October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month

Image by heraldpost via FlickrDomestic violence can be defined as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. A NOW statistics that cites the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control indicates that women experience about 4.8 million intimate partner-related physical assaults and rapes every year. Less than 20 percent of battered women sought medical treatment following an injury.

The diplomatic service is, of course, not immune to such type of violence. Domestic violence can happen to anyone regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, religion, or gender.  It is an equal opportunity offense. 

In June 2010, I wrote about a DS Agent who was arrested after his wife reported an assault in Washington State.  That case seemed to have disappeared quietly, and the agent was never named publicly. 

In July 2010, an unnamed South American ambassador abandoned his wife in Israel after taking all their shared assets including reportedly 40 cats.

In January this year, in a very public case of alleged domestic abuse, an Indian diplomat was recalled from the UK for causing embarrassment to his government.

Last week, a U.S. diplomat assigned as political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Dakar, Senegal was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice on domestic battery charges. In Virginia where this case is filed, “Assault and Battery Against a Family or Household Member” is a Class 1 misdemeanor. Criminal Defense.com indicates that "a person can therefore be sentenced to 12 months in jail. He may be charged up to $2,500 in fines or both punishments may be imposed in any combination up to the maximum penalty for each." Read more here. We note that the DOJ presser states that if convicted, the diplomat faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.  We do not pretend to be a lawyer but suspect that the max penalty has to do with the unspecified "dangerous weapon" in the indictment.

If you or someone you know is in an abusive relationship, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 800-799-SAFE (7233) or TTY 800-787-3224. See also the following resources below:

Domestic Violence in Virginia (PDF)

Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence

DCCoalition Against Domestic Violence

Will the State Dept Declare FSO Peter Van Buren Persona Non Grata For His Book on the TragicComedy of PRT Iraq?

In April, I wrote New FS Blog: We Meant Well, Plus a Book Coming Out This Fall  

In July, I wondered out loud, Peter Van Buren: Oh, dude -- WHO did you get "more than upset" at the State Department?

It's now September. Next Tuesday, the 27th, his book,“We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle For the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People” (Metropolitan Books, 2011) will hit the stores.

And a tsunami is forecast to hit Peter Van Buren at his cubicle in Foggy Bottom.

DiploPundit will try to cover the event when it happens. Although if State is smart, as it is full of smart folks, it probably should not order a tsunami on the same day that the book comes out. People might think the tsunami is intentional wrath from god.

I had the opportunity to read the book this weekend.  I'll post my review separately.  I can, however, tell you that the 267-page book carries the following notice:

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.

The Department of State does not approve, endorse, or  authorize this book. With the exception of historical figures (e.g., President Bush, General Odierno), I have changed all names. The events depicted in this book are true, however, although some details have been changed and the timing of some events has been altered or obscured. Except as noted, I was present at any event reported on and at any conversation repeated.

Information from the SIGIR Web site is in the public domain and may be used without further permission, provided such use is not reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by SIGIR. SIGIR did not approve, endorse, or authorize this book.

The curious phrase, "The Department of State had the chance to review this book in manuscript form before publication, as required by 3 FAM 4170."

Which could mean a couple of things. 1) Somebody at State had reviewed this book and found it free of classified materials. Which is well and good, no tsunami will be ordered. Somebody has read the book and the Spokesman can say something like, let's see -- "We know this books is coming out. We do not agree with Mr. Van Buren's views but his views are his own. We have nothing further to say about this issue." This would be bad for the folks who want Peter Van Buren's head on a platter.

Or 2) Somebody at State 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." In which case, there are taskers now on what the Spokesman should say about the contents of the 200-something page book. And no, you can't read my copy.

I'd like to believe it is the former, but I would not be surprise if it is the latter. That said, 3 FAM 4172.1-7 on the Use or Publication of Materials Prepared in an Employee's Private Capacity That Have Been Submitted for Review appears clear enough:

"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)."

Because clearly, it's not like they want to gag anyone, particularly on a contentious subject like Iraq that has been sucking up the U.S. Treasury, right?

Of course, what is clear to you and me, may not always be clear to the officially-paid interpreter of regulations. Remains to be seen what happens. After all, State's cousin, the DOD back in 2010 reportedly bought some 9,500 copies of Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer's 299-page memoir "Operation Dark Heart" after its publication was green lighted by the Army Reserve Command then proceeded to burn them. Burn all the books, seriously.  So then you know, nobody could ever read that book ever again. 

Pardon me? WikiLeaks has obtained a copy of the unredacted book?  Oh, dear.  Okay, sorry, I meant to say, they have bought and burned 9,499 copies of the Colonel's book.

Peter Van Buren book carries a special acknowledgement of "Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, who led an organization I once cared deeply for into a swamp and abandoned us there."  

A visit from the new SecState in 2009 made it into the special acknowledgement page, too:

"On our last day of PRT training, the facility was put into lockdown for a visit from the new Secretary of State (it’s cool that when she visits her own staff the Secretary’s security puts us into lock-down). She greeted and congratulated the Afghan PRT class down the hall from us Iraqis, then left. We didn’t even rate a walk- on. Our war no longer really mattered, though it would take me a long year in the desert and writing this book to fully figure that out."

I understand from a couple of news interviews online that Peter Van Buren is now subject of internal investigations at the State Department.

So since it appears that Peter Van Buren went through the clearance process as required by the FAM, and if it turns out that the somebody in the higher pyramid pay-grade have not done the actual reading and clearance thingy, would that then be the author's fault? Really?

I get searches in this blog for "Who hates Peter Van Buren?" Seriously.

Apparently there is also a rumor going around in the FS community that the reason Foreign Service bloggers are having a tough time these days is, you guess it -- Peter Van Buren!

Well -- there was a 7.3 earthquake in the Fiji region four days ago, must have been Peter Van Buren's fault, too!

And that all made me think that the somebodies may have a tsunami order on speed-dial specifically for Van Buren's cubicle. Which would be very bad for Peter Van Buren, indeed, but would certainly be great for book sales.

