Iraq Transition: The Civilian Medical Support Services on Paper

I have posted previously about the transition to a civilian-led mission in Iraq. The planned 17,000 civilian personnel (including personal security contractors) will be a lot less than what DOD has in country right now, but it is larger than the entire Foreign Service which has approximately 6,500 Foreign Service Officers and 5,000 Foreign Service Specialists.

Think about it, a workforce larger than the entire Foreign Service, deployed to one country alone.

I've posted previously about the transition and the medical support function here, here, here and here.

U/S Patrick Kennedy during his appearance at the Commission on Wartime Contracting last June 6 states that "a medical contract was awarded to Medical Support Services – Iraq on May 15, 2011 for $132 million for five years."


I don't know why there is a discrepancy in the amount and the name of the contractor but according to FedBiz the medical support services contact number: SAQMMA11D0073 is in the amount of $61,427,699.00 and has been awarded to CHS Middle East LLC, a company based in Reston, Virginia on May 19, 2011.


I went digging for the solicitation in FedBiz to see what to expect. Excerpts below on what the medical support services look like on paper. Excerpted from the publicly available statement of work:


C.1 Purpose and Objectives

This is a non-personal services contract to provide for Health Service Support to U.S. personnel and authorized foreign nationals serving for the United States in Iraq. The Contractor will provide trained and certified health care professionals and administrative service support to U.S. and U.S. sponsored beneficiaries working and residing in Iraq. The Contractor will staff, operate, equip, and supply health care facilities in locations prescribed by the Department of State to meet operational requirements as identified in this Performance Work Statement. Mission capable status (all sites listed in table C.1) is 1 December 2011. Mission capable means able to perform all requirements under this PWS.

C.2 Background

The health care support mission will transition from the U. S. Department of Defense to the U. S. Department of State over a period of time as denoted in Attachment A. Transition Timeline, beginning on or about June 2011 with complete transfer completed by December 2011 coinciding with majority of the U.S. forces' departure.

After the U.S. military forces withdraw from Iraq, the U.S. Embassy and constituent posts and sites will be comprised of approximately 14,000 to 17,000 U.S. Government personnel under the U.S. Ambassador which includes U.S.G. civilians, military and local national employees; and supporting Contractors (U.S. third country, and local national). All U.S. and third country personnel will require medical care (local nationals only in emergencies or work related injuries).

The Department of State will establish a network of Contractor operated facilities in three regional support areas (see Attachment B for map of the facility locations and support regions) consisting of seven Health Units (HU), one large Diplomatic Support Hospital (DSH), and three small DSHs that provide patient care. A description of the capabilities required of each of the three types of facilities may be found in the Scope of Work of this PWS.

Health care facilities will be in secure compounds within each of the three geographical support regions with general logistics, utilities, and housing support provided by separate contracts.

The Contractor will be responsible establishing facilities as indicated in Table C.1 below:
Table C.1 Facility Type, Locations, and Population Supported

C.3.2 Health Unit (HU) Capabilities.

The Contractor shall provide on-site primary, urgent and initial emergency care for general medical, surgical, orthopedic, gynecologic (GYN) and mental health conditions; triage, stabilize and evacuate patients to the next level of medical care; and keep up to two patients in the HU for up to 24 hours until stabilized or medically evacuated. Staffing shall be continuous and uninterrupted; coverage for illness and vacations shall be the
responsibility of the Contractor.

The Contractor shall designate a medical director for appropriate medical oversight at each facility. This medical director shall be named in the resultant task orders. Routine care shall be provided during regular working hours, and on an emergency basis after normal working hours based on COM requirements. At least one physician with expertise in all aspects of emergency care shall be available 24 hours daily. All providers shall be licensed to US or equivalent standards and physicians shall be qualified by US or  equivalent specialty boards. All primary care providers (Physician(s), Physician Assistants, Nurse Practitioners) shall hold current credentials in trauma care (e.g. ATLS, CALS or equivalent) and cardiac care (ACLS or equivalent).

The Contractor shall also provide the following supplies and services at each HU facility:

• Medical and medical emergency equipment.
• Basic formulary and vaccines to include, but not limited to:
• Thrombolytic therapy.
• Medical supplies.
• Laboratory equipment and supplies and maintenance thereof,
• Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) waived lab capabilities to include, but not limited to: basic hematology, blood chemistries, urine analysis, cardiac enzymes, d-dimer testing.

C.3.3 Small Diplomatic Support Hospital DSH Capabilities.

In addition to the capabilities outlined above for a HU facility, the Contractor shall establish a medical/trauma care hospital with the following capabilities:

• Basic x-ray, diagnostic ultrasound (to include Focused Abdominal Sonogram for Trauma (FAST) Right Upper Quadrant (RUQ), renal, OB (tubal pregnancy), GYN, testicular, and Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) evaluations).
• Appropriate number of trauma bays in the emergency medical and trauma unit for care and stabilization.
• Overnight bed capabilities for up to four patients (8 beds total ( 4 ICU beds + 4 regular beds))
• Post operative / intensive care capabilities for up to four patients to be stabilized until medically evacuated
• One operating room table with anesthesia and supplies.
• Laboratory with blood bank.
• Computerized Tomography (CT) Scanner with the capability to conduct non-contrast, contrast (oral and IV), and the ability to do PA-grams (ideally with venous run-off).

Staffing shall reflect that necessary to manage a single surgical patient with the required operating room (OR) techs, nurses, anesthetists and the possibility of multiple injured or ill patients. The professional staff, when time permits, shall be integral to all aspects of the facility. Physicians, surgeons, anesthetists, OR tech, EMTs, laboratory technologist and nurses shall meet the requirements outlined below in the Staffing section.

C.3.4 Large Diplomatic Support Hospital (DSH) Capabilities.

Sather Air Base will have the same common items as the Small DSH facilities and Health Units, but will have:

• staffing that reflects the requirements to manage two surgical patients and the possibility of multiple injured or ill patients
• staffing to include competency in performing and interpreting ECG stress tests
• possess a total of 2 OR tables with anesthesia and supplies
• overnight bed capabilities for up to six patients (12 beds total (6 ICU beds + 6 regular beds))
• post operative / intensive care capabilities for up to six patients to be stabilized until medically evacuated
• It is anticipated that full occupancy would be a rare occurrence.

According to the solicitation, which has now been awarded, the US Government estimates the following staffing: Health Units-5, Small District Support Hospitals-16, Large District Support Hospitals -31.

If I got my math right, and I'm atrocious at math -- this comes out to 1 medical support provider for every 326 of the deployed population.



