WhirledView

A Message for the New President: Getting Diplomacy Right

By Patricia H. Kushlis

It’s painfully clear that whoever becomes this country’s new president in January, the US cannot continue to conduct its foreign policy along the business-as-usual lines of the Bush administration. Leading with the military, sending in the tanks, calling in the short and long-range bombers, refusing to negotiate with adversaries – or even perceived adversaries – is a costly and counter-productive way to deal with the world.

This guns-and-steel-first approach by which America has been engaging - or more accurately disengaging - the world throughout the past eight years has boomeranged. It has increased – not decreased – support for those who truly hate America. It has resulted in budget busting defense spending. It has created an overstretched and weary professional military unable to accomplish the Herculean tasks assigned it. And it is an unsung piece of the current financial crisis. This lethal concoction has weakened the country abroad and sapped our ability to meet our citizens’ needs at home.

Leading with Diplomacy: The Single Realistic Foreign Policy Option Left

The next president will, in reality, have only one foreign policy option. This is the imperative to rely far more on traditional diplomacy, public diplomacy and foreign aid delivered through civilian means to begin to repair America’s face and effectively conduct its business abroad. The military first “solution” has proven to be no solution. Fighting elusive militant terrorists ensconced in ungovernable areas is not akin to rolling back the Axis Powers in 1944 or facing off the Red Army and the Warsaw Pact over the Fulda Gap during the Cold War.

The only other alternative to a military-first doctrine besides diplomacy is isolationism. Isolationism failed miserably in the 1920s. The 1990s neo-isolationism of the late Jesse Helms only helped to weaken this country’s position and destroy its foreign affairs capabilities in both the short and long run. This is indeed a globalized world: isolationism – like Communism – belongs in history’s dust bin.

But before a new administration can emphasize diplomatic solutions or peaceful management of complex international problems, it has to understand that the civilian foreign affairs agencies that throughout the Cold War provided the know-how and wherewithal to deal with difficult foreign affairs issues are now hollow shells. They are shadows of their former selves. Reacquiring the requisite expertise that they once housed will not come cheap. Seasoned diplomats do not suddenly spring up out of nowhere.

To quote a recent observation by The New York Times columnist David Brooks, "The more I follow politicians, the more I think experience matters, the ability to have a template of things in your mind that you can refer to on the spot, because believe me, once in office there's no time to think or make decisions."

Right on. Experience matters. Just substitute the word “diplomats for “politicians.”

A major problem at State

Most of the “talent” that turns a green recruit into an effective diplomat, public diplomat or practiced foreign aid officer comes from practical, on-the-ground experience that is learned-by-doing under the tutelage and watchful eyes of more seasoned colleagues. This on-the-job training needs to be combined with extensive and specific foreign language and cultural study that make it possible for US government representatives abroad to communicate effectively with the people in the countries to which they are assigned.

“No time to think or make decisions”

In short, an effective diplomat knows – almost by instinct – what needs to be done and how to accomplish it in whatever country to which he, or she, is assigned. Events happen so rapidly there often is, as Brooks correctly states, “no time to think or make decisions.”

The up-or-out, dog-eat-dog, two tiered, intensely hierarchical Foreign Service personnel structure has, for years, forced out far too many expensively trained and skilled officers at the peak of their careers – just when they should have been the most valuable to the U.S.

Think about the taxpayers for a moment: Intensive training in difficult languages costs thousands of dollars per diplomat. Continuing this now entrenched counterproductive policy is simply not cost effective.

The Hollowed Out Shell

Instead of taking advantage of the considerable skills learned on the job and in language and cultural training at the State Department’s own institute, hundreds – perhaps thousands - of America’s highly educated and trained diplomatic staff have been put out to pasture since the current system was implemented nearly 30 years ago. This enabled the downsizing rash of the 1990s of an already tiny group of people and the making way for younger, less experienced officers, with all that less experience too often brings to the job.

This system did function more or less adequately – albeit not to the taxpayers’ advantage because of the costly skills lost that need constant replenishment – during the years of shrinking government under the Clinton administration and an isolationist Republican Congress.

Under Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Department’s workforce was, in fact, increased, but during the past four years of Condoleezza Rice, the size of the Foreign Service has remained static. The hemorrhaging continues unabated thanks, in large part, to a rigid and antiquated personnel system. More junior and mid-level officers are leaving in disgust far short of retirement as Carnegie’s Joshua Kurlantzik pointed out recently -- many due to personnel’s gross mishandling of the Iraq assignments process.

Meanwhile, the tasks assigned to State Department staff have become more difficult and wide ranging at home and abroad.