I must add here that although I have a digital copy of the book, I am buying additional copies to send to my State Department pals for the holidays, at least those still talking to me. 

I've never meet Peter Van Buren in person but this seems like the least I could do for a public servant whose career will most certainly be over, and who will be ostracized by most folks big and small in the Big House.  If I see him down some corridor, I will not take the nearest exit or pretend to be busy with my phone thingy.  It is not hard to imagine that not too long ago, he is like all other wide-eyed newbies in A-100 hoping to change the world. Iraq has been our mess since we broke it, Peter Van Buren did not break it. I would thank him for putting his career on the line to tell these stories that the American public needs to know. Perhaps if we learn all the details, we'd demand next time that our elected representatives think harder, ask serious questions, and have the spine to have convictions before allowing our country to blunder into another war.

Any how, I'd definitely love to be wrong on this one, the tsunami and all, including the stealthy shunning.

I would also like to formally request (that is, if the tsunami doesn't get him), that they send Mr. Van Buren to Afghanistan so he can write about PRT-Afghanistan, too. I seem to be developing gastroesophageal reflux disease every time I consume something served by the US Embassy Kabul on Facebook and Prilosec is no damn help!

PJ Crowley's Firing Offense: You can have a personal opinion, you just can't talk publicly about it

Last week, during an "informal conversation" at MIT’s Center for Future Civic Media, U.S. Department of State Spokesman and Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, PJ Crowley used three words to described the treatment of Bradley Manning at a DOD brig: "ridiculous," "counterproductive," "stupid." And they hastened his already rumored departure.

Here's what was said at MIT (h/t to Ethan Zuckerman for the post here):

Charlie deTar: There’s an elephant in the room during this discussion: Wikileaks. The US government is torturing a whistleblower in prison right now. How do we resolve a conversation about the future of new media in diplomacy with the government’s actions regarding Wikileaks?

PJC: “I spent 26 years in the air force. What is happening to Manning is ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid, and I don’t know why the DoD is doing it. Nevertheless, Manning is in the right place.” There are leaks everywhere in Washington – it’s a town that can’t keep a secret. But the scale is different. It was a colossal failure by the DoD to allow this mass of documents to be transported outside the network. Historically, someone has picked up a file of papers and passed it around – the information exposed is on one country or one subject. But this is a scale we’ve never seen before. If Julian Assange is right and we’re in an era where there are no secrets, do we expect that people will release Google’s search engine algorithms? The formula for Coca Cola? Some things are best kept secret. If we’re negotiating between the Israelis and the Palestinians, there will be compromises that are hard for each side to sell to their people – there’s a need for secrets.

Philippa Thomas blogged about it here, and The Cable's Josh Rogin confirmed it:

"What I said was my personal opinion. It does not reflect an official USG policy position. I defer to the Department of Defense regarding the treatment of Bradley Manning," Crowley told The Cable. 

The MIT event took place on Thursday. On Friday, President Obama was asked about Crowley’s comments during a nationally televised press conference.  The National Journal quotes President Obama:

“I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards,” Obama said. “They assured me that they are.”

Jake Tapper of ABC News later reported that while some White House officials knew of Crowley’s comments, White House chief of staff Bill Daley learned of them when ABC News asked that question of the president. Daley reportedly told White House officials of Crowley, “he’s done.”

And indeed less than 48 hours later, PJ Crowley is "done" as top talking head of the State Department. Secretary Clinton released a statement, Sunday, March 13, accepting Mr. Crowley's resignation.  

HRC STATEMENT

It is with regret that I have accepted the resignation of Philip J. Crowley as Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. PJ has served our nation with distinction for more than three decades, in uniform and as a civilian. His service to country is motivated by a deep devotion to public policy and public diplomacy, and I wish him the very best. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (PDAS) Michael Hammer will serve as Acting Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.

STATEMENT BY PHILIP J. CROWLEY

The unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a serious crime under U.S. law. My recent comments regarding the conditions of the pre-trial detention of Private First Class Bradley Manning were intended to highlight the broader, even strategic impact of discreet actions undertaken by national security agencies every day and their impact on our global standing and leadership. The exercise of power in today’s challenging times and relentless media environment must be prudent and consistent with our laws and values.

Given the impact of my remarks, for which I take full responsibility, I have submitted my resignation as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Spokesman for the Department of State.

I am enormously grateful to President Obama and Secretary Clinton for the high honor of once again serving the American people. I leave with great admiration and affection for my State colleagues, who promote our national interest both on the front lines and in the quiet corners of the world. It was a privilege to help communicate their many and vital contributions to our national security. And I leave with deep respect for the journalists who report on foreign policy and global developments every day, in many cases under dangerous conditions and subject to serious threats. Their efforts help make governments more responsible, accountable and transparent.

Mr. Crowley was an Air Force officer for 26 years. He also previously served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Older and wiser, he most certainly knew what he was getting himself into when he spoke on the record. But perhaps, he also miscalculated that this administration is somehow different from its predecessor when you cross that chalked lines.    

Glenn Greenwald over in Salon.com writes:

So, in Barack Obama's administration, it's perfectly acceptable to abuse an American citizen in detention who has been convicted of nothing by consigning him to 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement, barring him from exercising in his cell, punitively imposing "suicide watch" restrictions on him against the recommendations of brig psychiatrists, and subjecting him to prolonged, forced nudity designed to humiliate and degrade. But speaking out against that abuse is a firing offense. Good to know. As Matt Yglesias just put it: "Sad statement about America that P.J. Crowley is the one being forced to resign over Bradley Manning." And as David Frum added: "Crowley firing: one more demonstration of my rule: Republican pols fear their base, Dem pols despise it."

Andrew Sullivan in The Daily Dish writes:

"By firing PJ Crowley for the offense of protesting against the sadistic military treatment of Bradley Manning, the president has now put his personal weight behind prisoner abuse. The man who once said that forced nudity was a form of torture, now takes the word of those enforcing it over a distinguished public servant."

