Balochs and others.

This is obviously a problem, particularly in a country where the national literacy rate is 28.1%.  Of course, every problem has a solution, silly!

Just yesterday, DOD showed off Dr. Jack D. Kem, the deputy to the NATO Training Mission Afghanistan commander, Army Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV; he was touting the progress in the Afghanistan training mission:
The typical recruit is “physically fit, clear-eyed and they want to work,” Kem said. “They are survivors and highly motivated.” But they also are illiterate. “About 86 percent come in and can’t count to four,” he said. “They have not lived in wealth, so many have never seen running water or driven a vehicle. There are a lot of things that we have to do that wouldn’t be typical in the West.”
[...]
“We have 110,000 people in literacy courses,” Kem said. “In 10 years, school enrollment has gone from 800,000 to 8 million. Some of that is from our assistance.”


So to sum up --

The somebodies decided that Afghanistan must have a professional police force. Check.

Hard to make them professional when they're not literate.The somebodies proceeded to give them literacy courses. Check.

The somebodies also reformed their pay structure. Check.

When all is said and done, remember that Afghanistan does not have the money to pay the salaries of its police force.

Oh, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - even IF we succeed in building a "professional" police force over there, who's going to write their checks when we're done visiting?

In the end-state imagined here, we'll be in Afghanistan like the song goes -- Forever and Ever Amen! And you call this a win/win situation?

Holy mother of goat and all her crazy nephews!



Related item:
DoD and DOS Need Better Procedures to Monitor and Expend DoD Funds for the Afghan National Police Training Program (Report No. D-2011-080 and AUD/CG-11-30)



 
 
 

Friday, July 8, 2011

Officially Moved Up: Mike Hammer as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs

On July 8, President Obama announced his intent to nominate Michael A. Hammer as the next Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. The WH released the following brief bio:

Michael A. Hammer, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, currently serves as the Acting Assistant Secretary and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.  Prior to this assignment, Mr. Hammer served as Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director for Press and Communications, and National Security Council Spokesman from January 2009 to January 2011. Previous assignments at the National Security Council include Deputy Spokesman and Director of Andean Affairs.  Since joining the Foreign Service in 1988, Mr. Hammer has served abroad in Bolivia, Norway, Iceland, and Denmark.  In Washington D.C., Mr. Hammer has also served in the Department’s Operations Center and as Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs.  

Mr. Hammer holds a B.A. from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and master’s degrees from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and from the National War College at the National Defense University.
state.gov photo

Mike Hammer has been Acting Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs since March this year.   As Acting Assistant Secretary, he leads the Bureau of Public Affairs and reportedly manages a staff of over 200 employees.  WaPo's profile calls him "the "chief operating officer" of the State Department's public affairs team."  He previously spent two years in the Obama White House as spokesman for the National Security Council.Mr. Hammer who grew up in Latin America, living in Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil is fluent in Spanish and speaks French and Icelandic.

If confirmed, Mr. Hammer would officially succeed P.J. Crowley who left post abruptly after making a controversial statement over DOD's treatment of Bradley Manning.


Related item:

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts | July 8, 2011





Wednesday, June 22, 2011

US Embassy Tajikistan: $318,913 to Build Rec Center, $1.5M to Demolish, Redesign, Reconstruct Botched Rec Center

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) Semiannual Report to the Congress for the Department of State (Department) and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) recently went online. This most recent report covers the period ending March 31, 2011.

US Embassy Dushanbe, Tajikistan
Photo from US Embassy/Facebook
The report includes a summary of inspections, audits, and investigations conducted by the OIG including the following botched rec center at the US Embassy in Dushanbe:

Limited-Scope Review of the Design and Construction of a Recreation Center at Embassy Dushanbe, Tajikistan (MERO-I-11-04)
In December 2006, Embassy Dushanbe and RPSO awarded a contract, valued at $318,913 for construction of a post-managed recreation center, to a local contractor, PIR-5 LTD (PIR-5). OBO approved the initial design and issued a building permit in October 2007. In July 2008, RPSO issued a notice to proceed, and construction began in the fall of 2008. In May 2009, PIR-5 ceased site activities and walked off the job when RPSO withheld payments. The contract was formally terminated on July 15, 2009. The swimming pool facilities must be demolished, redesigned, and reconstructed at an estimated cost of $1.5 million—five times the original cost.