Various studies over the past year indicate that the State Department’s staffing shortfall ranges from between 1,000 and 2,000 officers depending upon who’s counting. The American Academy of Diplomacy tells us that a new administration will require more than 4,700 additional Foreign Service Officers including those in USAID over the next five years to fulfill the expanding roll civilian government officials with foreign affairs skills will be asked to play in the future. But where will it find them and how will it treat them?

A first priority for the new president is to replace State’s broken, archaic, opaque and crony-riddled personnel system and send its current enforcers packing – without golden parachutes.

Ironically, the one person in the Bush administration who seems to recognize the depths of the budget and some of the personnel problems facing the State Department is Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Sure, Iraq and Afghanistan are being filled – by hook and by crook – but at what cost?

Public Diplomacy under the State Department has been, and continues to be, a bad joke. Between 20 and 30 percent of the public diplomacy positions overseas are vacant. Too many of the ones that are filled are staffed by people who spend most of their time handling administrative chores or “managing” Ambassadors – whatever that means - as opposed to what they should be doing – interacting with foreign publics.

Just in the past two years, the Consular Affairs Bureau has been wracked by a chain of highly visible embarrassments and fiascos: last year’s passport issuance delay problems need not have happened, for instance, with better planning and management.

Visa applicants are too often faced with lengthy waits, costly nonrefundable applicant fees if their applications are rejected and surly and demeaning interviews by nasty – and probably overtaxed - Consular Officers. DHS’ German shepherd-like greeting at the border – providing the foreign visitor gets that far – is another story. This too needs fixing. True, this deficiency does not fall under the State Department’s control but it forms yet another piece of the “why they hate us” story.

The Department does not even have enough qualified people to fill all Ambassadorial appointments – or at least I don’t think so or why would it have called out of retirement two former career Ambassadors I know to fill in – and not just to cover a summer or unexpected assignments gap.

Managing Human Capital - Not

In short, the State Department as it now operates seems singularly incapable of managing its most precious resource: its human capital. This is nothing new, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

Here are some deficiencies that a new administration needs to deal with immediately:

• The up-or-out policy needs redressing and the two tier system needs to be abolished if the Department is ever going to fill the need for many more experienced diplomatic hands. There are other means available to handle people who are truly no longer fit to be in the Foreign Service. In reality, the Department has always been able to use them.

• The promotion and assignments systems are singularly opaque. There is no transparency and no accountability in their implementation. This is particularly worrisome when it concerns assignments to Iraq and Afghanistan which are widely viewed as unfairly administered. The "teacher's pets" don't have to go to the war zones, but far too often those without powerful friends do. Further, promises are made – but not always kept.

Head’s Up! More US Visa Problems Loom on the Horizon

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Last year the problem was passports. Looks like, if the June 23, 2008 Wall Street Journal story “Security Changes Are Likely to Create Visa Backlog” is right, visas – at least for citizens from as many as 27 countries - could be next.

This story which I found in the WSJ print edition is based on a May 22, 2008 General Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress entitled “State Department Should Plan for Potentially Significant Staffing and Facilities Shortfalls Caused by Changes in the Visa Waiver Program.”

Where have all the plans and planners gone?

The bottom line is that State hasn’t done the planning - because the Department of Homeland Security hasn’t yet produced the plans upon which State’s planning should be based. So how can State begin to gear up for an increased work load in posts abroad when it doesn’t know what to gear up for? Yet if GAO can come up with estimates for a worst case scenario, State should be able to do so too. And if the worst case scenario turns out to be the ticket, expect a huge visa backlog at US Consulates in Western Europe, New Zealand and Australia as well as three Asian countries beginning as soon as January 12, 2009.

The Worst Case Scenario

Actually, according to the GAO, if the Visa Waiver Program were eliminated (the bureaucratic worst case scenario), State Department staff would need to be increased by about 540 new Foreign Service Officers ($185-201 million annually) and 1,350 local Foreign Service national staff ($168 million to $190 million annually) as well as additional management and support positions ($447 million to $486 million annually). Now State is already 1,000-2,000 Foreign Service positions short and I have to question how it would increase and train staff all that quickly. So much - by the way - for Condi’s transformational diplomacy because all of these new positions would be in wealthy countries.

The good news is that visa fees should off-set these additional staffing costs. The bad news is that State says it would need about 45 new facilities which the GAO estimates would cost approximately $3.8 billion to $5.7 billion. Given the cookie-cutter fortress Embassy design now in vogue, I have to wonder where these facilities would be built and how the average would-be tourist could even access them for a visa interview – but that’s another question for another post.