Note that Mr. Crowley's statement contained no apology for what he said at that informal gathering. Instead he writes that "The exercise of power in today’s challenging times and relentless media environment must be prudent and consistent with our laws and values."

Can't preach about human rights abroad, if we don't practice it at home.  Or the world will throw shoes at us.
 
On March 14, Steve Aftergood of Secrecy News writes:

Mr. Crowley, an uncompromising critic of leaks of classified information, is no friend of Private Manning who, he said, “is in the right place” (i.e., in jail).  It was the gratuitous abuse of the prisoner that he deemed “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.”

He was right.  In America, the pre-trial detention of any person who has not been convicted of a crime should be beyond reproach.  In the Manning case (and in too many others), it hasn’t been.

Though in criticizing Defense Department detention policy Mr. Crowley was clearly outside of his bureaucratic “lane,” he deserves credit for speaking out on a matter of principle.  In an intelligent system of government, such views would be freely aired and honestly attended to.  But it seems that there is not much place for such speech in the current Administration.

To its credit, the State Department did publish Mr. Crowley’s non-retraction on its website.

Continue reading PJ Crowley and the Limits of Openness here.
 
Updated on March 14 with excerpt from Secrecy News.

Related articles

• US treatment of Manning 'stupid' (bbc.co.uk)
• Diplomat Condemns Treatment of Bradley Manning. OUR Diplomat. (emptywheel.firedoglake.com)
• State Department Spokesperson Says Bradley Manning Is Being Mistreated (techdirt.com)
• 'Basic standards' - Obama stands by Manning treatment (politico.com)
• Bradley Manning's treatment 'ridiculous', says Hillary Clinton's spokesman (telegraph.co.uk)

“Fast and Furious” gun killed ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata in Mexico?

You must have seen the CBS news item alleging that ATF purposely allowed weapons to be smuggled to Mexico.  An ATF agent in it says that its "Fast and Furious" program let guns "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels with the aim of tracking and breaking a big case.

On Dec. 14, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down. Two assault rifles ATF had let go nearly a year before were found at Terry's murder, according to CBS.  

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry may not be the only federal agent who became a victim of the walked guns.  Last week, FBI Dallas released a statement on the arrest of three Dallas-area men on federal firearms charges related to trafficking firearms to a Mexican drug cartel. Apparently ballistic tests trace one of the firearms used in the February 2011 shooting of ICE Agents in Mexico to one of the defendants.

March 1, 2011 | DALLAS—Three individuals have been arrested by agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), assisted by other state and local law enforcement, on federal firearms charges outlined in two complaints.
[...]
Ranferi Osorio, 27, and his brother, Otilio Osorio, 22, were arrested yesterday at their home on East Colonial Drive in Lancaster, Texas. Each Osorio brother is charged with possessing firearms with an obliterated serial number. Separately, according to information contained in one complaint, Mexican officials recently seized three firearms that were used in the deadly shooting on Feb. 15, 2011, of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent. One of the firearms recovered was traced by ATF to Otilio Osorio.
[...]
According to the court documents, at the meeting, two men unloaded several large bags containing firearms into the CI’s vehicle, which was kept under surveillance until a traffic stop in Laredo. According to the court documents, the men’s vehicle was later stopped by local police and the men were identified as Ranferi and Otilio Osorio. Morrison was the third passenger in the vehicle. The vehicle stopped in Laredo was searched and 40 firearms, all with obliterated serial numbers, were seized. Trace results indicated that three of these firearms could be specifically traced to Morrison, who bought them from federal firearms licensees (FFL) in the Dallas/Fort Worth area on Nov. 4, 2010. The investigation now has also revealed that on Aug. 7, 2010, a Romarm, model WASR, 7.62 caliber rifle was discovered by law enforcement officers in LaPryor, Texas, near the U.S./Mexico border. Trace results indicated that Morrison purchased this firearm on July 30, 2010, from a FFL. According to the affidavit, between July 10, 2010, and Nov. 4, 2010, Morrison purchased 24 firearms from FFLs.

In addition, according to one affidavit filed in the case, one of the three firearms used in the Feb. 15, 2011, deadly assault of ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata that was seized by Mexican officials has been traced by ATF to Otilio Osorio. Otilio Osorio allegedly purchased that firearm on Oct. 10, 2010, in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex, prior to law enforcement’s awareness of the purchase. Ballistic testing conducted by Mexican authorities on this firearm indicated it was one of the three firearms used during the deadly assault on Special Agent Zapata’s vehicle.

Read the whole thing here.

A much more detailed report from the Center for Public Integrity says that the ATF operation code named “Fast and Furious” permitted hundreds of guns to be purchased and retained by suspected straw buyers with the expectation that they might cross the border and even be used in crimes while the case was being built. It was based in Phoenix and reportedly done with the direct blessing of ATF headquarters in Washington and with the supervision by the U.S. attorney’s office in Phoenix, a special ATF strike force known as Group VII.

Officials told the Center that ATF allowed about 1,765 firearms over the 15 months of the operation to pass from gun dealers to the suspected straw buyers that were the accomplices of the gun running ring. Another 233 weapons had been bought by the suspects prior to the ATF operation starting, bringing the total number of guns in the case to 1,998.

Of those, 797 of the guns were eventually recovered as a result of criminal activity on both sides of the border — including 195 from inside Mexico — after they were used in crimes, collected during arrests, or interdicted through other law enforcement operations, the officials told the Center.

According to ATF, a “straw purchase” occurs when the actual buyer of a firearm uses another person, “the straw purchaser,” to execute the paperwork necessary to purchase a firearm from a gun dealer. The actual buyer is often prohibited from purchasing the gun. The straw purchaser violates federal law by making a false statement with respect to the information required to be kept in the gun dealer’s records. According to ATF, straw purchasing is one of the most frequent methods used to illegally acquire guns.

The March 1 statement says that "Otilio Osorio allegedly purchased that firearm on Oct. 10, 2010, in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex, prior to law enforcement’s awareness of the purchase."

