Friday, November 28, 2008

Mumbai Online

The bloggers in Mumbai were quick to help. Especially when the landlines were swamped and only text messaging could work. Below were the online sources I've looked at since 11/26. Obviously there are privacy concerns when amcits deal with any of the embassies and consulates; but there is a lesson here especially in the face of a mass casualty and how to leverage more effectively new technology.


Mumbai Help
http://mumbaihelp.blogspot.com/
Surviving Mumbai – Information for emergencies in the Bombay area

The group blog originally started in July 2005 has now about 40 contributors and provides information from blood banks, oxygen suppliers to Mumbai floods and this week, helping the victims of the terror attacks in the city of 13 million people. If you are trying to find friends or family in Mumbai, you’re asked to leave your contact cell phone and your friends/family’s cell phone in Mumbai. The group will try to SMS them and get back to you.

_____________________

Arun Shanbhag
http://arunshanbhag.com/

An American live blogging in Mumbai including twitter updates and Mumbai photos;
Follow updates on Twitter http://twitter.com/arunshanbhag
And photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/shanbhag/

_____________________

Help Mumbai
http://helpmumbai.pinstorm.com/

A help page for the November 2008 Mumbai attacks with live twitter feeds, contact numbers and info on blood donation

_____________________

Mumbai Terror Help Online
http://mumbaiterrorhelpline.blogspot.com/

Blogger Harish Iyer with a virtual helpline to help foreign nationals and others, with up-to-date information. Some info reposted from Mumbai Help

_____________________

Global Voices Online
http://globalvoicesonline.org/-/world/south-asia/india/

_____________________

Mumbai Attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/26_November_2008_Mumbai_attacks

The Wikipedia page for this unfolding event is already up and running, with volunteers presumably updating as events develop.


* * *


The Mayhem in Mumbai:
Making sense of India's terrorist attacks
By Fareed Zakaria (a Mumbai native)
http://www.newsweek.com/id/171006

Video of the Week: The Interpersonal Factor in Successful Leadership


Daniel Goleman is an internationally known psychologist who lectures frequently to professional groups, business audiences, and on college campuses. Working as a science journalist, Goleman reported on the brain and behavioral sciences for The New York Times for many years. His 1995 book, Emotional Intelligence (Bantam Books) was on The New York Times bestseller list for a year-and-a-half; with more than 5,000,000 copies in print worldwide in 30 languages, and has been a best seller in many countries.

His latest book, Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships, was published in September 2006. Social intelligence, the interpersonal part of emotional intelligence, can now be understood in terms of recent findings from neuroscience. Goleman’s book describes the many implications of this new science, including for altruism, parenting, love, health, learning and leadership.

Goleman was a co-founder of the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning at the Yale University Child Studies Center (now at the University of Illinois at Chicago), with a mission to help schools introduce emotional literacy courses. One mark of the Collaborative—and book’s—impact is that thousands of schools around the world have begun to implement such programs.

Goleman’s 1998 book, Working With Emotional Intelligence (Bantam Books), argues that workplace competencies based on emotional intelligence play a great role in star performance, and that both individuals and companies will benefit from cultivating these capabilities. Goleman’s book, Primal Leadership – Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence (co-authored with Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee), explores the crucial role of emotional intelligence in leadership.

Goleman is co-chair of the The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, based in the Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology at Rutgers University, which recommend bests practices for developing emotional intelligence abilities, and to promote rigorous research on the contribution of emotional intelligence to workplace effectiveness. The consortium is a great resource for reading up on EQ including why it’s lonely at the top.

Read more at Daniel Goleman's
website.



You Know We Have No Friends in Hollywood When …


Jack Bauer is back, this time in the fictional African country of Sangala and the embassy character is perceived as either a stuffed shirt or a nerdy government flack. Or if that seems like faint characterization, why not try “the huge weasel forcing Jack to comply with the subpoena?”


The real tough guy special agent (who never seems to eat, bath, sleep, take bathroom breaks) played by Kiefer Sutherland returned this past weekend with Redemption, a two-hour TV film. This was an extended teaser for die hard “24” fans, a lead up to its Season Seven which will kick off in January.