I’m not going to go into more of the details now, but if you’re among the curious here’s the link to the 58 page GAO report on the potential impact of ESTA (the Electronic System for Travel Authorization) that is making this potential mess possible. The travelers from countries most likely to be hit the worst are those that are already part of the Visa Waiver Program: much of Western Europe, Japan, Brunei and Singapore. Needless to say this is all part of increased border control laws enacted in the wake of 9/11 and the terrorist bombings in Europe.

Most likely scenario

But what if DHS comes up with something in between elimination of the Visa Waiver Program and the system that exists now? DHS can and does, after all, refuse people admittance at the border – and presumably would continue to do so. Yet the most likely scenario is to allow people from VWP countries to apply for visas voluntarily at US Consulates abroad. This includes electronic screening from a US data base of suspects - and we know how reliable that is). Otherwise, intending visitors take their chances with a potentially unpleasant DHS experience at the border. How many intending visitors would choose that option is an open question.

According to GAO, however, neither State nor DHS has “attempted to estimate demand” and State has not “attempted to estimate additional resources that would be needed to manage demand, and what additional visa fees would be received.”

Hmmm, and all of this is supposed to go into effect January 12, 2009? Although DHS – with its inimitable lack of foresight and planning - plans to jump the gun and “launch the program in August.” Whatever that means. (Registration, according to the WSJ, however, will be mandatory in January.)

Even with the weak dollar, one has to wonder whether tourist travel to the US is really worth it. One doesn’t have to wonder, however, why America’s reputation abroad is at an all time low.

Passport Chip Fiasco Continued - Follow the Money

By Patricia H. Kushlis

This is the second in a WV series on US passport production security breaches. Link to the first "Losing the Keys to the Kingdom" is here.

Wasn’t it less than two years ago that private sector US technology security specialists warned the State Department that the implantation of RFID chips in American passports was, in and of itself, a security risk for US citizens because the personal data encoded in the chips could be read without the individual’s knowledge or consent by, for instance, “a government trying to track your movements, a criminal trying to steal your identity or someone just curious about your citizenship?” This according to Washington Post security writer Bruce Schneier, September 16, 2006.

So why did the State Department pooh-pooh the specialists’ advice and forge ahead with an insecure technology regardless? Talk about enabling breaches in both national and personal security.

I’m surprised that Bill Gertz didn’t include this not-so-old story in his provocative three part series last week on the perils of outsourcing US passport production, but Brussels-based ex-FSO Jerry Loftus does sound that alarm in his excellent post “Outsourcing Border Controls” on his blog Avuncular American.

Seems to me the House of Representatives Commerce Oversight Committee investigators should revisit this little fly in the ointment as a part of the larger passport mismanagement security/financial fiasco that now embroils Robert Tapella, head of GPO, and State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs.

Was this all to make Americans think they were more secure six years after 9/11 – when, in fact, those who use RFID infected passports – have become less secure regardless of whether Chinese intelligence – or any one else – has stolen technology from a factory in Thailand? Or could it, hmmm, have more to do with personal gain on the part of certain Republican high level administration appointees with too much power in their pockets?

Follow the $

Gertz’ series focused to a large extent on money. In it, he pointed out that GPO had profited by over $1 million by overcharging the State Department for passport production and that certain GPO officials involved in the overcharge decision personally benefited from related performance pay increases, expensive overseas trips and, in the instance of Tapella, expensively framed photos that grace his office suite’s walls.

Aside from lavish overseas trips and a few well-framed pix, however, the financial rewards that Gertz has documented are simply not large enough to make the whole endeavor all that lucrative for the individuals involved. This is, frankly, penny-ante stuff and even in this day-and-age of deregulation and poor “waste, fraud and abuse” oversight, it should not have been worth the effort.

The iceberg’s tip?

But I do think what Gertz turned up behooves the Committee investigators to search for more insidious financial irregularities that might have also transpired.

Tapella and company, after all, are part of the revolving-door-outsource-the-government-to-our-private-sector-pals Republican political machine. They - in a matter of months - will be looking for other ways to support themselves in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

As Loftus opines: “My guess is that someone is on a fast track to some lucrative future business with Smartrac or some other outsourcers, and who cares if the next administration has to clean up the mess?”

Or perhaps, Tapella, their cousins and their aunts have already made a healthy profit.

I think it’s worth noting that Smartrac, the small Dutch technology company that received the US government contract for e-passport chips issued its first IPO in July 2006. According to ID World International Congress, Smartrac’s “successful IPO netted $59.8 million in gross receipts.”

It might be interesting to find out whether any of the GPO officials, their relatives or their friends, cited in Gertz’s report “GPO profits go to bonuses and trips” themselves profited from Smartrac’s IPO.