Related info:

1-21-2011 PRE-SOLICITATION CONFERENCE final.pptx (1,054.90 Kb)
January 21, 2011 slides from Presolicitation Conference(FedBiz)

Related articles

• DOD Works Toward Successful Transition in Iraq (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• Landstuhl Provides Advanced Care for Wounded Warriors (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• What line between civilian and military authority? (salon.com)
• Spokane-area woman injured as war contractor (thenewstribune.com)
• 9 dead in attack on Iraq government compound (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

 

 

 

Iraq Transition: One of the Biggest Risks? Contractor-Led and Run Medical Supply Chain

In March, during the telconference with prospective bidders for the medical support services in Iraq, prospective bidders and DOD/State representatives had a Q&A. The transcript of that telcon was posted at FedBiz as part of the solicitation package.  The excerpts I selected below includes what the Army considers one of the biggest risks during the transition (medical supply chain), right of refusal by the contractor (DOD-left equipment), credentialing and vetting of personnel, and the challenges of the blood supply chain from the transhipment site in Qatar to various sites in Iraq.

As to how many DOD medical providers/medical support staff is currently in theater, apparently, according to the govt reps in this telcon, "There is not a way to answer that."

INDUSTRY:  [...] In the Army’s mind, what are the biggest risks that the contractor will face during transition?
      
GOVERNMENT:  Lieutenant Colonel [...], CENTCOM.  I think one of the biggest risks are the transition to a contractor-led and run medical supply chain.  With that, I think they need to do a comprehensive study or analysis, if you will, of the transportation piece, and we will have to -- and issues, and things like that that are involved with that.

INDUSTRY:  Question number six.  How many medical providers -- physicians' assistance, nurse practitioners, medical doctors, medics, and corpsmen -- does the Department of Defense currently have at each site?
       
GOVERNMENT:  Yes.  Each of those sites, at this moment in time, serves a different purpose, and will not be analogous to our population at risk and the size of our missions. 
       
There is not a way to answer that.  There are some sites that have a troop medical clinic with one mid-level provider, and there are, of course, hospitals that, of course, have full staff.  So there is not really an answer that is suitable for this question.  It just can’t be compared to what we will have standing up.

INDUSTRY:  [...] Question 11, does the awarded contractor have the right of refusal on all items left behind by the Department of Defense?  For example, medical equipment.

GOVERNMENT:  [...] I think it would be the contractor’s call, whether to accept the equipment or not.  And if not, then the contractor would have to provide replacement equipment that we would have to agree to.  So
       
GOVERNMENT:  And this is [snip] in Baghdad.  I would agree.  There should be a compelling reason that the contractor would decline the use of equipment offered under this arrangement, and incur further expense to the U.S. Government.

INDUSTRY:  Question 16, will the transition period allow for proper credentialing, security vetting, redeployment training, and administrative processing?

GOVERNMENT:  Yes, I can.  The short answer is we are really uncertain at this point in time of the time frame that is going to be required for credentialing, security vetting, predeployment training, and the administrative processing.
       
The contractor, however, will not be penalized for delays due to the Department of State processes.

INDUSTRY:  Okay.  Question number 12.  What kind of support will DoD provide during the transition and full operating status of the following:  A, equipment, i.e. size, weight, and transportation issues; B, blood, critical resupply time, governing body for access, space to acquire blood supplies, transportation to Qatar; C, pharmaceuticals and vaccines, ministry of health regulations at each country; D, medical gases, hazmat issues, anesthesia and transportation?

GOVERNMENT:  This is [snip].  For A, USF-I will -- we will go ahead and set up each of the locations’ equipment -- medical supplies, minus pharmaceuticals.  And basically, we will set up each location ready for them to come in and go to work.  And that is portion A.

INDUSTRY:  Okay.  Major [....], on the blood?
       
GOVERNMENT:  All right, Major [...] on blood.  I know blood will be supplied through the Armed Services Blood Program System, and this will be done via coordination through the blood program officer forward, and the blood transshipment center at Qatar.

Inventory levels will be communicated via an Excel spreadsheet, and this is going to be submitted daily to the blood transshipment center, just with general inventory numbers for the blood products, so that the BTC can generate the orders required to fill the inventory levels.

There should be a centralized person from the civilian locations that will consolidate the Department of State blood inventory information from the multiple facilities, and then this will be submitted in the report.  This individual will work directly with the blood program officer forward, and the transshipment center office or staff, for ordering the inventory to include the critical resupply need.
       
The blood transshipment center keeps the red cell products and the frozen products on hand for re-order and any re-supply that is needed.
       
As far as critical resupply times, this is going to vary.  From experience, this is usually dependent on the transportation available.  And for those, it’s my understanding that there will not be military transportation, that this will have to be a civilian-provided transport.
       
From our experience, you know, we can usually get blood products out to theater within a day.  If there is transport delays or storms or anything, it could get up to 48 to 72 hours.
       
Let’s see.  Once the actual transportation method has been chosen and coordinated, I recommend working directly with the transshipment center officer and staff for any final coordination details. 
       
Pick-up, if it should occur directly from the BTC location, that civilian transportation will need to gain access to the base.  I have communicated with our transshipment center officer, and she has the initial contact information for the POC at Qatar who would arrange any base access, be it via flight or ground transport to get there.  It’s just recommended that documentation for access to the base has to be started as soon as possible, due to the time of processing.  Over.

Active links added above. Almost all the moving parts above will now be taken over by different contractors - medical support, air transport, site access, security, etc. And that's what worries me, frankly.

Read the MSSI transcript, edited 3-15-11.docx (35.38 Kb)

Also below is a diagram that represents how blood (red solid lines), pre-positioned frozen blood (red dotted lines), and reports (blue dotted lines) flow within the Armed Services system and demonstrates areas where efforts are coordinated (gray dashed lines).

Does the State Department or its contractors even have half a comparable system to this by end of 2011?

 

 

 

 

What’s Going to Happen to USAID? Jack Lew?

I got this as a top search item in this blog -- “what’s going to happen to USAID jack lew” I just made it look pretty ...

Last month, The Cable wrote about the anxiety surrounding the appointment of the next USAID Director: "The international development community is very upset and nervous on why it is taking so long for a USAID head to be named," said one Hill aide. "They fear it bespeaks a lack of prioritization in the new administration. Hillary Clinton's visit to USAID last Friday helped a little. They're also nervous that [deputy secretary of state] Jack Lew will be the unofficial development czar."

Which probably did not help USAID folks feel any better.

Then there’s this one from the Stimson Center:

To implement “smart power” Secretary of State Clinton needs to strengthen the State Department and reassert civilian control over U.S. foreign policy. She has already taken a major step in this direction with the nomination of Jack Lew as Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources – a position that has gone unfilled since Congress authorized it in 2000. As Deputy, Lew will be responsible for all foreign assistance within the State Department and USAID, as well as the operational management of the State Department. This significant appointment and span of authority allows the State Department to undertake the human resources reforms necessary to rebuild its capacity. This includes reformed career-long training for Foreign Service officers, cross-discipline and cross-agency assignments, and greater emphasis on long-term strategic planning for both diplomacy and foreign assistance within the State Department and USAID.