OIG found a number of deficiencies in the design and construction of the recreation center, including RPSO’s and the embassy’s failure to assess the reasonableness of the proposed price. PIR-5 did not design and construct the Dushanbe recreation center according to required building codes and guidelines. Required designs were not submitted by PIR-5, nor were design issues resolved prior to starting construction. RPSO failed to limit U.S. Government risk because the contractor was not required to purchase payment bonds and insurance. CORs did not properly monitor the contractor’s performance or progress, failed to establish quality assurance measures, and did not ensure the contractor submitted required documents. Invoices were approved and paid although the work was unacceptable. COR turnover and a short­age in management staff led to a lack of continuity in contract management.

OIG recommended that an employee with construction engineering experience chair the managed project technical evaluation team and that the contracting officer obtain an OBO audit before awarding a contract varying more than 20 percent from the Independent Government Cost Estimate. OIG also recommended that OBO fully review and approve designs, management plans, and quality assurance plans before beginning construction; review construction progress and identify risks; and establish COR guidance.



 
 
 

Monday, June 6, 2011

State Dept's Counternarcotics Programs: Over $1 Billion, Five Countries And ...

The GAO released its report on  the Department of State’s Counternarcotics Performance Management System recently. Excerpts:

The Department of State (State) received over $1 billion in its fiscal year 2010 appropriation for international counternarcotics assistance programs. The vast majority of this funding—about 90 percent in fiscal year 2010—supports counternarcotics programs in five countries—Mexico, Afghanistan, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) is primarily responsible for implementing U.S. assistance programs involving eradication of illicit crops, interdiction of drug trafficking, and drug demand reduction, which represented about 85 percent of State’s counternarcotics appropriation in fiscal year 2010.2 INL implements a large share of its funding through contractors, primarily for aviation support for eradication and interdiction efforts.
The chart below includes funding from Economic Support Fund and Development Assistance accounts, implemented by USAID for alternative development programs, but excludes centrally managed accounts and Overseas Contingency Operations funding.

Extracted from GAO report

According to INL officials responsible for contract management, INL generally does not link the performance of individual contracts to its overall program performance assessments, in part because performance measures in contracts relate specifically to fulfillment of contract requirements rather than broad program goals. For example, performance measures in the aviation equipment and support contracts define targets for availability of aircraft and the number of flights to be conducted, not drug interdiction or eradication targets. In addition to aviation equipment and support, which constitute the bulk of contract obligations related to counternarcotics efforts, other INL counternarcotics contract activities include meal services and lodging for counternarcotics personnel, and commodities, such as fuel and vehicles. According to INL officials, State does not have a centralized inventory of counternarcotics contracts.
Overseas posts are generally responsible for setting contract requirements and conducting contract oversight of counternarcotics activities.

Help me out here -- isn't this a tad confusing?

If the performance of the individual contracts are not linked to the overall program, and if each post is responsible for contract requirements and oversight, how are all these activities tie together into a coherent and effective counternarcotics program as a whole? 




Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Patricia Kushlis on State's IIP: A Bureau Playing with Fire - Or Maybe Not...

Patricia Kushlis over at WhirledView has a new post on the State Department's Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) - IIP: A Bureau Playing with Fire – Or Maybe Not.


On February 11, USA Today reported that the State Department had just launched a controversial new approach to connect directly with opposition movements in Iran and the Arab World via Facebook and Twitter.  The same thrust is found in Marshall Kirkpatrick's post with the titilating title "Will Twitter Become the New "Voice of America" Propaganda Arm?"

The goal of this initiative? To become “part of the conversation” –“to reach out to people where they spend their time online to listen, to present US views and values, and to engage as we work to advance a better and more prosperous future” – in Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Judith McHale’s words.

Coincidentally, McHale’s announcement came just before violent clashes broke out in Tehran a day after the Department began its first Tweet in Farsi and as anti-government copy-cat rebellions spread like wildfire from Tunis and Cairo across the Arab world
[...]

[D]oes the Obama administration really want to be blamed for inciting even one revolution that failed as happened with our radio broadcasts to Hungary in 1956?  Not all the protests that now sweep the Middle East will have happy endings – at least from a democratic perspective.

Besides, who’s to say that barging into someone else’s social media conversations is the most effective way to reach the next generation, er, the twentysomethings who founded Egypt’s April 6, Youth for El Baradei, or Muslim Brotherhood’s Youth for instance?  If that is the Department’s the goal.