So - basically, he bought the gun on XX at XX but ATF did not know about it, is that it? Sounds awkward and defensive to you?  Are we to understand that the gun used to kill the ICE agent in that Monterrey road was not/not one of the guns that the ATF allowed to "walk" across the border? 

DallasNews.com reports that "Tom Crowley, spokesman for the ATF's Dallas division, insists that at no time did weapons involved in the Dallas division's Gunrunner operations ever make it across the border."

But the accused reportedly were kept under surveillance. So if the guns were not allowed to "walk" into Mexico but ended up there anyway, isn't that really poor surveillance work? 

The Chief of the ATF Public Affairs Division, by the way, has written a February 2011 internal memo to PIOs to "Please make every effort in the next two weeks to maximize coverage of ATF operations/enforcement actions/arrests at the local and regional level" in hopes it would drown out the "negative coverage by CBS News."  He also writes, "ATF needs to proactively push positive stories this week, in an effort to preempt some negative reporting, or at minimum, lessen the coverage of such stories in the news cycle by replacing them with good stories about ATF. The more time we spend highlighting the great work of the agents through press releases and various media outreaches in the coming days and weeks, the better off we will be."

Related item:

The Center for Public Integrity | ATF Let Hundreds of U.S. Weapons Fall into Hands of Suspected Mexican Gunrunners

DOJ/OIG: Review of ATF’s Project Gunrunner | November 2010

Related articles

• Man Accused of Buying Gun Used in Attack on ICE Agents (online.wsj.com)
• Man tied to Mexico shooting of U.S. agent arrested (reuters.com)
• Gun-trafficking suspects were under surveillance (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Justice IG to look into anti-gun efforts on border (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• "Project Gunrunner, an ATF operation run amok" and related posts (dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com)

Which State Department attrition rate do you like best?

One of our readers wrote and pointed us to a new report on attrition rates released by the Partnership for Public Service with a note that says "14.5% of State new hires quit after two years - seems to not match what the Director General put out in its stats." 


Joe Davidson's column in WaPo is here - Attrition is high among new workers at many government agencies (Friday, November 5, 2010; 2:08 AM).


The PPS report indicates that the attrition rate for newly hired employees varies widely among the agencies, with some federal workplaces such as the Departments of Treasury, Commerce and Homeland Security losing more than one-third of their new workers within two years. 

WaPo's Davidson writes that "It's scary to think that an agency so important to the security of the United States was being run by so many people with so little experience. Perhaps it's no coincidence that on the Partnership's 2010 list of Best Places to Work, Homeland Security ranks 28th out of 32 agencies in its category."

Quite sobering this  -- "As of the end of fiscal 2009, only five percent of federal employees had served less than one year, and just 10 percent had up to two years of service. With a large percentage of this already small population of new hires leaving, the federal government’s pipeline of future managers and leaders could be greatly diminished. Government has few opportunities to build its workforce and can ill afford to lose existing talent, especially when the wave of retirements seems poised to become reality."

The report also says that "while attrition of recently hired employees means a loss of the considerable investment expended to bring them on board - literally money down the drain - it also can indicate weaknesses in the agency's recruiting, hiring and on-boarding processes, as well as shortcomings in supervision."

The top five USG agencies:

(Screen grab from Beneath the Surface report)

The bottom five USG agencies:

(Screen grab from Beneath the Surface report)

So there - you see that the State Department has an attrition rate of 14.5% and ties with OMB in the second to the last place. Which is a good thing.  Davidson points out that "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was the best agency at keeping new talent, with a recently hired attrition rate of 10.8 percent. NRC also ranks first in its category on the Best Places list. The State Department, the Office of Management and Budget, the Air Force and NASA also do relatively well, with rates ranging from 14.5 percent to 15.7 percent."

Which brings us to our correspondent's note -- the 14.5%.  We don't know what numbers you're seeing behind the firewall on the Intranet, but we have never heard of State's attrition number from official pronouncement to be over 5%.  In 2008, over at DipNote, former Assistant Secretary Richard Boucher addressing that controversial AFSA poll results writes that "we have such low attrition rates (4%)." 
 
In the June 2008 issue of the Foreign Service Journal, then AFSA President John Naland cited some attrition numbers from the State Department's HR Bureau (see A Career Out of Balance, FSJ, June 2008): 

"Attrition data recently made available to AFSA by State’s Bureau of Human Resources show that the mid-level generalist attrition rate was slightly higher during FY 07 (4.5 percent) than at any time since the last year of the Clinton administration (the last era when budget cuts and staffing gaps sapped employee morale). Entry-level officer attrition from FY 06 to FY 07 averaged 2.4 percent, compared with 1.7 percent from FY 03 to FY 05. Foreign Service specialist attrition rates have generally remained stable. While these modest upticks in generalist attrition rates are not unprecedented and may ultimately turn out to be temporary blips, they could also be harbingers of things to come."

In a recent issue of the State Magazine (Staying Put, September 2010), the HR Bureau reports on job attrition decline in the agency citing numbers from FY2008 and FY2009:

Foreign Service Generalist at 4.4% in FY2008 and 3.4% in FY 2009

Foreign Service Specialist at 5.6% in FY2008 and 4.0% in FY 2009

Civil Service rates of  8.4% at FY2008 and 6.3% in FY2009

HR also reports that "Overall, generalist attrition was down by 23 percent in fiscal year 2009, compared with 2008. The number of generalist retirements dropped 25 percent, and the number of non-retirements dropped by 18 percent. Attrition among entry-level officers decreased by 11 percent. Mid-level attrition dropped by 27 percent, and Senior Foreign Service attrition, which is almost entirely composed of retirements, dropped  2 percent."

We note that the entry level officers' attrition rate is not really clear from that HR article, only that it decreased by 11% in 2009. If you know what was the magic number before the decrease we'd love to know.

What is clear is that out of 747 hires in FY2006, 108 hires left by 2008. This number presumably includes not only the Foreign Service but the entire agency.  

The report, Beneath the Surface: Understanding Attrition at Your Agency and Why It Matters, released last week, is available to download in PDF format here.