Gertz tells us that six GPO officials – including Tapella - traveled to Paris in June 2006 for an electronic passport forum. This was approximately a month before the Smartrac IPO was issued. It’s inconceivable to me that, at the very least, they would have been ignorant of the forthcoming IPO – first announced in March of that year - and the implications for the rise in value of Smartrac stock particularly in the event it received the huge US passport order. Since then, Smartrac also received GPO's contract for RFID chips for all US “Smart cards” to be required of frequent border crossers beginning later this year so who knows how much Smartrac’s initial stock is worth now. But I’ll bet Tapella and his friends do.

Losing “the keys to the kingdom”

By Patricia H. Kushlis

This is the second time in two weeks that American passports, the keys to the kingdom, have been compromised. Bill Gertz of The Washington Times, of all newspapers, broke both stories. These are two separate instances of gross mismanagement and perhaps even malfeasance. Both relate to the outsourcing epidemic for which our current administration is famous.

Two separate Congressional oversight committees have begun investigations. The passport file snooping problem clearly lands on the heads of the State Department’s beleaguered Bureau of Consular Affairs and Passport Division. That Congressional investigation is being conducted by Congressman Berman, the new head of the House International Affairs Committee. Since Consular Affairs Bureau chief Maura Harty retired in February and Wanda Nesbitt, her principal deputy during last summer’s fiasco, has moved on to become Ambassador to Madagascar, two of the responsible officials at State for at least part of the time are – well – removed from the picture.

Meanwhile, leave it to the Consular Bureau and its public affairs chief to duck the issue – letting State’s Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and Deputy Head of Public Affairs Sean McCormack take last week’s passport story heat.

This makes me feel really secure

But the breaches of etiquette or evidences of voyeurism on the part of three contract employees and apparently a Department new hire - whether politically motivated or not - are likely to pale in comparison to the passport production rip-off/compromise story that Gertz broke in a three part investigative journalism series just days thereafter. (Part I, Part II, and Part III) Not only did the GPO – the federal government’s printing press – grossly overcharge the State Department for the production of passports when GPO is supposed to undertake the work at cost, but it also outsourced the work to Smartrac, a European company with production facilities in Thailand. “Smartrac,” according to Gertz, “divulged in an October 2007 court filing in The Hague that China had stolen its patented technology for e-passport chips, raising additional questions about the security of America's e-passports.” That makes me feel really secure.

I like Thailand. It was a fascinating place to serve in the Foreign Service at the end of the Vietnam War. I also enjoy Ayutthaya, the country’s ancient capital where the plant in question, according to Gertz, is located. Ayutthaya’s temples are a favorite tourist destination about a two hour boat trip up river from Bangkok’s steaming center.

Ayutthaya is also the same city where Hambali (Ridwan Isamuddin), the instigator of the 2002 Bali nightclub bombing and apparent member of Al Qaeda’s inner circle, was finally caught by a joint CIA-Thai security services team in 2003 after being on the lam since late 2001. The prize money – or pay-off - that went to the Thai for their efforts, according to Sidney Morning Herald reporter Ray Bonner shortly thereafter, was on the order of $10 million. I guess the US government, that time at least, outbid Osama Bin Laden - but think of the number of potential implications.

Thailand also has a history of – well – forging documents, manufacturing fake antiques and copious narcotics smuggling and of police and security forces that too often look the other way. It has a simmering and lengthy Muslim insurgency in the country’s south near the border with Malaysia, and Thailand’s domestic politics fluctuate between unstable democracy and equally unstable military rule. What helps keep this country on course is its wise octogenarian monarch who is revered by the people, the Thai ability never to take anything too seriously, a bend-with-the-wind foreign policy, and a cohesive, deeply held national identity of Thai-ness.

Thailand, however, is also not the only Asian or other country where forgers manufacture vital documents with amazing accuracy, rapidity and finesse.

In my view, it is simply not in America’s national security interests to farm out the production of its citizens’ most precious documents to the lowest bidder. And the longer the supply chain and the more questionable the factory location the greater the security risk.

Far more than sleaze

This, therefore, is more than sleaze. It’s more than about a few politically connected former Republican Hill staffers enriching themselves at the public trough. True, that’s part of the story. I hope that Congress nails those involved: House Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell has already announced his committee will investigate the GPO mess. This is particularly important since the GPO answers to Congress, not the White House although State was very much involved in the final choice of E passport producing companies so there’s a State culpability component wrapped in here too.