On January 28, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) did announce that Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Executive Secretary (ES) Alonzo L. Fulgham has been designated by the White House as Acting Administrator of the agency. Fulgham also serves as Coordinator of the Agency's Transition Efforts. He has served as the COO and ES since August 2006. A member of the Senior Foreign Service, Fulgham served as Mission Director in Afghanistan from June 2005 to July 2006. Prior to that, he served as the Director for South Asian Affairs in the Bureau for Asia and the Near East (ANE).

Queried about appointments recently, the Acting Deputy Spokesman had this to say: "The Secretary and the President have moved forward on making those nominations and appointing those people that they feel are necessary to move and get the State Department working at the moment. […] You’ve seen a fully engaged State Department. As for other appointments that may be coming, those are the prerogative of the Secretary and the President. They will make those appointments as and when they feel that those positions are critical to moving forward further with other initiatives."

Well now, we know that, I think …

During her first remarks at USAID Secretary Clinton did say this: “I believe in development, and I believe with all my heart that it truly is an equal partner, along with defense and diplomacy, in the furtherance of America’s national security.” Earlier, at the State Department, she talked about the three legs to the stool of American foreign policy: defense, diplomacy, and development. “And we will make clear, as we go forward, that diplomacy and development are essential tools in achieving the long-term objectives of the United States. And I will do all that I can, working with you, to make it abundantly clear that robust diplomacy and effective development are the best long-term tools for securing America's future.”

So what do we make of all these?

Secretary Clinton has talked a bunch about “smart power,” so I imagine that she had read the report of the Smart Power Commission. The commission report has also cited Global Development as part of the smart power strategy and provided some recommendations: "As this report previously discussed, there are more than 50 separate, uncoordinated programs administered by the federal government that undertake economic and technical assistance. These programs are fractured, lack coordination, and are not aligned to achieve strategic goals. This represents a major impediment. The next president should task the deputy for smart power to work with the cabinet secretaries to develop a coherent management structure and an institutional plan within the first three months of office."

It seems to me that Jack Lew’s job description might include the removal of this "major impediment." So three months – give it until around April. By then we should have a clearer view of how our development world is going to get realigned under the Obama Administration and who will lead the charge.

Related Items (added on 2/20):

CRS: Foreign Aid Reform: Studies and Recommendation (Dec 2008) http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40102.pdf

CRS: Restructuring Foreign Aid: The Role of the Director of Foreign Assistance (Jun 2006) http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33491.pdf

Bosworth - The New Six-Party Talks Guy?

The IHT is reporting that Stephen Bosworth, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, is expected to be named as the U.S. envoy to six-party talks on curbing North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Bosworth has served three times as U.S. Ambassador, most recently to the Republic of Korea (1997-2000), previously to the Philippines (1984-1987), and initially as Ambassador to Tunisia (1979-1981). He has been the Dean of the The Fletcher School at Tufts University since 2001.

Ambassador Bosworth was the guy who delivered President Reagan’s call for a "peaceful transition to a new government" to Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos during the 1986 People Power Revolution.

Gosh, that is 23 years ago this year!

According to one account in Time magazine, one of Marcos’ men went to see Michael Armacost, who was then “P” and was given a blunt message: Marcos had lost control of his army, the troops under General Ver were ineffectual, and if Marcos did not step down, the country could be heading for civil war. A similar statement was sent to the U.S. Ambassador in Manila, Stephen Bosworth, who took it to Marcos.

Last year, Bosworth co-wrote with Morton Abramowitz (former assistant secretary of State) a piece on North Korea for Newsweek, Reaching Out To Pyongyang urging on a strategy toward Pyongyang that addresses both the nuclear program and the long-term question of how to deal with the weak but dangerous nation.

“What North Korea wants more than anything is "political compensation," a relationship with Washington, in which the United States would stop making threats, drop all sanctions and start treating North Korea as a friendly country. As Pyongyang sees it, such moves would finally allow it to join the global economic community—key to its survival. Until then, North Korea will hold on to its nuclear weapons as an insurance policy against a U.S. attack and, more important, the threat that Washington will simply ignore North Korea and allow it to starve in the dark. What this means in practical terms is that Pyongyang won't give up its nukes until it's sure Washington has permanently abandoned its "hostile policies," and "mutual trust" has been established. This will require, among other things, establishing diplomatic relations and striking a peace agreement that formally ends the Korean War. […] There are no guarantees, but this approach would be far better than waiting around and hoping North Korea will collapse. That is no real policy at all, and rest assured North Korea knows how to get our attention."

The appointment has not been officially announced but AP is reporting that officials said Secretary Clinton would like to name Bosworth before her departure Sunday for Asia. Ambassador Bosworth would replace Ambassador Christopher Hill as chief U.S. envoy to the Six-Party talks with North Korea. Click here to read about Ambassador Hill’s talk on North Korea at Harvard earlier this month.

Update: 2/14: The Secretary asked about the appointment of the U.S. envoy had this to say yesterday: "As to the envoy, we’ll be ready to announce our envoy to North Korea soon. But again, I think you’ll understand that we would like to consult with our partners in the Six-Party Talks before we do so."

Richard Holbrooke: Our AfPak Man and Diplomatic H-bomb

Jodi Kantor published this weekend (NYT, February 7, 2009), Back on World Stage, a Larger-Than-Life Holbrooke. A must read if you’re in the short-list as ambassador to Afghanistan and Pakistan, or an officer heading that way. BAGnewsNotes dissects the photo that accompanied the Kantor article and is reminded of John Wayne. But that squint is unmistakably Clint Eastwoody; can’t you imagine him saying – go ahead, make my day?

Kantor has quite a collection of quotable quotes:

From Christopher Hill:

“You have a problem that is larger than life,” said Christopher R. Hill, a longtime colleague expected to be named as the new ambassador to Iraq. “To deal with it you need someone who’s larger than life.”

From Strobe Talbott:

“Richard C. Holbrooke is the diplomatic equivalent of a hydrogen bomb,” said Strobe Talbott, a former deputy secretary of state and a friend.

From General Wesley Clark:

“Richard Holbrooke sees power the way an artist sees color,” General Clark said.

From his new boss:

“Asked about Mr. Holbrooke’s sometimes overbearing qualities, Mrs. Clinton replied with mock innocence. “Gee, I’d never heard that he could be any of those things before,” she said. Then she turned serious. “Occasionally he has to be, you know, brought down to earth and reined in.”