Related articles

• Diversifying American attitudes and Homeland Security (nowpublic.com)
• 15.8 pc attrition for Wipro in first quarter (ibnlive.in.com)
• Infosys on hiring spree as attrition climbs up (topinews.com)
• Afghan Forces Hurt by Attrition, NATO Finds (online.wsj.com)

Our favorite "Senator from France" Chuck Hagel: still telling it like it is

Image via WikipediaIt's not everyday that we find a politician who is able to keep his/her reputation of candor in office or out.  Hard to keep in office, because politicians pander to their constituents and are afraid to lose their votes; and outside, because they may be after a position here or there and presumably does not want to compromise their appointment prospects with the administration of the day.  But we are happy to see that Chuck Hagel still wear the same stripes, still own the same spots, and have not exchanged his views for political convenience.  And god bless the guy, he still makes sense.

Michael Coleman did an interview with the former Senator for The Washington Diplomat. Quotable quotes below:

“I think we’re in a mess in Afghanistan and I think we’re in a mess in Iraq,” said Hagel, who voted in support of the war in Iraq based on the intelligence assessments and later admitted he regretted his vote.

“Our military has been more valiant and done a better job than we could have ever hoped. But we have put the military in an impossible situation.”

“Look at the facts: No government, less electricity and people want us out,” Hagel pointed out. “Anyway you measure Iraq today I think you’re pretty hard pressed to find how people are better off than they were before we invaded. I think history is going to be very harsh in its judgment — very, very harsh. And I think we’re headed for a similar outcome in Afghanistan if we don’t do some things differently.”

“We are where we are today — going into our 10th year in Afghanistan, our longest war — because we did take our eye of the ball,” he said. “It’s becoming clearer and clearer. We really made some big mistakes during that time. I have never believed you can go into any country and nation build, and unfortunately I think that’s what we’ve gotten ourselves bogged down in.

“You can dance around that issue any way you like, but the fact is that there are billions and billions of dollars we’ve spent and are still spending, over 100,000 troops, and all the assistance we’ve got going in there,” Hagel continued. “It’s nation building. We should not nation build. It will always end in disaster.”

“We became completely disoriented from our original focus,” Hagel charged. “That problem in Afghanistan isn’t going to be solved with 100,000 American troops.”

“We’re sinking down further and further into the bog,” he lamented. “We’re going to have to unwind this because politically it’s not sustainable in the United States.”

“It’s the most combustible area of the world,” Hagel, a former senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, explained. “You’ve got three nuclear powers [China, India and Pakistan] that all come together at the same border and on the other side you’ve got Afghanistan and Iran. The worst thing we can do is continue to stay bogged down in those areas where we continue to undermine our own objectives.”

“I’ve been called the senator from France and all this stuff,” he said with a dismissive wave of his hand. “But I’ve never thought that engagement was appeasement.

 “I’ve always found that engagement is critically important to statecraft,” he added. “That doesn’t mean that engagement is giving things away or appeasement. Engagement is a long way away from negotiation. But it will allow you some time and give you some high ground, some optics, some support worldwide and a dimension to try to assess things from as close to the scene as you can.

 “We say, ‘We’ll show you — we’re not going to talk to you. We’ll penalize you,’” he continued. “Well, it really doesn’t penalize anybody but us because we can’t make good judgments on just what we think. We have to engage.”

“The consequences of the blunder we made and the extenuation of the disaster in Afghanistan is going to play out in a number of ways that will affect our country,” he said. “Start with the Pentagon. Does anybody not think that these two wars have ground our people down? Our generals are saying it — record divorces, record suicides, not to mention the equipment — anyway you calibrate it. Quite frankly, I think there has been so much damage done to the infrastructure of our military and our force structure that it’s going to take a generation to build back.”

He pointedly added: “You can’t run people like machines  — even machines break down.”

Some quarters have actually cited his candor as "biden-nisque" that could cost him a possible position in DOD or DOS.  We don't mind it if he'd suffer from occassional foot in mouth disease -- somebody's gotta tell it like it is. 

Keep going, Chuck! Maybe one day, the somebodies will listen.





Read the whole thing here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Steve Clemons: Move Chuck Hagel From Obama "Team B" to "Team A" (huffingtonpost.com)
• Hagel waits for GOP to 'come back to its senses' (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Hagel to Endorse Sestak (thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Hagel for defense, the pros and the cons (blogs.jta.org)

2010 MLK Day Technology Challenge

Reprinted in part from Serve.gov | We are calling on educators and web professionals to join our new effort – the 2010 MLK Day Technology Challenge. The purpose is simple: to connect schools and non-profits that have technology needs, including skills training and mentorship, with web professionals, developers, graphic designers and new media professionals who are willing to volunteer their skills for the common good.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Life's most persistent and urgent question is: what are you doing for others?” We ask that you answer his call in 2010 by participating in the MLK Technology Challenge.

Typical projects include:

• Refurbish computers for schools
• Teach students how to use popular software or online services
• Build a database for a nonprofit
• Help out in your school’s computer lab
• Become an online mentor for students across the country

Read more at Serve.gov, an online resource not only for finding volunteer opportunities in the community, but also creating your own.

The State Dept on Matthew Hoh

Image by The U.S. Army via Flickr

…and the Art of the Benevolent Push Back

Here is the official word from Foggy Bottom on the resignation of Matthew Hoh, the U.S. official who resigned over Afghanistan. The short short seems to be that State admire, respect, and took him seriously – but he’s not one of theirs for the long haul ‘cuz he was not a career member of the Foreign Service. And by the way we’re on track on Afghanistan. Yes -- and as I write this, the news screen flashes that Taliban militants have gone boldly into Kabul, attacked the UN Guest House, killing six employees.