Jack Bauer has been globe-trotting since he was last seen on that cliff. For the past year, he’s been traveling to avoid a government subpoena to appear before Congress and answer questions about, well, torture for one thing. He’s landed in a made up country called, Sangala (filming was done in South Africa) to help an old Special Forces friend, Carl Benton (Robert Carlyle), who runs a school for young African boys.


The American Embassy character, Frank Trammell is played by Gil Bellows (of "Ally McBeal" fame, wearing black rimmed eyeglasses). He shows up between 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm to serve the subpoena while issuing threats to end the school’s funding if Jack doesn’t comply (which, of course, he doesn’t).


An excerpt from the IMDB synopsis:


The 24 clock ticks.


"The following takes place between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. Events occur in real time."



A stuffed shirt carrying a federal subpoena rides in a car.

[…]

Carl Benton comes to talk to Jack with the stuffed shirt, Frank Trammell, the ambassador's chief political officer. Jack knows who he is, he got his messages. Frank tells him the senate subcommittee has questions about the torture and questioning of prisoners in Jack's custody and tries to serve him. Jack says if they want him, they can come get him. Trammell tells Benton that Jack's been ducking the subpoena for more than a year across three continents. Frank tells Benton it'd be a shame for his funding for the boys school to dry up because of Jack.


3:49

A helicopter takes off from the embassy as people try to gain entry. But Trammell's only letting in U.S citizens. A woman with a baby pleads with him, but even when she offers to do anything he wants, he coldly says he can't. Carl Benton calls for him, telling him he needs help. But Trammell can't spare any Marines because they're helping with the evacuation. Trammell says if Benton wants to get the 14 boys out, they have to get to him at the embassy. The last chopper leaves in an hour.


4:52

Chaos reigns at the embassy as desperate citizens try to find sanctuary. Jack pushes his way to the front of the crowd, telling the guard that Trammell is expecting him. The boys wait in the crush of people, Desmond fading fast. Trammell arrives and Jack, through the gate, tells him Benton is dead, but he has their paperwork. Trammell tells him there's a problem: they need the legal guardianship of a U.S. citizen. If Jack surrenders himself, Trammell will waive the requirement. Trammell says whatever happens to them will be on Jack. "I don't have a choice you son of a bitch, open the gate," Jack growls. . Trammell makes Jack go in first, keeping the boys on the other side. Once through, Jack is immediately handcuffed while the guard blocks the boys at the gate. As Jack screams for the boys to be let in, Trammell finally relents. They boys are safe inside as Jack is led away by guards.

[…]

The helicopter takes off at the embassy as the screaming citizens are finally let inside, only to see the last form of transport depart. Willie reassuringly puts his hand on Jack's shoulder.


Trammell’s correct title would be Political Counselor. The Political Counselor in this movie could not spare some Marines? Ugh! The actor is too young for this position, by the way. What's with those thick-rimmed eyeglasses and wide side burns from the 1800's? And where’s the Regional Security Officer? Or the harassed Consular Officer who must looked at those papers before the evacuees get boarded? Of course, you probably have not seen Sandra Bullock in The Net, where she lost her American passport while overseas and asked if this was the visa she needed to go back to the U.S. when handed a piece of paper by some official at some embassy.


Would AFSA please let the Writer's Guild or the Screenwriter’s Federation of America know that we’d be happy to provide briefings to their writers or feedback for their scripts as they relate to the going-ons at embassies and consulates overseas and who does what where? Maybe we can provide some valuable insights to show that not all our guys are stuffed shirts?


We have some dashing ones like in P & Me - true this one is fiction, but we have some real ones - good enough for a hot diplomatic calendar. Oh my lordy! A hot diplomat? (DSS may have anaphylactic shock!). That’s a script that still needs to be written. Truth to tell, I’d settle for a character who is a smart policy wonk, honorable, principled and who will kick ass if he (or she) needs to. Is that too much to ask?




Thursday, November 27, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving Day!