From his wife:

"Ms. Marton, in defending her hard-driving husband, said, “Richard is all about outcome.”

Ms. Kantor writes that “And even friends acknowledge that Mr. Holbrooke is intently focused on his own legend. (Many people have personal trainers; Mr. Holbrooke has a personal archivist.)”

It’s no wonder that his return to Foggy Bottom has “caused tremors.” Ms. Kantor explains that “His arrival at the State Department has rattled colleagues who remember him as someone who cultivates the powerful and tramples those with less to offer. Others worry about his assiduous courtship of the news media.”

He may have been gone for eight years but I’ve seen that style imitated by some up and comers at Foggy Bottom. But what’s he really like in a negotiating environment? Here is a view from the other side of the pond.

Ambassador Charles Crawford, an FCO diplomat who later became British Ambassador to Sarajevo, Belgrade and Warsaw, recollects a meeting attended by Richard Holbrooke during the Contact Group meeting in Moscow prior to the Dayton Peace Conference negotiations in November 1995:

The amazing thing was that the Americans looked twice as big as the Europeans! The US military team of course were bulked up by camouflage jackets, but they looked pretty damn big to start with. Plus Holbrooke is a larger than life character in all senses. So when everyone sat down in the tiny room I had a feeling that already the Americans had an advantage of some hard to define but real sort.

Soon the European side of the table started to make its elegant, firm and reasoned case for starting Dayton rather later.

Dick Holbrooke looked across the table in a friendly way and said something to the effect of, "Well, I've talked to the President. Our dates are in his diary. If you are there for the start, that will be fine. And if you're not, that will be fine too."

That salvo effectively ended the battle, the 'European' position flicked off the table like a wearying crumb.

(Read his entire post “It's not Fair. He's Bigger than Me”)

In another post, Ambassador Crawford writes about a later meeting in 1999:

I attended a meeting with him at the FCO in 1999 to discuss Balkan issues. Some of his US colleagues sitting next to him were literally twitching with anxiety, lest he turn on them for some mistake and flick them into professional oblivion.

His negotiating style is uniquely aggressive, but with deft and penetrating psychological thrusts. […] At the London meeting he started to open his briefcase, then rudely took a mobile phone call ("sorry, that was President Obasanjo") to put us in our place.

Continuing with the briefcase he laboriously started to pull out some papers, then began in a deeply phoney woeful tone :

"I'm disappointed. I'm very disappointed. Really. I am. You people are not helping us here. We thought you'd be with us, and you're not..."

You needed nerves of steel to hit back hard and well against this sort of thing, which (it must be said) most UK diplomats did and do not possess. […] I have often wondered why precisely we Europeans cannot produce anyone like Holbrooke to lead our diplomatic effort with bravura and amusing confidence, plus ruthless bullying/intimidation. […] Anyway, two people to pity are the US Ambassadors in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They know what is going to hit them.

(Read his entire post “Holbrooke Returns”)

Methinks that the tricky part is how the reporting lines and authority will be redrawn with Holbrooke’s inclusion into the picture. Sure, everybody reports to Secretary Clinton, but there are regional bureaus and functional bureaus. There are assistant secretaries of every stripe. Then there are the American Embassies in Afghanistan and Pakistan - will they be under Ambassador Holbrooke’s control? If so, how will that impact the role of the Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA) and others? If not – well, frankly I can’t imagine that the org boxes will stay the same with him on the scene.

It’ll probably be hazy for awhile and there probably will be bruised egos along the way… but my sense is that redrawing the org chart must be done now rather than later. That would help assuage uncertainties, minimize anxieties among the career employees within that impact circle and help everyone adapt to a new reality.

I don’t work for the Secretary or any of these folks, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. But from an organizational effectiveness perspective, redrawing the org chart and making sure folks are aware of the changes would make the operation function better and perhaps more importantly, help avoid the unnecessary turf battles that are bound to erupt. Our folks may be all talented and alpha this or that, but they are only human. And human behavior in organizations can take some strange turns.

The sooner this process of adaptation starts, the sooner folks can start concentrating on playing for the American team instead of working in their own silos. And they can't start that process until they know where they sit in the white space on the organizational chart.

You’re Not in a Broom Closet, Are You?

Office space has been in the news lately. Karl Rove mourns that his old office in the West Wing has been carved into four cubicles. Four - imagine! Al Kamen has reported the furious jockeying of critical spots somewhere, anywhere, in the West Wing of the White House by the new staff. You can see the diagram here. Proximity to power is power? See which one is number 1 and 2.

You can almost expect this same thing replicated in all executive offices as every new cabinet secretary and staff moves in. So it was only a matter of time…

Office Snafu at State touts Madam Secretary over at Foreign Policy. The 7^th Floor folks reportedly are not happy being bumped to make space for Jack Lew. “We hear rank-and-file foreign service officers (FSOs) are none too happy with the move, which is considered a slight to Burns, a career diplomat who is the highest-ranking FSO in the country.”

Should I add this to my Huh? News?

A slight to Burns, plueeze!

State just got a sparkling newly minted Deputy Undersecretary for Management and Resources. Alleluia! This was a slot that went unfilled under Condi Rice; a great decision that really helped her resource gathering talents at Capitol Hill. So now there is the Secretary of State, then James Steinberg (D) and Jack Lew (D/MR), then Bill Burns (P). While “P” has traditionally been the number #3 person at State (and the top career official), change has come to the State Department. Now this change has bumped “P” down to number #4 (still the top career official) and on and on it goes cascading down the chain and the collateral office spaces. But I fully expected this, why would anyone imagine otherwise?

A Diplopundit reader who saw the office snafu entry asked if the office space issue is really that bad: “People go from cheering in the halls to expecting the worst in the space of a week? It's too bad, because I was so taken with the idea of an optimistic, united State Department.”

I don't know what it's like over at the 7th Floor. But Bill Burns is a professional career diplomat. I’m sure that he, as well as most of the employees of the State Department appreciates the importance and the significance of bringing in Jack Lew to deal with management and resource issues. Mr. Lew said that he will focus on making sure the Department “is well-coordinated internally and is collaborating effectively with others agencies and organizations, on spending smarter as we build capacity to execute against our objectives and on delivering results.” At his confirmation hearing he pledged to work with Congress “to demonstrate that resources are used effectively and to make the case for the additional resources need to ensure success.”

Call me naïve, but I like what I heard. And frankly, I’d like to roll out the red carpet for this guy. I hope Jack Lew delivers. Short of giving him the Secretary’s office, he should have his choice of official digs at Foggy Bottom, seriously. If “R” or whatever letter of the alphabet soup needs to move one floor down to facilitate this, so be it. I for one would like Jack Lew to be as close to the Secretary’s office as possible for the regular access he needs. Besides, unless the principals or their staffers have been consigned to a broom closet with no telephone and internet connection, I really don't see this office space rigodon as an issue. I'd like to see Jack Lew get as comfortable as he can and receive all the support that he needs -- so he can get some work done.