Summary:

Resignation of Matthew Hoh /Admire Mr. Hoh and Respect Sacrifices Made for His Country / Take His Opinions Seriously / Senior Officials Have Spoken With Him / Respect His Right to Dissent /Had Limited, Non-Career Appointment / Political Officer in PRT in Zabul/Believe We're on Track to Achieving Goals President Has Set Before Us/No Resignations By Career Foreign Service Officers Over Afghanistan/Allegation of Desecration of Qu'ran Denied by Pentagon

* * *

QUESTION: Can I just – now pick up the question about – the resignation of Matthew Hoh, who was working for the State Department in Afghanistan and has made public a somewhat depressing three-page letter about the reasons for his resignation, and he talks about his loss of understanding and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States presence there.

Is this – how does the State Department view this? Is this an embarrassment of sorts, the fact that it’s become so public? It’s on the front page of the Post today. MR. KELLY: Well, first of all, we admire Mr. Hoh. We respect the sacrifice that he’s made for his country, both in Iraq and signing up to join our effort in Afghanistan. We take his opinions very seriously. Senior officials on the ground in Afghanistan and here in Washington have talked to him, have heard him out. We respect his right to dissent. This is an old and respected tradition in the Foreign Service, that Foreign Service personnel have the right to express their dissent.

Just to give you a little more background on his affiliation with the State Department, he signed on for a limited appointment. It is a non-career appointment. He signed on March 29^th of this year and his employment lasted up until September 28. He submitted his letter of resignation a few weeks before that. He was signed on as a political officer in a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan in Zabul. And his role as a PRT political officer was to monitor and report on political and economic developments in his province.

As I say, we take his point of view very seriously. But we continue to believe that we are on track to achieving the goal that the President has set before us, and that’s – you heard Deputy Secretary Lew lay out some of those objectives: improving Afghan governance; providing security, infrastructure, jobs, basically giving the Afghan people an alternative to the very negative vision of the Taliban and al-Qaida. And this is the strategy, and as I say, we believe we're on track reaching the goals. Kirit. QUESTION: Just a couple of things from the article about his meeting with Eikenberry and with Holbrooke. Could you tell us a little more about this, and what happened in those meetings? MR. KELLY: Well, I think he was upfront with his own chain of command, and had the opportunity to discuss with his immediate boss who is the supervisor of the PRTs. And he also talked to the Deputy Chief of Mission out there, Mr. Frank Ricciardone. And it was very much an open and transparent process. As I say, we value his service, we value his background and his skills. This is why we appointed him to this limited non-career appointment to be a political officer, to be our eyes and ears on the ground in Zabul. In the end, he made his own decision, that he decided to resign, and we respect that. QUESTION: Do you wish he hadn’t gone public with it? MR. KELLY: I'm sorry? QUESTION: Do you wish he had not gone public with that? MR. KELLY: It’s really his decision. I mean, we don’t – it was a – obviously, a very personal decision, and I think he even told the post that it was a very painful decision. I’m sure it was, but we respect his right to act on his views. QUESTION: So his tour – his job would have ended on March 29^th of 2010? MR. KELLY: It was a one-year appointment, yeah. QUESTION: That would have ended on March 29, 2010? MR. KELLY: It was supposed to end next March, yeah. QUESTION: And then what would have happened? MR. KELLY: At that point, he would have – his employment would have been over with the State Department. These appointments can be extended as well. I – there have been some appointments that have been extended up to 18 months, I know. QUESTION: And the – okay, but then that’s it? MR. KELLY: And that’s it. Yeah, that’s it. QUESTION: So there – MR. KELLY: He signs an agreement that he’ll – that he agrees to stay for a year and then his employment ends. QUESTION: So that you can’t re-up it at that point. MR. KELLY: Oh, I said we can extend him, but he has no – it’s a non-career appointment. So he doesn’t have any re-employment rights, per se. Of course, he can compete for other jobs. QUESTION: Then I’m not – I’m unclear as to how he actually fits into the Foreign Service. MR. KELLY: It’s – there is a provision of the Foreign Service Act that gives the Secretary the right to designate certain positions as limited with a time certain end date in order to fill positions that have not been filled through the normal Foreign Service process. And so this was one of them. We have, I think a total in the world, about 16 of these type appointments. It’s not – it’s fairly rare. QUESTION: Is that the same thing as the 3161 or is that different? MR. KELLY: No, that’s different. QUESTION: It’s different, right? MR. KELLY: I don’t know all the ins and outs of 3161. I think that’s more of a Civil – I think that’s for Civil Service appointments. QUESTION: So this is under Foreign Service, but he is not considered -- MR. KELLY: This is under Foreign Service. QUESTION: -- a Foreign Service officer, he’s not commissioned as a Foreign Service officer? MR. KELLY: He’s not commissioned as a Foreign Service officer, yeah.

Yeah. Related Post: FSO Matthew Hoh Resigns Over Afghan War

Quote: Bob Gates on Public Service

"Each person in public service has his or her own story and motives. But I believe, if you scratch deeply enough, you will find that those who serve – no matter how outwardly tough or jaded or egotistical – are, in their heart of hearts, romantics and idealists. And optimists. We actually believe we can make a difference, that we can make the lives of others better, that we can make a positive difference in the life of this country and the world."

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates University of Washington Commencement Seattle, Washington Saturday, June 13, 2009

Preparing for Transition at State

Sean McCormack, Spokesman at State indicates in his DPB on October 21 that the preparation for the presidential transition has started. The Secretary has appointed three individuals to head up the Department-wide transition effort. They are Under Secretary Bill Burns, who is Under Secretary for Political Affairs; Under Secretary Pat Kennedy, who is Under Secretary for Management; and the Executive Secretary, Dan Smith. All are career Foreign Service Officers.

“So these three individuals sit atop the Department-wide structure that’s going to be responsible for making sure that there is a professional, efficient, smooth transition from this team to the next team as they come in. At some point along the way, we’ll take you all – for anybody who is interested – a tour for the transition spaces that are already being set up on the first floor of the Department. I think you all know where they are, down in the southwest corner.