Thank you for keeping us company at Diplopundit this past many months. We appreciate your comments, feedback, tips, rants - please keep them coming!

May you enjoy your holiday with loved ones and friends. For those readers who do not celebrate this holiday, our many thanks goes out to you, too. May you have a good day in your corner of the world!

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Separating Fact From Myth II: For the Record

This just came from AFSAnet (November 25) but not online yet. Will add the link to the full text once the update is live. (Update 11/27: The entire message is now posted online here):

FOR THE RECORD

11. The current State Department Spokesman and Under Secretary for Management gave a press briefing < http://www.state.gov/m/rls/112010.htm> on November 18 to dispel "tired old quotes" alleging that the Bush Administration in recent years did not fight for adequate resources for diplomacy and development assistance. While the briefers displayed charts showing upward trends in total funding for all State Department operations, they did not give the reporters any numbers on past staffing trends. Excluding positions funded from special sources for consular and security staffing, AFSA understands that the numbers of new Foreign Service positions at State requested by the Bush Administration and funded by Congress in recent years are:

FY-06: 221 requested, zero funded (140 created out of reprogrammed funds)
FY-07: 102 requested, zero funded
FY-08: 262 requested, eight funded (see note below)
FY-09: 1,095 requested, unknown number funded (see note below)

[Note: Congress, at AFSA's urging and with this Administration's support, did include some FY-08 and FY-09 "bridge" funding for additional positions in the Iraq/Afghanistan War supplemental that was passed last summer. To our knowledge, State has not said how many new Foreign Service positions that funding permitted.]

* * *

I guess this is the last word on that fact vs. myth thingy that the Spokesman was trying to correct. Out of the total positions requested in the last four fiscal years - a total of 1,680 positions, only 148 positions were actually funded or created (140 of that from reprogrammed funds).

In the Spokesman 's words: "And let me just say, there’s nobody who’s fought harder for resources for this building, to make sure that our people can do the job that they’ve been tasked by her and the President to do. And she’s been successful at it."

Right! And an 8.8% success rate is really worth bragging about. Now I understand why myth building is a necessary art. You get A+ for simply trying! And why in heaven's name would anyone even want to talk about actual results?


Related Post:
Separating Fact From Myth: It's Harder Than You Think


Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Insider Quote: Technological Backwater

Yet here we are in 2008, and we’re still not allowed to use a Google search bar in the Internet Explorer browser on OpenNet. Not to mention the 20 to 30 plug-ins many professionals would like to use to enhance their Firefox browsing experience. We are also routinely blocked from viewing video newscasts, because the OpenNet bandwidth just won’t support it.

Scott Rauland
Public Affairs Officer, Kabul, Afghanistan
Foreign Service Journal, September 2008


Monday, November 24, 2008

Our Man in Tripoli, 36 Years Later



Career diplomat Gene Cretz, nominated by President Bush in 2007 to be Ambassador to Libya was finally confirmed on November 20, 2008.

The Senate confirmation reportedly came late Thursday after Senate Democrat, Frank Lautenberg, (D-NJ) lifted his hold on the nomination. The senator who had led the effort to block the nomination cleared the way for confirmation by noting that Libya last month paid $1.5 billion to relatives of victims of acts of terrorism that Libya took responsibility for.


At the DPB on November 21, the Department’s Spokesman indicates he was not sure when Ambassador Cretz will take up his post in Tripoli but says, “We’re anxious to get him out there.” One reporter points out that this has the potential to be probably the shortest lived ambassadorship ever, speculating that presumably, Ambassador Cretz is not going to go out until after Thanksgiving, and then there is Christmas coming up, and then he has to resign. Mr. McCormack clarifies: “Well, what’s happens – (laughter) – is ambassadors – all -- as we’ve gone through before, all political appointees, including ambassadors, offer their resignation. It is up to the next administration to decide upon which of those, especially the ambassadorships, which of those ambassadors’ resignations they decide to accept and which ones they ask to – which ambassadors they ask to stay on.”