As one sensible blog comment made recently: "Give it a break folks. Bill Burns is not concerned about his office space based on people I have talked to. What people really care about is can Jack Lew deliver the resources hoped for. If he can there is reason to rejoice. If he can't, there are more important things to worry about than just office space -- like getting the job done."

I’d like to put this as nothing more than part of the normal transition process. We all have some strong reactions to change, not just in our work lives but also in our personal lives. I think that reaction comes from the fact that change comes with its permanent shadow of fear. The reinvention, reorganization, turnaround and every new management, in and out of government – they all impact people's emotion – whether in terms of our role, importance, our influence, attention we receive, staff we get -- you know, office space, paper clips, etc. etc. and where we all fit in the larger puzzle of the universe. One alternative is to hold on to the existing state of affairs, maintaining the status quo. The other alternative is to get over that fear and open up to the new possibilities.

More new possibilities, please.

Hillary’s First 7 Days: A Snapshot in Numbers

1: Session with reporters; she talked about foreign policy and diplomacy

3: US foreign policy retooled along the three axes of diplomacy, development and defense

3: Special envoys appointed (here and here)

6: Remarks delivered

14: Number of Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys she met with; they were training participants in the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan

37: Tel-cons with presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers

2,200: number of employees who signed letter to HRC calling for equal benefits to same sex partners. (More in Life After Jerusalem and Dead Men Working)

Top Transition Mistake: Assuming “They” Are All Idiots

Early this month, the Council for Excellence in Government, the Senior Executive Association, Harvard Business Publishing and The Washington Post hosted an interactive workshop Accelerating Leadership Transitions at the National Press Club led by Dr. Michael Watkins, author of the international bestsellers, "The First Ninety Days and co-author of "The First 90 Days in Government."

Dr. Watkins started the workshop with the employees’ hopes and fears for the Obama Administration. There were several direct quotes there but one that leaped out the screen/page was this one: “De-politicization of entire organizations. Value employees for their talents and contributions and not for their assumed political affiliation.” I don’t know if the contributor of that quote came from DOJ, DHS, State or elsewhere. In any case, the workshop included top ten lists of mistakes that political appointees and civil servants make when dealing with each other during transition:

Top Ten Mistakes of Political Appointees in Dealing With Career Civil Servants:

#10. Assuming government runs like a business. #9. Poor ethical choices. #8. Unclear vision/goals/setting priorities. #7. Not valuing existing processes/procedures. #6. Only getting input from senior executives. #5. Change for the sake of change. #4. Not understanding agency culture and history. #3. Trying to change too much too fast (a challenge for this new administration)

#2. Not learning the issues/not listening/coming in with preset ideas/rush to judgments. #1. Ignoring/underestimating/distrusting career people (i.e. assuming they are all idiots).

Advice to Political Appointees in Dealing with Career Civil Servants

“Career staff is in for the long run. You are coming in with great enthusiasm for crafting a new paradigm. So did the last crew! Consult and listen carefully, and you will get valuable advice and learn how to avoid pitfalls. Communicate your frustration, and allow a chance for the interaction to improve before giving up.”

More in the workshop.

Top Ten Mistakes of Career Civil Servants Dealing With Political Appointees:

#10.Not speaking up/pushing back/"yessing" the boss. #9. Hoarding information/protecting turf/territorialism.

#8. Becoming paralyzed/reactive due to uncertainty about direction. #7. Clinging too hard to policy positions/focusing on barriers. #6. Assuming political appointees know less than they do. #5. Assuming appointees know more than they do.

#4. Hiding issues/not being forthcoming about issues. #3. Attempting to “manage”/”manipulate”/”sell” political appointees. #2. “This too shall pass”/”We tried that”/passive resistance/cynicism.

#1. Ignoring/underestimating/distrusting political appointees (i.e. assuming they are all idiots).

Advice to Career Civil Servants in Dealing with Political Appointees:

“Remember that political appointees are there to support the President's agenda. Remember that you are there both to support them and to create and preserve the human infrastructure for this administration and its successors.”

“Serve and advise to the best of your ability at all times. You are not there to be either a road block or a "yes man.” Be patient.”

There is more in the workshop -- so you’ve got to watch it! I think this is a useful session not just for political appointees and senior civil servants but also for Foreign Service officers transitioning into their new jobs every 2-3 years. Dr. Watkins also shared a transition story involving one of the bureaus at State some years ago - includes a used car person and a colored telephone. Heh!

To see the video of the workshop, visit www.visualwebcaster.com/ninetydays. You need to supply your name, title, organization and email address (non-government email is acceptable) in order to view the video. The video runs for 1:29:00 with intros. Dr. Watkins starts at about 9 minutes into the video. A 16-page downloadable handout is also posted with the video.

Dr. Watkins also writes a blog on leadership, The Leading Edge, at the Harvard Business School Publishing. Check it out!

Quickie: One for the Huh? News

Otto Kreisher of the CongressDaily filed this report on January 6, 2009 about a State official [who says] Obama will step up fight against terrorism:

“The State Department's top counterterrorism official on Tuesday predicted that President-elect Barack Obama's incoming team would in some ways be more aggressive in fighting terrorism around the world than the Bush administration. Counterterrorism coordinator Dell Dailey said he did not mean the Obama administration would do more to try to kill terrorists, but would be more aggressive in building partnerships with other nations.

There are counterterrorism efforts in Africa and Asia where "there are no U.S. fingerprints at all," he said. Ambassador-at-large Dailey apparently had nothing but praise for the Secretary of State-nominee, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., citing a "very savvy presentation" she made several years ago after a visit to Afghanistan and her record in the Senate, according to the same report.

It also adds that “He had no objections to Clinton's reported plans to name special envoys to oversee certain hot spots, such as the Middle East.”

Huh?

Officially In: Steinberg and Lew, the New "D"

The WSJ posted on December 23, 2008, 4:05 pm the announcement of key members of Obama’s national security team, including James B. Steinberg for Deputy Secretary of State, and Jacob Lew for Deputy Secretary of State, and the appointment of Thomas E. Donilon as Deputy National Security Advisor and Antony “Tony” Blinken as National Security Advisor to the Vice President.