The issue, too, is far more than privatizing yet another function of the US government supposedly so that the agency in question turns a profit. It is about privatizing a function that, in my view, shouldn’t be relegated to any country's private sector for reasons of national security if nothing more. Period.

A Few Thoughts on Maundy Thursday Night's Massacre at Foggy Bottom

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Here I thought the State Department's inept handling of passport matters had ended last summer. Not to mention Ambassador Maura Harty's too lengthy tenure as head of the Bureau of Consular Affairs when she recently sashayed out the door - apparently with a more than gentle push.

I was wrong.

This late breaking Easter week flap over unauthorized State Department contractor employee access to presidential candidate passport files - evidently not just Obama's but also Clinton and McCain's - is competing for the breaking headline Good Friday announcement with New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama's candidacy for president.

I don't equate the two news items - just that when all is supposed to be quiet - even reverential, it never is. A slow news day? Guess not.

Clearly there's more to the latest passport file snooping story than meets the eye: but in my view, the meeting-the-eye problem has as much to do with State Department mismanagement over a period of years than as it relates to the whiff of a potential election year political plumbers' type scandal. Or maybe the two will turn out to be intertwined. We'll see.

Two of State's many management problems are structural. All have political and potential legal overtones. They can and should be corrected. Now. Not later. I hope Congressional oversight looks into the systemic problems behind this latest Consular Affairs Bureau fiasco as well as focusing on the two companies and the employees involved thereby skimming the surface of the huge management morass lurking just under the surface at Foggy Bottom.

But then the State Department is not known as a Speedy Gonzales. We'll also see if the names now in the media of the employees' companies are delivered by State to Waxman's oversight committee by Monday as he has demanded.

Condoleezza Rice told MSNBC earlier that the passport file access matter is being turned over to State's Inspector General. Well yes. But State hasn't had a confirmed IG since the most recent politically appointed IG, Howard "Cookie" Krongard left under a cloud late last year. Krongard's premature departure happened for excellent reasons relating in part to fallout from yet another private contractor embarrassment, namely trigger-happy Blackwater contract security guards playing shoot-em-up with innocent Iraqis as targets at Mansour Square in the middle of Baghdad in September.

In short, this latest passport file fiasco is yet another outsourcing scandal to be laid at the foot of the current disastrous administration and the ill-fated State Department during Condi's tenure as its Secretary.

Oh and by the way, during his tenure at State, Krongard also managed to all but destroy the IG's office to the point that the few employees left complained to Congressman Henry Waxman's House oversight committee about Krongard's gross mismanagement last fall. State's IG, by the way, does have a responsibility to the Hill as well as the Executive Branch. It's probably a good thing that Krongard is long gone because this new passport file investigation clearly needs someone who will act far more responsibly and rapidly than "cover-up" Cookie would have ever done.

State's Acting IG, William Todd obviously has his hands full this Easter weekend and they aren't with Easter eggs to be hidden for the kiddies. Todd's credentials certainly look better than Krongard's on paper at least. If Todd and the head of the office's Investigations Unit handle this one right, it may be the case that makes their careers. Or if not, the one that breaks them.

Meanwhile, State has four, if not five or more fundamental problems that relate to this latest mess.

The first problem is the over-zealous outsourcing to the private sector of work that should be being undertaken by career professionals and not minimum-wage contract employees with minimal background checks. The second problem is a Department that is strangling itself and its accountability with top heavy hierarchy as a result of an outdated management structure: it doesn't manage itself well - as the latest AFSA employee survey demonstrated - so how can it possibly begin to oversee outside contractors adequately. The third problem is the lack of a functioning mechanism to enforce internal integrity. The fourth problem is the Constitutional question of invasion and protection of individual privacy. And the fifth problem is the over-politicization of the bureaucracy.

Outsourcing run amok again

Passport Update: What’s In Store for 2008

By PHK

I’m not good at crystal ball gazing but it seems to me that although the State Department managed to get its act together enough to play passport issuance catch-up over the past six months to the point where the wait-time is reportedly four to six weeks for regular processing and no more than three weeks for expedited processing, whether this will last is something else again. Why it took Congressional pressure and media criticism to force State to clean up the mess last summer is beyond me – but nevertheless, the outside pressure is clearly what made the difference.

State’s new Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy, Moira Hardy, the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Consular Affairs, and everyone else involved should thank their lucky stars this holiday season that Congress put its foot down and told the administration and its recalcitrant Department of Homeland Security to postpone the full implementation of the Western Hemisphere Initiative (WHTI) until June 1, 2009 or later - like it or not. At least someone has some common sense.