A reporter quoted in the DPB transcript says that Mr. Cretz
“could be an ambassador without ever setting foot in the country, it looks like, at this point.”


Here’s the brief stormy story of our Tripoli Mission: The Legation in Tripoli was established Dec 24, 1952, with Andrew G. Lynch as Chargé d'Affaires ad interim. Our first U.S. Ambassador was Foreign Service officer, Henry S. Willard who presented his credentials on Mar 6, 1952 and left post on Jun 24, 1954. In September 25 of that year, the Legation in Libya was raised to Embassy status.


According to the Department’s Office of the Historian: The following officers served as Chargé d'Affaires ad interim from Nov 1972–Feb 1980:

Harold G. Josif (Nov 1972–Dec 1973)

Robert A. Stein (Dec 1973–Dec 1974)

Robert Carle (Jan 1975–Aug 1978)

William L. Eagleton, Jr. (Aug 1978–Feb 1980)


Mr. Eagleton was recalled to the United States on Feb 8, 1980, and Embassy Tripoli was closed on May 2, 1980. Twenty four years later, on Feb 8, 2004, the United States established an Interests Section in Tripoli. It became the U.S. Liason Office on Jun 28, with Greg Berry as the Principal Officer.

The United States resumed diplomatic relations with Libya on May 31, 2006, and the Interests Section in Tripoli became an Embassy. Gregory L. Berry became Charge d'Affaires ad interim, serving until Oct 10, 2006. Charles O. Cecil succeeded him on Nov 15, 2006. The current Charge’ d’Affaires, Chris Stevens arrived in Tripoli in June 2007 as Deputy Chief of Mission and assumed his current position in January 2008.


Ambassador Cretz of New York is a Career Member of the Foreign Service. He was Deputy Chief of Mission at the United States Embassy in Tel Aviv. Prior to that, he served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the United States Embassy in Damascus. Earlier in his career, he served as Minister Counselor of Economic and Political Affairs at the United States Embassy in Cairo. Mr. Cretz received his bachelor's degree from the University of Rochester and his master's degree from State University College at Buffalo. Mr. Cretz has 27 years of experience in the Foreign Service. Click here (PDF) to read his testimony at the Foreign Relations Committee.


If he gets to Tripoli to present his credential before January 20, Ambassador Cretz will be our first ambassador to Libya in 36 years. Mr. Cretz is a career diplomat and since his ambassadorship is not tied to the belly button of a political patron, he’ll probably be asked to stay on. But even if his resignation is accepted by the new administration, his will not be the shortest lived ambassadorship. That unfortunate, sadly forgotten record still belongs to Francis E. Meloy, Jr. who was assassinated in Beirut, Lebanon, on June 16, 1976 while on his way to present his credentials to the Lebanese president.



Saturday, November 22, 2008

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 7th Floor. Furthermore, you need to lead this agency into the 21st 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.



Friday, November 21, 2008

Video of the Week: Forgetfulness



View poetry in an entirely new and innovative way. Billy Collins, former US Poet Laureate and one of America's best-selling poets, reads his poem "Forgetfulness" with animation by Julian Grey of Headgear.

Noted for their intelligent humor, accessibility and observations on daily life, Collins' popular poems come alive further in a series of animated poems produced by JWT-NY.


- - - -

The Poem:

The name of the author is the first to go followed obediently by the title, the plot, the heartbreaking conclusion, the entire novel which suddenly becomes one you have never read, never even heard of, as if, one by one, the memories you used to harbor decided to retire to the southern hemisphere of the brain, to a little fishing village where there are no phones. Long ago you kissed the names of the nine Muses goodbye and watched the quadratic equation pack its bag, and even now as you memorize the order of the planets, something else is slipping away, a state flower perhaps, the address of an uncle, the capital of Paraguay. Whatever it is you are struggling to remember, it is not poised on the tip of your tongue, not even lurking in some obscure corner of your spleen. It has floated away down a dark mythological river whose name begins with an L as far as you can recall, well on your own way to oblivion where you will join those who have even forgotten how to swim and how to ride a bicycle. No wonder you rise in the middle of the night to look up the date of a famous battle in a book on war. No wonder the moon in the window seems to have drifted out of a love poem that you used to know by heart.