These things are designed to help people out with everything from administrative to security to policy support. The Department is already starting the process of generating all the papers that are required for a transition if – for any of you out there who don’t know the State Department, this is a Department that still runs on paper. So it’s – we do a lot of things well and one of them is produce paper. So we’re producing a lot of transition papers for the incoming team. And I would expect that on November 5^th, we will have our first set of books ready to hand over to whomever the incoming transition team leads will be.

All of that said, we still have a lot of work left to do between now and January 20^th, and the Secretary is certainly concentrating on that, but I also wanted to let you know that we are also concentrating on the fact that we are going to be turning over responsibility for the Department as well as U.S. foreign policy to a new team coming here in a few months.

[…] And the President also recently signed, I think, within the past two weeks, a new executive order that sped – that was designed to speed the process of security – granting security clearances and having individuals in transition teams, both transition teams, be able to access sensitive information so that, you know, on November 5^th, you know, there is a president-elect – well, not – well, there will be somebody the American people have chosen as the next president, and a transition team, and so they can start their work immediately. And the idea is to make sure that it is as seamless and is efficient and as professional as possible.

The State Department's Sammies Recipients

2008 Federal Employee of the Year

USAID’s Richard Greene is this year's Federal Employee of the Year. He is the Director of the Office of Health, Infectious Diseases and Nutrition at the Bureau of Global Health at the United States Agency for International Development in Washington, D.C. Mr. Greene designed and launched the President’s Malaria Initiative, which has provided potentially life-saving services to more than 25 million vulnerable people.

An excerpt from the Sammies award narrative says that "Malaria claims the lives of 1 million people each year. Eighty percent of these deaths are children under five, and 80 percent are in Sub-Saharan Africa. What makes these losses even more tragic is the fact that malaria is both preventable and treatable. The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Richard Greene is the day-to-day manager of an unprecedented government effort to fight this deadly disease. And it’s succeeding. Within its first two years, this effort provided services to 25 million children and pregnant women, and these services are having the ultimate impact: they are saving lives.

Greene’s dedication and leadership were critical to the program’s early success. He led the day-to-day implementation of the plan, and is credited with mobilizing programs and helping to launch services in record time while tailoring different approaches to fit the needs of each individual country. He has led his own team from USAID, coordinating their efforts with staff at CDC as well as government officials in host countries and multinational institutions.

Greene’s work on the PMI is the pinnacle of a life spent in service to others around the globe. He began his career as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Ivory Coast in 1978. After taking a job with USAID in 1984, he spent 15 consecutive years overseas in places ranging from Sudan to Cameroon to Bangladesh. He eventually settled in as the head of USAID’s Office of Health, Infectious Diseases and Nutrition in the Bureau for Global Health, and he has put the agency on the cutting edge of addressing key global health issues."

The Service to America Medals are presented annually by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service to celebrate excellence in our federal civil service. To read more about the 2008 Sammies and previous recipients click here.

2008 National Security and International Affairs Medal Recipient

Mary Katherine Friedrich is the Special Advisor to the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs at the Department of State. She is rewarded for her leadership in the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council, a major public/private effort to enhance the economic, social and political status of Afghan women.

An excerpt from the Sammies award narrative states that: "Afghanistan has made great progress on the path to becoming a free and democratic society since its liberation from Taliban rule in 2002. Few areas have seen greater improvement than the conditions of women, and few people outside of Afghanistan have done more to drive these positive changes than Kate Friedrich. As the head of day-to-day operations for the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council, she is empowering Afghan women to build better lives and engaging powerful partners to support the efforts of these courageous women.

Friedrich is known as “the pillar of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council,” a public-private partnership launched in 2002 by President George W. Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which was designed to help mobilize public and private resources to assist Afghan women in regaining economic, social and political status. Friedrich has managed every aspect of the Council, from fundraising to overseas travel logistics to the coordination of the various public- and private-sector players. She has made countless trips to Afghanistan where her diplomatic skills are described as “formidable” by her peers. Friedrich’s creativity and ability to get things done under difficult circumstances have been remarkable throughout the development and implementation of the Council and its projects, which today total more than $70 million in programming.

With Friedrich’s persistence, the Council has been able to improve the prospects for countless Afghan women in need. She launched a micro-finance program with Daimler Chrysler, which began with three female enrollees. One year later, the number of women participating increased to 80. Today, the program has served more than 30,000 Afghan women. With support from the Council, Time Warner and USAID, women’s resource centers have been opened and equipped throughout Afghanistan, funded by more than $3.5 million for training in literacy, small business administration and management of nongovernmental organizations. A one-time training program for Afghan women entrepreneurs at Thunderbird University has grown into an annual course, graduating women in management skills and partnering them with American mentors. A project by Public Broadcasting Service to train Afghan women journalists led to the filming of the award-winning documentary “Afghanistan Unveiled.” And, with assistance from USAID, a Women’s Teacher Training Institute was opened at Kabul University."

The Service to America Medals are presented annually by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service to celebrate excellence in our federal civil service. To read more about the 2008 Sammies and previous recipients click here.

In Defense of Ryan Crocker

The number #1 most emailed article from the New York Times today is a blog entry by Dick Cavett posted three days ago entitled: “Memo to Petraeus & Crocker: More Laughs, Please.” Cavett writes in part:

“Back to poor Crocker. His brows are knitted. And he has a perpetually alarmed expression, as if, perhaps, he feels something crawling up his leg. Could it be he is being overtaken by the thought that an honorable career has been besmirched by his obediently doing the dirty work of the tinpot Genghis Khan of Crawford, Texas?”

I’ve never worked for Ambassador Crocker, nor have I ever meet the man but I take exception with the preceding comment because it shows an ignorance of what Foreign Service officers do in the service of this country. In 1983, François de Laboulaye and Jean Laloy had this to say about dissent and ambassadors (I’m quoting here from Charles Freeman, Jr.’s Diplomat’s Dictionary):

“There are strict limits, dictated by common sense and the realities of the situation, to how far an ambassador can go in opposing a position of his own government. If a compromise is not possible and once the final decision has been made, he must of course loyally and scrupulously implement it even if it goes against what he had recommended. But until the final decision is made an ambassador owes his government the frankest and most unvarnished advice.”