When the WHTI is fully implemented everyone who crosses the US borders by land or sea as well as air will be required to have a valid passport or a “smart card.” This could quadruple the number of American passport holders and yet again inundate the passport agencies unless the State Department is prepared to ramp up its passport issuing office capacity substantially yet again between now and then.

Why DHS’ continued urging that this final piece of the law be implemented sooner rather than later is beyond me. Exactly how many of the 9/11 hijackers, for instance, came into the country sans passport and across a land or sea border from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda or the Caribbean? Not one. If I remember correctly they entered on questionable student visas issued by private American flight schools where they learned to take-off but not land. Who exactly monitored that rather bizarre behavior – where was the FBI when we needed them? I’m also not convinced that a piece of paper makes a difference in the overall scheme of things. Then again, it’s not exactly as if we don’t have our home-grown terrorists either – think Oklahoma City bombing. What does seem to make a difference, however, is strong intelligence work and alert border officials. That’s where I’d put my money if I lived in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.

I suppose, however, if a would-be terrorist happened to cross the US border by foot sans passport, it would make DHS look bad. Frankly, I think this passport-by-land requirement is foremost nonsense and essentially a bureaucratic CYA game – but that comes from my cynical nature having worked for the U.S. government for 27 plus years and having experienced more than my share of terrorist alerts, scares and disasters overseas.

Stepping Up To What Plate? Whose Plate? Whose Conditions? What Terms?

By PHK

Diplomat: 1) a representative of a government who conducts relations with another government representing the interests of his (her) own country; 2) a person skilled in dealing with other people.

Soldier: An enlisted man engaged in military service.

Military: 1) Pertaining to soldiers or war. 2) Of, for, fit or done for war.
- Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.

I’m nudging closer and closer to agreeing with Juan Cole’s recommendation that Congress should mandate closure of the US Embassy in Baghdad even if it refuses to end the funding for the US military occupation of Iraq; Or, that the enormous US Embassy there should be reduced to a skeleton staff so that those who are assigned to it are qualified and can be adequately protected; Or that the diplomatic side of the Mission should be moved outside the country to where many Iraqi politicians spend considerable time anyway. Humm . . . Then the US could also forego its yet to be completed Saddam Hussein Palace style Crusader Castle in the Green Zone – a “right-sized mission” simply wouldn’t need to be housed in such a troubled behemoth.

What I completely fail to comprehend, however, is why the numbers of US Foreign Service positions in Iraq continue to rise when the country is - after four years - still a war zone.

Regardless of what Ambassador Ryan Crocker said, or may not have said, to Guardian reporter Ed Pilkerton about Foreign Service Officers being “in the wrong line of business” if they put their personal safety above the interests of the country or that they all “took an oath to serve our nation worldwide when we joined the foreign service, just as the military swore an oath” that’s just not correct.

FSOs swear an oath to defend the US Constitution. They sign a contract agreeing to worldwide availability. At least that’s what I remember doing when I joined the service years ago. This is corroborated elsewhere.

The other side of the agreement

Seems to me, however, that for its side of the grand bargain, the US government also needs to sign and uphold the terms of yet another contract with its Foreign Service employees. This contract should state that the Department will provide the training and security necessary so US diplomats can be diplomats and not also have to masquerade as soldiers - albeit unarmed - in a war zone(see definitions above).

Maybe State should also be required to sign a contract with Ambassadors to the effect that the Department agrees to provide them with personnel who are qualified (and this means language facility, cultural knowledge and on the job experience) to handle the positions to which they are assigned. Crocker's right to be upset about assignments of too many undergrade and underskilled officers - they really can't produce the work needed, no matter how hard they try.

Even in comparison with Vietnam – the way the Foreign Service is being treated vis-à-vis W’s ill-considered Iraq war – has been scandalous for any number of reasons. And, by the by, it’s not just poor treatment of the Foreign Service, I think the National Guard and the US Army are being badly misused as well.

But back to the Foreign Service

As both John Naland, the president of the American Foreign Service Association (the union of which I am a member) and Ambassador Thomas Krajeski, director of career development and assignments at the State Department, stressed on The News Hour Wednesday night, the Foreign Service is desperately short staffed.

In my view far too many of its personnel – experienced or not - have already been threatened, or cajoled into agreeing to year long Iraq assignments over the past four years. Thus far 15 more have reportedly “volunteered” for Iraq for next year, leaving apparently 33 of the 48 still open positions to fill by hook or by crook.

Krajeski too pointed out that staffing Iraq is a State Department priority – 94 percent of its positions are filled as opposed to 79 percent elsewhere in the world. Many of these other posts are not Gardens of Eden either. In fact, very few are.