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."



Thursday, November 20, 2008

Quickie: The Overseas Pay Gap Once More

The Foreign Service Overseas Pay Gap is the topic of Joe Davidson’s column yesterday (Federal Diary, Nov. 19).

AFSA’s president John Naland is quoted in the report. Davidson writes:

“He does quarrel, however, with Coburn's (R-Oklahoma) notion that foreign service officers are seeking huge raises on top of other big benefits. It's true that diplomats get a housing allowance and, in some cases, dangerous duty or hardship duty pay. But that doesn't negate the need to close the gap, especially for lower-level diplomats. […] Senior foreign service officers get those same benefits, but their pay is not reduced by the locality amount when they go abroad. That cut applies to only the junior and mid-level diplomats."
FSO Michael Keller and his wife, Sonja are also highlighted in the report:
And foreign service officers don't have the option of staying in D.C. They spend most of their careers outside the country.
The issue is compounded when a diplomat takes his family abroad because the family often loses the spouse's income, too. Sonja Keller had a growing career as a journalist and public relations officer when Michael was sent to the Central African Republic.
"The financial impact was significant," she said.
Her income was greater than his, but the family had to give that up.
"Once I left my job, my career basically stopped," she said.
She worked in embassies where her husband was posted, but it was "generally nominal stuff," she said.


I know what she means; and that's a pretty familiar spouse story. For FS spouses, the "good" jobs are paid normally about $12-13/hour; about how much you get paid as a nanny in London. I knew somebody who was paid $20/hour once and her boss thought that was way too much money. At one post, another FS spouse, the commissary manager who took care of our tiny store had an advanced degree in dance therapy. I'm quite sure she was not an exception.
But there really are "good jobs" out there, as long as you don't complain that you, too, have brains. I knew somebody who left a 100K job in DC and eventually took a 36K job in some blissful country - with free housing, of course (some expensive free housing, huh?).



There are way too many somebodies with the same story ... And onebody says its greedy for folks to asked for the closure of this pay gap? Go tickle yourself silly!





Update: Read here for Digger's (Life After Jerusalem) take on how much harder it is for Members of Household on the career/employment front.



Related Post:

The Overseas Pay Gap – Not Quite on Life-Support But …







Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Separating Fact from Myth: It’s Harder Than You Think

On November 18, Mr. McCormack, the Department’s Spokesman asked the Under Secretary for Management to give a Briefing on State Department Funding Levels. I must say, the timing sounds strange - why give this briefing now, unless a flurry of these think tank reports are starting to grate. But in any case - the purpose of the briefing was in Mr. McCormack’s words to help you “separate fact from myth.”


Below is an except that makes for quite an interesting reading:


MR. MCCORMACK:
[…] The motivation here is, you know, I see a lot of news stories talking about the Secretary’s efforts regarding resources for this building. And let me just say, there’s nobody who’s fought harder for resources for this building, to make sure that our people can do the job that they’ve been tasked by her and the President to do. And she’s been successful at it. So what I – and, however, I’ve seen news stories occasionally that pop up that take a contrary view, and we see some of those same tired old quotes and mems out there. And I thought what we would do is have Pat down here to help you separate fact from myth.


UNDER SECRETARY KENNEDY:
(Start Long Excerpt) [...] If you look at – you know, and this is just the last three years, the ’07 and ’08, and then the FY ’09 budget that is now pending up on the Hill. And this is just for State Department operations, the operating accounts. I’m not talking about the foreign assistance accounts. I’m not talking about contributions to international organizations. I’m just talking about the funds that I use on behalf of the Secretary and deploy worldwide to conduct our missions.

And so you can see there – that there’s an upward trend. And that says to me that what we’re – what we’ve got here – and I’m going to use the ’09 budget, I think, as the example to talk to because that’s the one that’s pending on the Hill now, as an example of how the Secretary has pushed forward on getting us budgets, both, as you can see, in ’07 and ’08 that are growing, but also worked very closely with OMB and the White House personally to build a budget to get to the Congress for FY ’09 that reflects our needs.