WaPo has more on this:

“Obama's Secretary of State designate Hillary Rodham Clinton will have two deputies, according to an announcement from the transition office. One, former Clinton administration official James B. Steinberg, will focus on policy, while the other, former Office of Management and Budget director Jacob Lew, will focus on budget and resources. Lew's appointment to what is essentially a new position at State -- usually there is only one deputy -- is a possible sign of Clinton's interest in expanding resources for the department. While many past secretaries have voiced interest in growing the size and influence of the department, some of Clinton's informal advisers say she is deeply interested in revitalizing the role of diplomacy in national security policy -- and needs more resources to do so.”

Brief bios from the announcements made late yesterday:

James B. Steinberg, Deputy Secretary of State

James B. Steinberg became dean of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs on January 1, 2006. Before joining the School, he was the vice president and director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. (2001-2005), where he supervised a wide-ranging research program on U.S. foreign policy. From December 1996 to August 2000, he served as deputy national security advisor to President Bill Clinton. During that period he also served as the president’s personal representative (”Sherpa”) to the 1998 and 1999 G-8 summits. Prior to becoming deputy national security advisor, he served as chief of staff of the U.S. State Department and director of the State Department’s policy planning staff (1994-1996), and as deputy assistant secretary for analysis in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (1993-1994). Steinberg is a member of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board, the President’s Council on International Activities of Yale University, the board of directors of the Pacific Council on International Policy, the senior advisory council of The American Assembly’s Next Generation Project, the board of advisors of the Center for a New American Security, the board of advisors of The Yale Journal of International Law, and the editorial board of The Washington Quarterly. He also is a member of the D.C. Bar. Steinberg is the author of and contributor to many books and articles on foreign policy and national security topics, including Difficult Transitions: Foreign Policy Troubles at the Outset of Power, Protecting the Homeland 2006/2007 and An Ever Closer Union: European Integration and Its Implications for the Future of U.S.-European Relations. Steinberg received his B.A. from Harvard in 1973 and J.D. from Yale Law School in 1978. Steinberg is married to Ms. Sherburne B. Abbott, director of the Center for Science and Practice of Sustainability at the University of Texas at Austin. They have two daughters, Jenna and Emma.

Jacob Lew, Deputy Secretary of State

Jacob J. “Jack” Lew is a Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer of Citi Alternative Investments, where he is responsible for operations, technology, human resources, legal, finance and regional coordination. Previously, Mr. Lew was Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of New York University, where he was responsible for budget, finance, and operations (including capital projects and human resources). Prior to joining NYU, Mr. Lew served in President Clinton’s cabinet as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and led the Administration budget team, from the preparation of the President’s budget through final negotiations with Congress. He was also a member of the National Security Council. From 1979 to 1987, he was a Senior Policy Advisor to House Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. Mr. Lew serves on the Corporation for National and Community Service Board and chairs its Management, Administration, and Governance Committee. He co-chairs the Advisory Board for City Year New York and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution Hamilton Project Advisory Board, and the National Academy of Social Insurance. He is a member of the bar in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

Read more on the other nominees here.

Update: 1/22/2009: Nominations: Secretary Clinton's Deputies

Quickie: Out with the Old and in with the New

The NYT is reporting today that HRC is recruiting Jacob J. Lew, the budget director under President Bill Clinton, as one of two deputies, according to people close to the Obama transition team (Clinton Moves to Widen Role of State Dept.). Mr. Lew’s focus, they said, will be on increasing the share of financing that goes to the diplomatic corps. He and James B. Steinberg, a deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration, are to be Mrs. Clinton’s chief lieutenants.

[…]"The recruitment of Mr. Lew — for a position that was not filled in the Bush administration — suggests that Mrs. Clinton is determined to win a larger share of financial resources for the department. A well-connected figure who was once an aide to Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill, Mr. Lew now works for Citigroup in a unit that oversees hedge funds. “If we’re going to re-establish diplomacy as the critical tool in America’s arsenal,” a senior transition official said, “you need someone who can work both the budget and management side. He has very strong relations on the Hill; he knows the inner workings of how to manage a big enterprise.”

Very promising. Sounds good to you? Read more on Jacob Lew and NYT's brief bio here; also James Steinberg.

Update: Steve Clemons just posted in the Note that James Steinberg got "the white smoke signal that he gets the Deputy slot."

Corridor Anxieties at the State Department?

AP is reporting today that the new Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton is “moving to surround herself with a cast of die-hard loyalists and veterans of her husband's administration to help her cope with world crises and backstage Washington power plays.” This move is reportedly setting off the anxiety temperature among career foreign service officers. I suspect mostly those at Foggy Bottom, on the upper floors.

Lots of names mentioned, which probably means, folks have been thinking out loud in somebody's presence or staking out the positions they wanted. Or it could simply mean chatter, right?

James Steinberg, President Bill Clinton's former deputy national security adviser, is reportedly in "a lock" to replace Ambassador Negroponte as deputy secretary of state. The leak is from “people close to the transition who spoke on condition of anonymity because no announcements have yet been made.” NPR also has a piece on HRC's second in command here. I have no inside track but I’m bored today so I’m allowed to play along in the speculation game.

Other names that may become familiar (or not) shortly after January 20 are below:

Andrew Shapiro: Clinton's Senate foreign policy adviser Lee Feinstein: Deputy Planning Director under Albright and national security adviser during the campaign Maggie Williams: HRC’s Presidential Campaign Manager Cheryl Mills: Former WH Attorney

Huma Abedin: Personal Assistant Philippe Reines: Current senior adviser and spokesman Melanne Verveer: HRC's chief of staff when she was First Lady Doug Hattaway: Former spokesman for Al Gore's 2000 presidential bid; reportedly a favorite to replace Sean McCormack as State Department spokesman James Rubin: Albright's high-profile former spokesman Wendy Sherman: Former Ambassador and Obama Transition Team Leader for State Michael Sheehan: Counterterrorism Coordinator Rand Beers: Law Enforcement; Former Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

Robert Einhorn: Arms Control Expert; Former Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation at the Department of State

Robert Gelbard: Former Ambassador to Indonesia Daniel Kurtzer: Former Ambassador to Israel and Egypt

Dennis Ross: Former Special Middle East Coordinator

Toni Verstandig: Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Near Eastern Affairs Michael Guest: Former Ambassador to Romania under Bush II (He resigned from the Foreign Service last year to protest the State Department's treatment of same-sex partners of diplomats)

AP reports that the prospect of HRC’s personal staff's imminent arrival in Foggy Bottom has been “a hot topic of nervous corridor conversation among many in the professional diplomatic corps who fear they will be frozen out of positions of influence.”

Since I hold no burning ambition to be a letter in the alphabet soup, this has no significant effect on me. But I see why this would be nerve wracking for the senior folks especially those given the folding chairs these last 4-8 years who yearned to be “P” or “M” or whatever letter they dream about at night.