These groups seem to have done quite well on their own - with some direction and training from the Serbs who got rid of Milosevic. This according to Tina Rosenberg in an FP article. They also had access to the ideas of an unlikely American 83 year old thinker-strategist writing on non-violent revolutions named Gene Sharp as profiled in a New York Times article by Sheryl Gail Stolberg.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has made support for Internet freedom a major foreign policy goal.  It is, after all, perhaps the most vital information tool of all. It just seems to me , however, that the Department should play by the same rules.

Sure, increase topically based IIP Twitter feeds with the one caveat:  Be careful what you Tweet and remember Twitter is not a conversation: it’s a one way headline series.

Increase the number of high quality Facebook pages too. IIP seems to be doing them very well. Maybe cut back on some of the less popular or influential others managed elsewhere. But understand, both Twitter and Facebook are restricted networks that operate within larger networked universes.

How effective the new directions will be, what they will entail and what the potential repercussions will be are question marks.  Yet, IIP’s predecessors were information innovators that didn’t shy from trying out the new. This latest bureau realignment, then, should be seen and entered into from that same perspective.  Not everything will work – but meanwhile, just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

Read the whole thing here.








Monday, February 14, 2011

US Mission India: Ride of a Lifetime with US Flyboys During Aero India 2011

Ambassador Tim Roemer and Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs Andrew J. Shapiro had a ride of a lifetime in a Lockheed Martin F/16 Super Viper and Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet respectively during Aero India 2011.

From Ambassador Roemer's quick post in his blog:

Flying upside down over Bangalore at 1000 kph was breathtaking.  The technology, ingenuity, and innovation that has gone into these fantastic aircraft is incredible.  I could “see” other planes on the radar that were 100 kilometers away; slow down to practically a walk; and skim the surface of the earth as if I was flying a model plane.  This is superior technology for our pilots and military.  It truly was one of my most memorable experiences.


Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.
Photos from US Mission India/Flickr


Via US Mission India/Flickr:  U.S. participation in Aero India 2011 air show and aviation exhibition in Bangalore is the largest to date with over 40 U.S. companies. "The U.S. is committed to greater bilateral commercial collaboration and developing a strategic partnership with India that strengthens our global nonproliferation efforts, and creates trade opportunities in the defense and high-technology sectors," U.S. Secretary of Commerce Locke said. Locke emphasized that the U.S. is committed to providing India with the most sophisticated technology and equipment. Album includes the inauguration and ribbon-cutting ceremony of the U.S. pavilion at Aero India, February 9, 2011.








Monday, February 7, 2011

And you're wondering why the State Dept does a reeeally poor job overseeing contracts? Please Read Exhibit A

State/OIG visited the housing for embassy janitors in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E..  The embassy contractor there showed the IG team housing that had been converted from office space and appeared to violate safety codes for fire prevention.  Workers bunk 8-10 people in 12x18 foot rooms. Four bathrooms on each floor are locked for supervisors’ exclusive use. In total, there are 15-20 toilets and 15-20 washing facilities for a camp of over 450 people.

The team was also shown kitchen facilities that consist of an open shed with approximately 100 gas burn­ers lining the walls. No refrigerators were observed. Figure 6 shows the kitchen at accommodations purported by the contractor to be occupied by janitors.




The OIG team later learned that Embassy Abu Dhabi’s janitors did not actually live at the facil­ity presented by the contractor at the time of the site visit. As a result, OIG and the GSO made a second, unannounced site inspection to nearby apartment blocks with unsafe and unsanitary kitchens and bathrooms. The GSO in Abu Dhabi followed up with the contractor to ensure that workers were transferred to satisfactory accom­modations as soon as possible. Below is a photo of the kitchen at the actual janitors’ accommodations in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.provided by the Embassy contractor.

 
That bit of misrepresentation is probably not going to get any write-up because it's not like its written in the contract that they should show the IG what's real ...

Holy mother of goat and all her nutty nephews!

The inspection above is part of the six contracts for janito­rial, gardening, and local guard services examined by the OIG in determining: (1) whether State Department-funded contractors or subcontractors are engaged, knowingly or unknowingly, in acts related to trafficking in persons; and (2) whether U.S. embassies are following Federal guidelines to effectively monitor Department-funded contractors and subcontractors for engagement in acts related to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA).  Field work was conducted from January to March 2010 at four embassies in Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E., and at two consulates general in Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.