Maybe staff shortages are part of the reason it took months for the Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs (now being charged by Congress with overcharging) to get the passport issuance mess straightened out: unlike in private business where if a company has the need and the funds, additional employees can be added without an act of God. In the US government, every position needs authorization by the White House and Congress before it can be filled and both – since Colin Powell’s departure – have placed far more demands on the Foreign Service while refusing to increase its numbers. Or maybe this latest late in the week State Department scandal has other roots.

Yet how much more blood can be squeezed out of State’s turnip to support this administration's expensive and staff-intensive Middle East foreign policy that is rotten to the core?

Passports – Continued

by CKR

If you need information on how to get your long-overdue passport, start by clicking here. The previous thread, on which additional tips and phone numbers appear, is here. All of WhirledView’s posts on passport problems can be found here. Comments are closed on previous posts on this subject. Please continue to post your experiences and tips on this thread.

We’re getting hundreds of hits a day from people looking for how to get a passport under severe time constraints. A few have reported times from application of more than fifteen weeks; I think I saw a comment in the past few days from someone who had applied in March. But some lucky people get their passports in time, although the rules seem to change daily and are different from one office to another, one telephone call to the next.

It doesn’t appear that things are improving. A few months back, we thought that the backup might improve after spring vacation, but as summer approached, it got worse. The Senate (WV comments here and here), and yesterday the House demanded answers from the Departments of State and Homeland Security. Congressional offices are suffering from overloads of constituents asking for help in getting their passports. Those offices have many other issues to deal with, and they want the passport problem solved.

I couldn’t find live Web coverage of yesterday’s House hearing. Here is Chairman Tom Lantos’s (D – CA) opening statement. Apparently only Reuters, USA Today and ABC News thought it was worth covering. The media, for the most part, have given the story its fifteen minutes worth of coverage and have moved on to other things. The one exception seems to be when reporters or friends of reporters run afoul of long lines or other inconveniences to their golden lives. (Who is Paul Thornton, anyway? No identification at the bottom of the article.)

Thornton links to a short and confusing video. The commenter in that video suggests the State Department website for a waiver form, not mentioning which countries this applies to, and then points out that some of those countries may require a passport for entry anyway. “Go online and get all the information necessary,” suggests the newsreader in her anodyne wrap-up.

I must congratulate WhirledView’s commenters. I’ve waited between trips for additional pages to be inserted in my passport, and that was in much better times. All three of us know the anxiety associated with visa requirements and the absolute and hard deadline of flight time. Our commenters’ patience and civility testify to Americans’ reasonableness and comity, even when confronted with a government that can’t reconcile requirements with capabilities.

We’ve had a minimum of the blaming that Thornton and others have indulged in. People who have planned well and believed the times that the State Department made public have been caught in a terrible situation.

At the same time, some workers in the passport offices are doing yeoman duty in serving the public. Marlene Littlefield at the New Hampshire office deserves special recognition. And we appreciate Eric’s input from the vantage point of a congressional aide.

It’s not at all clear when things will improve. WhirledView will continue to cover the situation. Good luck to all.

Playing at Public Diplomacy: another mini-Katrina at State

By PHK

In case you're wondering why I've concentrated on the never ending passport delay debacle and written so little about the State Department's continuing attempts at pretending to be USIA, it's because although the passport imbroglio can and will ultimately be resolved, in the meantime if I can play a bit part in helping a few people successfully navigate an under-staffed, abysmally managed, bifurcated overly secretive process to obtain what should be a basic document for all citizens in good legal standing, I will. Passports are, after all a "fee for service" operation. So when WV can provide information to and a message board for people to help them salvage trips abroad, I think it's worth doing. (If you're looking for tips on navigating the process, we have a tips page which might help.)

Besides, the more Americans who travel overseas and gain a better understanding of the world the better it is for all of us.

This administration can't even issue passports - so how can it possibly do public diplomacy?

The public diplomacy debacle, however, is a very different, less publicized yet also significant "mini-Katrina" at the State Department. The problems and issues here, however, are far more complex than untangling the passport maze.

On the one hand, America's lousy image abroad is clearly entwined with Bush and his administration's disastrous foreign policies. Therefore, Shelby Telhami, Thomas P. Barnett and the Economist's Kevin Kallauger and others all have a point when, one way or another, they argue that the US can only expect public diplomacy to do so much as long as the Bush administration remains in power strumming its unpopular foreign policy tunes.

All true, but it does disturb me that Barnett, at least, seems to think that all that needs to happen is to wait 19 more months for W to ride into the sunset taking Cheney and the rest of the neocon cabal and their ridiculous foreign policy ideas with him and all will be right with the world.