But there’s an upside to this one, really – you may not be undersecretary to nowhere but you still have a job (1.2 million lost their jobs this year alone 1.25 million lost theirs jobs in the last three months alone). It’s not like they’ll give you a pink slip like those political ambassadors that must leave by January 20, right? Plus, we “know” most of these folks except the WH crew, don’t we? Just note the number of “former” in the list above.

Most of all, and this is the most important part – at least you’re not dreaming that the Obama transition can’t offer you a job because they could not find your resume amidst the other 300,000 on www.change.gov and you're not breaking into cold sweat like Anonymous did (who is still waiting for that Obama Team phone call). They may not know your extension, but they know where to find you.

If you’re not at all anxious, you can read about this here. If you are --- anxious, that is, stop reading speculations like these now and go run in the park and have some fresh air. It’ll make you feel better; besides - inauguration day is 45 days away. That’s an awful long time to be in a state of anxiety.

Related Post: Why You Need To Be Gracious – Always

Want Ad for Secretary of State

Just about everywhere you look there are speculations about the next Secretary of State. Perhaps folks will make up their minds this week, who knows? But I thought I'd write a few things to help clarify the want ad. The Secretary is a member of the President of the United States’ (POTUS) Cabinet and the highest-ranking cabinet secretary both in line of succession and order of precedence. The Secretary serves as a principal adviser to the POTUS in the determination of U.S. foreign policy and, in recent decades, has become responsible for overall direction, coordination, and supervision of interdepartmental activities of the U.S. Government overseas, excepting certain military activities. Other duties include storage and use of the Great Seal, performance of protocol functions for the White House, drafting of proclamations, replies to inquiries, and heavy traveling on behalf of the POTUS. The job may also require staring down or shaking hands with temperamental dictators, hardnosed negotiations and occasional cheerleading for the people in Foggy Bottom and those folks working in 268 embassies and consulates around the world.

As the highest-ranking member of the cabinet, the Secretary is fourth in line to succeed the POTUS, coming after the VPOTUS, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President pro tempore of the Senate. Federal law (3 U.S.C. § 20) provides that a POTUS resignation must be accomplished by written communication from the POTUS to the SecState. This has actually occurred once, when the former president aka: Tricky Dick resigned in August 1974 via a letter to Secretary of State Henry the Kiss.

The job is available now but assumption of office will not occur until after January 20, 2009. Only qualified applicants need apply. See more details below for key competencies and preferred qualifications:

Question 1: Do you have the boss’s ear?

It is extremely important that you already have an excellent relationship with the boss so you can get his attention, especially favorable attention on foreign policy issues. One of your predecessors said that “the secretary's influence is only as strong as his or her relationship with the president.” Very true; you don’t want to be left sitting outside the tent (lots of mosquitoes will eat you alive). Do you know what else he said? He claims that “Everybody in Washington wants to get a piece of the foreign-policy turf, so it's imperative that there be an understanding between you and the president. In the current administration, there are four power centers on foreign policy: the State Department, the National Security Council, the Department of Defense and—uniquely to this administration—the vice president's office.” So ask yourself this - will you be able to stand your own, against say Joe the Biden and all those muscle in the foreign policy apparatus? If you answer “yes,” proceed to Question 2. If you answer “no,” maybe you should try some other gig? Check out the Prune Book for other ideas.

Question 2: Are you an effective advocate?

Without friends in Capitol Hill who understand your agency’s resource needs, you can pretty much talk all you want, but you won’t get very far. You can pretty much start all kinds of initiatives and you won’t have much to show for it (unless you’re closing embassies and consulates). Your influencing skills as the country’s top diplomat does not start in Kabul or Baghdad, it actually starts in the hallways of Congress. Those folks at AFSA (you’ll get to know them soon enough) actually says that “when it comes to duties such as lobbying for resources and other management needs, there are some meetings, phone calls and letters that an agency head cannot delegate without significantly weakening their impact.” Oh, very, very true. The president’s budget request to fund your department annually is a routine show everyone puts up with. The question is – do you think you can go beyond the klieg lights and deliver the goods for an anemic agency (not just on paper and second life but in real life – like funds for people, training, paperclips, pens, stuff)? If you answer “yes,” go to Question 3. If you answer “no,” please consider making friends at Capitol Hill first.

Question 3: Are you built for a foreign affairs stint?

If you think you can see Russia from your house, please, oh, please do not bother to fill out the 63- question application. Unless you’re Dick Lugar or Joe Biden, we don’t really expect you to know foreign affairs in your sleep or as the cliché go, like the back of your hand. As long as you can demonstrate that you have an elite brain that keeps learning, and are willing to reboot to speed up ineffective processes, you’ll be fine. It would help if you’re also a Type A, alpha dog, hyper super achiever kind of guy or gal because the world will occupy your every waking hour. If you only need 4 hour of sleep a day, be sure to mention that; POTUS would probably like that and State’s Ops Center would certainly appreciate that since they don't sleep anyway. If you answer “yes,” please go to Question 4. If you answer “no,” please bone up on your Foreign Affairs Professional Reading List and perhaps, try again in 2012?

Question 4: Do you have what it takes to follow and how to make others follow you?

You may not like having your predecessors mentioned here so often but it can’t be avoided since you are looking at filling in the same old shoes. Do you know what Secretary Powell used to say about leadership? He said that “leadership is the art of getting people to do more than the science of management says is possible. There are lots of variations and corollaries on that. Good leadership is getting people to do a lot more than the science of management says. If the science of management says that the capacity of this organization is at 100 percent, good leaders take it to 110 percent.”

Good grief! How do you do that? Bear with us – this story that Secretary Powell used to tell is a bit long. But we think you will find his perspective useful not only because State is a top candidate for a much needed make-over. Despite what you might hear in the next couple of months, it has morale issues, resource issues and other pesky issues that you won’t really know very well until after you’re ensconced in the 7^th Floor. Furthermore, you need to lead this agency into the 21^st century portal of new diplomacy; into a more complex, dysfunctional world with substantially new power players. It won’t be easy. You can drag your agency along, kicking or it could follow you happily out of curiosity through that door. So this Powell story is quite fitting:

At Fort Benning, Georgia, when you go to the infantry school and you drive onto the base, the first thing you will see in front of the headquarters building is a statue. It's called “Iron Mike.” And it's a statue of an infantry lieutenant, an infantry officer, who is posed with a rifle in one hand and he is pointing with the other hand.

And the motto of the infantry school, beneath the statue, is there, and there is no infantry officer or soldier who doesn't know what it is. It's “Follow me.” That motto means: I am the leader. You are the follower. “Follow me.” I know what I am doing. I am in charge. I am going to take you into the darkest night and bring you out safely. “Follow me.”