Here's the good news, sort of:

"OIG found no direct evidence that contractors violated the provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) or the FAR mandatory clause 52.222-50 (Combating Trafficking in Persons) for the six contracts evaluated at U.S. missions in Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E. OIG found no evidence that contractors were engaged in sex trafficking or illicit activities related to invol­untary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery as defined by U.S. law.6 All 75 workers interviewed stated they came to the host country voluntarily and were not in direct bondage to their employer through force, fraud, or coercion. However, using ILO indicators for trafficking, OIG found several contractor practices that increase the risk of TIP. These practices include coercion at recruitment and destination (through debt bondage and confiscation of documents), exploitative conditions of work (including payment and wage issues and bad living conditions), and abuse of vulnerability (including abuse of lack of education and lack of information)."
The not so good news?
OIG found housing problems at all six missions. Workers’ housing facilities range from shared apartments with common areas to labor camps in converted commercial lots. Contractors maintain these facilities with varying degrees of adherence to safety and sanitation standards for residential dwellings. More than 70 percent of foreign contract workers live in overcrowded, unsafe, or unsanitary conditions, particularly in Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. Moreover, only female workers and supervisors with family in the host country are able to choose their housing. \
[...]
In all four countries, workers had limited personal space, ranging from 24 square feet for the janitors in Abu Dhabi to 68 square feet for the local guards in Dubai. To put the size of these living quarters in context, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (U.S. Department of Justice) allots between 45-60 square feet per individual detained in a federal minimum security prison. Two-thirds of the housing observed fell within the space parameters of a U.S. mini­mum security prison cell. Twenty foreign contract workers occupying the quarters OIG visited had less personal space than a U.S. minimum security prison cell.

Yes, they are not American citizens but these are the embassy's janito­rs, gardeners, and local guards.  Is it too much to ask that they be treated decently by their employers who are paid quite a chunk by USG taxpayers money? And mind you, these are not mom and pops small business contractors.



Despite almost three years covering Foggy Bottom and the "worldwide available universe," we are still shocked reading the non-response from the State Department's Office of the Procurement Executive in the Bureau of Administration.  The A/OPE response was sent under Corey Rindner's name. Here is what the OIG says after taking into account Mr. Rindner's response: 
A/OPE stated it was concerned that contractors would rely on missions to interpret local laws on passport retention, and that it is beyond the current capabilities of CORs to identify host country labor laws and monitor contractor compliance. The intention of recommendations 1 and 2 is to ensure missions are fully cognizant of host country regulations and labor laws. OIG determined during the course of field work that embassy officials’ lack of knowl­edge of these laws increase the risk that employees servicing U.S. overseas missions may be victims of TIP. OIG does not view obtaining this information as burdensome or beyond the capabilities of CORs, especially since embassy political and economic officers at the missions visited were already collecting this information. Therefore, OIG believes both recommendations 1 and 2 have merit and are retained.
[...]
Finally, A/OPE did not concur with recommendations 5, 6, and 7 stating there is no legal basis to prescribe a supplemental clause enforcing a statutory socioeconomic requirement that is already covered by a mandatory FAR clause. During the course of OIG’s evaluation, officials at all of the missions requested assistance from the Depart­ment on how to monitor for TIP violations, as well as information from other mis­sions on best practices shown to be effective in detecting and preventing TIP. OIG finds A/OPE’s response to recommendations 5, 6, and 7 unclear and unresponsive.

It should be noted that A/OPE did not concur with any of the OIG recommendations.

Are Mr. Rindner and the good folks at "A/OPE" really washing their hands on this?  Um, excuse us, how can we possibly think that?  They are simply citing the Department's legal counsel advise that "A/OPE has no legal basis to prescribe a supple­mental clause enforcing a statutory socioeconomic requirement."

That by the way is Mr. Rindner's response to the OIG recommendation that "contractors provide workers with standard contracts in English and their native language that include policies on wages, overtime rates, allowances, salary increases, the contract term, leave accrual, and other personnel matters."

How hard is that to do, really?

Oh, look, the State Department's visa sections even distribute a pamphlet on the rights and protections of temporary workers in the US.

Mr. Rindner also says in his response that "Department of State contracts require contractors to comply with local laws and regulations" and in another response points out that "monitoring methods and resources are limited."