From my perspective, that will help - depending upon who replaces our worst president on record - but it's not everything. The rest of the equation is all about the process, operation, goals and priorities of whoever becomes the next public diplomacy czar or czarina and how much support he or she receives from the White House and Congress.

Playing at Public Diplomacy

I'm not sure if Karen Hughes' decision to make educational and other exchanges her top public diplomacy priority isn't in reality a simple act of public relations and/or political desperation. It's not as if I don't think that exchanges aren't important - after all I dedicated years of my life to making them work - but saying that exchanges are the top priority is one thing. Putting the pieces in place to make them a priority is another - and those pieces from what I can see - are in tatters.

As a current report by the Foreign Affairs Council entitled Managing Secretary Rice's State Department: An Independent Assessment, tells us, Cultural Affairs Officers are a dying breed. And it's the CAOs who manage exchange programs overseas. This same assessment on public diplomacy based on an April 2007 GAO study also says that 22 percent of all public diplomacy positions world wide are vacant whereas in 2006 "only" 16 percent were left unfilled. CAOs, of course, are part and parcel of this understaffed public diplomacy contingent.

What Went Wrong? The Passport Mess Hits Senate Foreign Relations

By PHK

(Note: for practical suggestions on navigating the passport application process, please see our tips page.)

Highlights from a Jam-Packed, Emotional Hearing, June 19

In a jam-packed room on June 19, heavy-hitters on the International Operations Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took on State Department representative Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty in an emotional, probing hearing about the continuing crisis over US passport issuance delays. This bipartisan effort chaired by Subcommittee Chair Bill Nelson (D) of Tampa, Florida was broadcast on C-Span 3. For those of us with computers but no televised access to the station, it was possible to watch online. For anyone following or caught up in this saga, the nearly two hours spent was well worth it.

All Senators were careful to praise the passport office employees for their hard work and continued diligence and to acknowledge Harty as a well respected, competent career diplomat. Given this 'mini-Katrina' at the State Department, the Bush administration should count whatever lucky stars it may still have that Harty is a career diplomat with an excellent reputation as a manager and not a political hack who can't manage her way out of a paper bag and that her staff has been performing yeomen's work under very difficult circumstances for the past six months.

"Morale is horrible at State and people are leaving in droves" - Voinovich

Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio), however, did point out that while Colin Powell and Richard Armitage had done a good job of managing the State Department during W's first term, that he had warned Secretary Condoleezza Rice and the new Deputy Secretary John Negroponte that "someone had better pay attention to management at State because morale is horrible and people are leaving in droves."

There were also a number of overriding concerns about government competency or incompetency - not only about how the State Department could have underestimated the increased passport volume so badly and responded to it so sluggishly - but as importantly whether the US government will be capable of dealing with much expanded documentation requirements that will accompany the increased identity checks of immigrants if a new immigration bill is enacted as well as the looming ballooning of passport applications for land and sea travel to Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean and Bermuda beginning 2008. Furthermore, Senators were concerned whether State would be able to handle adequately the increased passport load come October 1, 2007 when the air travel "temporary waiver" for the Western Hemisphere Initiative ends.

(Note: It is clear that Congress is going to mandate postponement of the land/sea requirement until July 2009 despite DHS Czar Michael Chertoff's continuing insistence that it go into effect January 2008.)

Some highlights from the June 19 hearing:

- There are currently 500,000 passport applications that have been in the system for more than 3 months. The State Department is able to issue about 1.5 million passports per month and now has 3 million applications pending completion.

- The initial staffing and facilities predictions for the Western Hemisphere Initiative were based on a 2005 study State outsourced to the 'trusted and well known' Bearing Point, Inc. The study was based on figures drawn from governmental and non-governmental sources. (WV Note: Bearing Point is well known all right. It is one of those infamous centipede contractors with numerous USAID contracts in Iraq as well as a $2 million one to administer the process of administering US policy in Iraq for the State Department).

- Based on BP's study, the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs grossly underestimated how quickly Americans would react to the new passport requirements and failed to take into consideration Americans using passports for domestic identity purposes as opposed to foreign travel. (WV Note: was that latter question asked in the study? Did State think it would be a consideration when working with BP in designing the study? And did State consider factoring in the possibility that some people are renewing their passports a little early to avoid the "stranded at the gate" syndrome reported in the papers so did not indicate specific travel plans on their application although they do plan to travel abroad in the future?) Harty also blamed State's media "campaign" announcing the new requirements as another factor for the increased volume. (WV Note: doesn't seem as if much of the major media picked up on the story even semi-big time until late May when the situation went from bad to worse although some local and regional media outlets had reported on the story earlier.)