So it's all about people, how you interact with people. The single word that captures what leadership is really all about and how you know when you have it and when you don't have it is the word “trust.” Leaders have to be trusted by their followers. Leaders also have to be good followers. If a leader is a good follower, then the person above you, your leader, has confidence and trust in you.

Trust is the essence of leadership. Why do people follow you in the first place as a leader? Two reasons: One, they have to. They have no choice. You pay them. You have authority over them. Don't make any mistake about this, any of you. Because they have to follow you, they have no choice. They're in an organization and they have to follow you.

And that's a foundation. But the real thing you're after is not their following you because they have to, but their following you because they want to. And how do you make them want to follow you? You create conditions of trust within an organization, a bond between people.

But how do you know when you’re really a good leader? Secretary Powell asked his sergeant this question and the response was: “Very simple. A good leader is someone whose people will follow him or her, if only out of curiosity.” Secretary Powell said:

That is exceptionally profound, and I've never forgotten it, because it means that we may not be sure, exactly, where you're going. We may be a little confused. We may be tired. We may be afraid. We may be cold. We may be hungry. We may want to be anywhere else on earth but with you right now, but we will follow you just to see what you think is around the corner. And why will we follow you? Because we trust you -- we trust you with our lives. We are prepared for you to take us into battle. Follow me. Trust me.

Now, how do you develop that level of trust within an organization, which is the essence of leadership? A couple things: One, there has to be a focus on mission. There has to be a purpose of the activity around which the followers and leaders, together, can draw and give all of their soul and energy to.

And so, the first thing you're taught in the military is the mission is your first consideration. The mission is what you exist for, and everything is secondary to the mission. The mission is what will take people up the hill, what will send people to the furthest embassy posts that we have -- people, for example, who will be willing to sacrifice and go to Baghdad because the mission is there and the mission is important.

In order to make a mission important, it has to be a mission that not only exists up on the seventh floor. The mission has to be driven down through every level of the organization so everybody understands what we are trying to accomplish and is committed to its accomplishment. The mission has to be clear. It has to be straightforward. It has to be understandable. But above all, it has to be achievable, and it has to be something that will cause people to believe so that they will want to follow you and not just have to follow you.

And so one of the things we have tried to do in the time we have been here in the Department is to make it clear what we are trying to achieve. And sometimes it's difficult -- far more difficult in the diplomatic service, I've learned, than it is in the military. In the military, you just come in the morning, “This is what we're going to do! That's it! Let's go!” A little harder in the interagency process.”

If you have read all the above, then you must really want this job. So the question again is - do you have what it takes to follow and how to make others follow you?

If you answer “yes,” please accept the job when the incoming POTUS offers it to you. If you answer “no,” please have a good chat with Colin after you read his lecture here.

In sum – considering the state of the world today, this is an exceptionally tough assignment. But if you decide to accept it, you get a nice office in the Seventh Floor, your own customized airplane, your own security detail, numerous undersecretary this and undersecretary that, red carpets everywhere you go (we’ll almost everywhere), the support and loyalty of a talented professional corps and, if you play your cards effectively, an appointment with history. But like one of your predecessors say “You can't be a good chief foreign policy advisor to the President unless you are also deeply involved in and concerned about the welfare of the people who are executing the foreign policy of the President.” That probably is an excellent starting point after you accept this assignment.

Help! The Hillary Chatter Won't Stop

The Christian Science Monitor asks: How would Hillary Clinton do as top US diplomat? Its reporter, Alexandra Marks writes that "the consensus in foreign-policy circles of the left and the right is that if President-elect Barack Obama does offer her the job, she has the potential to excel at it."

There's more:

“The only kind of secretary of State who is effective is one that can leave the building,” says Ms. Pletka at the American Enterprise Institute. “The State Department is a giant career bureaucracy that knows it will be there after you’re gone. Fifty percent of being an effective secretary of State is actually harnessing the Foreign Service to your leadership and your will.”

"Even supporters say her biggest drawback may be lack of experience in managing a large organization like the State Department. But the key to resolving that, they argue, would be appointing a strong deputy secretary."

Dear 67: Don’t Be a Wet Washcloth

You probably saw this last September when five former secretaries of state were on CNN. They discussed how they would advise the next president on a wide range of foreign policy, including relations with Russia, Iran and the Middle East. That's fine but what we seldom hear about is their advice to the person who will sit in their old familiar chair up in the 7^th floor. Newsweek in their Transition Toteboard has some advice for the next Secretary of State courtesy of former Secretary of State James Baker III (61) and Lawrence Eagleburger (62). I’ve listed them down in bullet points (followed by advisor’s initials). Note that Eagleburger, the only career diplomat to become Secretary of State is focused on people issues. I have also added a couple of nuggets from Colin Powell (65) because, heck - he started the leadership challenge at State, and I'm still sore that the job did not get to go the full circle.

1. Especially leading the State Department, a secretary's influence is only as strong as his or her relationship with the president. JB

2. You need to be in control of your position and responsible for your department, because it's an institution in and of itself. JB

3. You need to be the president's person at the State Department and not the State Department's person at the White House. JB

4. You'll also have to be a good manager. The department is a very large bureaucracy; most of the people below you are career public servants. The challenge will be to manage the building and not let the building manage you. JB

5. You need to have extraordinarily talented people around you in order to succeed. JB

6. You will be deluged by hundreds of your "best friends." Most will be job seekers while some will earnestly tell you what your priorities should be. Do not let the former in the door and ignore the latter. LE

7. You have an obligation to lead a Department that will loyally carry out the President's policies. Your confidence in those below you will be a vital part of assuring an effective Department. LE

8. People will be a key to your future success or failure. Decide on people before you do anything else—once in office responding to events will consume your every wakening hour. LE

9. There is one person you must insist be yours to select—the Deputy Secretary. This position should go to someone you could consider your alter-ego—someone ready to fill in for you when you are otherwise occupied. LE

10. Be a wet washcloth on personnel matters and you invite similar treatment on more substantive issues. LE

11. Take care of your people. This is second only to mission. It means know your troops. It means take care of your troops. The simple reason is that they accomplish the mission. Colin Powell.

12. If it's important enough for us to do and participate in, then it's important enough for us to invest in the people that we are asking to do it. You should never set up anyone for failure, as long as you have the ability to do something about it. Colin Powell.

And of course, I have to wade into the tide pool with the following:

• Be accessible to your people. Read your email even if it's from one of your low level staffer in Timbuktu.

• Do something about Q21. You need to send a strong signal that seeking professional help on PTSD and mental health issues will not compromise your people's careers or their security clearance.

• Deliver the bads news as much as possible in person not through the "filter of the MSM." And please - never at 5 o'clock on a Friday unless lives are on the line.

If you have anything to add, feel free to add them (or not) in the comments below.

Update 11/22: Colin Powell broken links have been fixed.