Okay, just how limited are we talking about here? From zero to nothing?

Can't we just call these "self-monitoring contractors" in simple English and save us all from the embarrassment and agony of pretense?

It should be in the best interest of the State Department that it's house is
Squeky clean when it comes to the labor and hiring practices of its contractors at its foreign missions. After all, just like employees, contractors reflect favorably or unfavorably on the hiring agency. Surely no one has forgotten the Kabul guards that quickly?

And by the way, if there is no legal basis for this, how about we try for the humane?





Related item:


OIG Report No. MERO-I-11-06 - Performance Evaluation of Dept. of State Contracts to Assess Risk of TIP Violations in Gulf States - Jan. 2011








Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Quickie: Reconstruction Chief Quits, Putting ‘Civilian Surge’ in Doubt

Ambassador Herbst heads to NDU's Center for Complex Operations.
Via Spencer Ackerman of Danger Room: Reconstruction Chief Quits, Putting ‘Civilian Surge’ in Doubt:

Most observers of Afghanistan say the war doesn’t have a prayer if the U.S. can’t send a cadre of civilian experts — diplomats, engineers, farmers — to rebuild Afghanistan. But on Friday, the diplomat in charge of building that force quietly resigned. Uh oh.

John E. Herbst, a 31-year veteran diplomat, has been the State Department’s coordinator for reconstruction and stabilization since 2006. Set up by the Bush administration in 2004, his office, known as S/CRS, sought to create precisely that legion of civilian reconstruction experts to send abroad when crisis strikes. Danger Room has learned that despite building the so-called Civilian Response Corps up from a handful of diplomats, Friday was Herbst’s last day on the job.

Ambassador Robert Geert Loftis, who helped negotiate the 2008 accord to get U.S. troops out of Iraq, started yesterday as S/CRS’s acting coordinator; State’s website just announced the leadership change today.
[...]
Herbst dealt with a lot of challenges as S/CRS’s second chief. Although the Bush administration created the office in 2004, Congress didn’t really fund it until 2008, hobbling its goal of creating a standing interagency crew of governance, agriculture and building experts ready to operate overseas.

Since then, Herbst pulled together what’s become an $800 million effort that claims around 1100 federal civilian employees. But in reality, only about 300 of them can deploy at any given time, fewer than two U.S. Army companies. And while the corps has sent civilians to Afghanistan, Congo and Sudan, the State Department’s powerful regional bureaus, special envoys and embassies have largely sidestepped it.

Take Afghanistan. In the Obama administration’s much-hyped “civilian surge,” corps members have helped the U.S. embassy and the military write a key planning document last year. But Herbst has complained that it’s been otherwise ignored. American diplomacy and development work in conflict areas remains largely a military job. In Afghanistan, U.S. infantrymen politic with local potentates on reconstruction projects. The Army is thinking about bolstering troops’ negotiation skills on the expectation that the civilian diplomats will stay at home.

Herbst has eyed the exits for awhile. In July, the National Defense University named him its next director of its Center for Complex Operations. But the future of his now-vacated office and the corps he built is less secure. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, expected as soon as next month, will likely recommend a structural facelift for both.

Ambassador Herbst writes, "After a long and rewarding career, I have decided to retire from the Foreign Service, and move on to other challenges. In parting, I wanted to take a look at the beginning of the Office and discuss what a difference we have made in just a few short years."
Read his reflection as S/CRS Coordinator -- A Look Back: Ambassador Herbst Retires, Reflects on Four Years as Coordinator


Monday, September 27, 2010

Officially In: William Brownfield to State/ International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL)

William BrownfieldImage via WikipediaOn September 22, President Obama announced his intent to nominate William R. Brownfield to be the State Depatment's Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL). The WH released the following brief bio:

William R. Brownfield is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service.  He has served as Ambassador to Colombia, Venezuela and Chile.  In Washington, Mr. Brownfield’s assignments have included Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Executive Assistant in the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, Member of the Secretary’s Policy Planning Staff, and Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs. He has also served overseas in El Salvador, Argentina, Panama, and Switzerland.

A native of Texas, Mr. Brownfield received his B.A. from Cornell University, graduated from the National War College.

* * *

Three-times ambassador, Bill Brownfield is, of course, the other half of soon to be three-times ambassador Kristie Kenney (bound for Bangkok as soon as she receives Senate confirmation).   


Related item:

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts, 9/22/10