Whatever you might think of the “tinpot Genghis Khan of Crawford, Texas,” or how he got here, he is the elected president of this country. And whether you personally know Ambassador Crocker or not, you should know that all Foreign Service personnel like the Ambassador, not only must agree to worldwide availability -- that is, they may be called on to serve anywhere in the world, they must also agree to publicly support the policies of the United States Government regardless of their personal sentiments. That’s right! You’ve got to do the job even if you don’t agree with Uncle Sam.

And if you disagree with our Government’s policy, you have two options: 1) you use what is called the “Dissent Channel,” a serious policy channel reserved only for consideration of responsible dissenting and alternative views on substantive foreign policy issues (you can read more about that here) or 2) you quit and walk away (like what Brady Kiesling and two other officers did).

Sometime in 2002, prior to the Iraq invasion, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell reportedly tasked Ryan Crocker and Assistant Secretary of State William Burns with exploring the risks of military intervention. That resulted in the now famous six-page memo they entitled "The Perfect Storm," which, and I quote from WP’s Robin Wright, “bluntly predicted that toppling Hussein could unleash long-repressed sectarian and ethnic tensions, that the Sunni minority would not easily relinquish power, and that powerful neighbors such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia would try to move in to influence events. It also cautioned that the United States would have to start from scratch building a political and economic system because Iraq's infrastructure was in tatters (you can read the entire article here).”

I would argue that Ambassador Crocker had given his “frankest and most unvarnished advice” in 2002, and I think it would be unjust to fault him now for doing the best he could in what Mr. Cavett calls “dirty work.” Somebody’s gotta do this “dirty work,” and frankly, we’re better off having a professional on the ground who speaks the language, and understands the region than one who doesn't.

A Newsweek Exclusive asks: “No American diplomat seems better qualified than Ryan Crocker to turn Iraq around-but can he do it?” Honestly, I don’t know the answer to that question, but I do know this -- Ambassador Crocker deserves our respect for doing the difficult job he was tasked to do, not the public's scorn.

The Public Servant and the Internet Beast

Right after the news of the passport breach at the State Department hit the web the night before last, conspiracy aficionados had a field day online. The Huffington Post did a brief news update on its site quoting an MSNBC news item and citing “Mora Hardy” as the person who was in charged of the passport office when the breaches occurred. There was not much on the report; it was approximately 250 words (it’s not online anymore and has now been replaced with this) but it did mention that “Mora Hardy” was am ambassador appointed during the Clinton administration and left readers to draw their own conclusions from what was still breaking news. And that they did, quite unfairly towards a dedicated public servant. Tsk! Tsk! Did not even bothered to fact-check her name.

One post alleged that Paraguay where Ambassador Harty was posted from 1997-1999 was a “prestige post” given to political contributors. According to the CIA World Factbook, Paraguay’s economy had rebounded between 2003-2007, but on “a per capita basis, real income has stagnated at 1980 levels and most observers attribute Paraguay's poor economic performance to political uncertainty, corruption, limited progress on structural reform, and deficient infrastructure.” Paraguay is far from Paris, and has a GDP of $4,000 but that’s not really relevant, is it? It is a foreign country that sounds exotic, it must be a prestigious post, never mind that it has a 10% hardship differential and a 10% cost of living allowance bundled with it. Another alleged that Ambassador Harty is a Clinton supporter and implied that she must be involved. After another post indicated that Ambassador Harty had retired in February, still one more poster, alleged that she must have seen this coming, that’s why she quit her job at 49!

I spent some time reading through the online posts and came away with the realization that the regular American public has no idea how the State Department works. I have never seen such ignorance and such great willingness to believe everything so quickly without any supporting facts. I understand that this is the price we pay for the 24/7 barrage of information that comes with technology but isn’t this quite disturbing? Do we think so lowly of our public servants that we cannot afford them the courtesy of waiting until the facts are in before drawing virtual blood? The feeding frenzy reminds me of sharks feeding, really!

Just for clarity - Ambassador Harty was a career Foreign Service Officer; she earned her “stripes” within a very competitive organization through hard work. You can read more information about her career in the State Department here and here.

Her impending retirement was announced in November last year, but her actual retirement did not occur until this past February. She was a career Ambassador, a rank equivalent to a General in the military. She was not only well-respected but also genuinely liked by the people who worked for her.

As for those “prestige” assignments given to political contributors – those are the non-career ambassadors, political appointees nominated by the White House and approved by the Senate. For historical context, I refer to U.S. Diplomacy which states:

“Until passage of the Rogers Act of 1924 all ambassadors (then generally called “ministers”) of the United States were non-career political appointees. However, since the Second World War the great majority of those positions have been filled by career FSOs. In recent years approximately 70% of U.S. ambassadors come from the ranks of the professional Foreign Service, while the other 30% are from the private sector. Nominations of non-career ambassadors are made by the White House. Career officers are nominated by the White House upon recommendation by the Department of State.”

Foreign Service Officers (our diplomats) are commissioned by the President of the United States. Since Ambassador Harty joined the State Department in 1981, she must have been commissioned by President Reagan. She continued her career within the State Department through the administrations of Bush I, Clinton and Bush 2. But there’s nothing odd about that; all our career professional and civil servants continue working for Uncle Sam regardless of which party occupies the White House.

I must also add that Foreign Service Officers like all Federal employees are precluded from engaging in political activities under the Hatch Act. Federal employees may not-

• be candidates for public office in partisan elections
• campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections
• make campaign speeches
• collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions
• distribute campaign material in partisan elections
• organize or manage political rallies or meetings
• hold office in political clubs or parties
• circulate nominating petitions
• work to register voters for one party only
• wear political buttons at work

The penalties can be a 30-day suspension or removal from office, so folks are extremely careful about that just as we are careful and mindful of all the rules and regulations that govern our lives inside and outside the office. If you are thinking about the Bill Clinton passport flap in 1992, please bear in mind that the culprits then were political appointees not career professionals.