We started this process out over a year ago, shortly after I came back to the Department. Lots of meetings with the Secretary going over options, going over numbers, arriving at conclusions, getting them to OMB, deploying the Secretary at OMB and at the White House to end up with the package that is now pending on the Hill.

And if you look at some of the quotations or concerns that people have raised about, for example, enhancing training capacity, in the ’09 budget that the Secretary has out – has on the Hill right now, there are over 450 new positions simply for training, 300 of them for language training, because we can see very easily, as she does in her travels, or from General Accountability Office reports, need for more people with Chinese, Japanese, Urdu, Pushtu, Arabic, et cetera. So a big chunk out there – 300 of the 450 – for language training.

Another 75 for enhanced – what we call professional training, newissues that’ll come along, whether it be, you know, climate change or new economic trends or whatever. So big chunk there. And the last 75 of the 450 are for – to send additional State Department personnel to the senior military schools: Carlisle, Montgomery, Leavenworth, Newport, ICAF, and NDU down at Fort McNair.

I think this goes to another point that is often talked about is, do we have enough personnel who are trained to work collegially to understand, you know, the civilian-military relationship, to understand how to work in essentially the new world, which is much more of an interagency world than it was before. And so we already have numbers of students going there, but the request has – we’ve put an additional 75. That means every year we could run 75 more State Department personnel through the military training institutions, which are absolutely fantastic in what they teach. But also the leavening that takes place that the – that our students who go there bring back after working for a year with the military students and civilians from the intelligence community, from the law enforcement community, from other civilian agencies that are also in attendance at all the military schools.

Following up on that for a second, one of the criticisms of – is that we’re not preparing ourselves for this new, you know, multiagency world, so to speak. The Secretary’s budget request also includes 50 positions to expand our cadre of what are called POLADS, political advisors, State Department personnel who are assigned to major and subordinate military commands. We are now – we now have people at all the major combatant commands and at the major domestic commands, but we need to bolster that capacity and, in fact, put two in some locations and also expand out to more subordinate commands. And the 50 additional positions in this budget request would do exactly that.

There’s also been discussion about what is our outreach: are we doing enough in the public affairs and public diplomacy world. There are 39 positions in the budget to expand public diplomacy and educational and cultural exchanges, again, focusing on what the Secretary sees is major needs in the time ahead.

Another issue that’s often addressed in a number of the reports are: Are we taking the right steps in stabilization; are we moving ahead in the right direction on being able to deploy personnel to countries coming out of turmoil or still in turmoil. And the budget, again, on the Hill right now has 350 positions to provide the permanent cadre for the Civilian Stabilization Initiative as well as the funding for deployment that goes with that. You know, I think you’ve all seen some of the material that John Herbst has put out – is putting together. This puts this on a permanent footing, also gives us the funding for the initial tranche of the 2,000 federal employees who would constitute the Ready Reserve.

So you put all of this together, this package of position requests is almost 1,100 – 1,095 new positions the Secretary has put into the budget and has gotten OMB and the White House to buy off on, and it’s now pending on the Hill for the factors that I have outlined. There – additionally, because we also are concerned about various other things, there are another 200 positions for our security services, because obviously, security remains all of our concern, and a particular one of the Secretary, and that there are an additional 448 positions as part of our Consular and Diplomatic Security services contribution to the overall border security initiative. In sum total, there are over 1,500 positions pending Hill appropriations.

And so with that – those kind of numbers, I think that we’re addressing the issues that we’ve been talking about: enhanced training capacity, interagency capability – interagency staffing capabilities, public diplomacy increase, civilian stabilization, obviously continuing the security of our personnel overseas and enabling them to get out and do the missions that they need to do, and lastly, border security. That’s the position side.

The number side, you see the curve going up. The request for 2009 is $1.5 billion over the 2008 request, which is about a 22 percent – 21.8 percent increase over the previous year’s. That money goes with the positions. Obviously, it funds the positions, but more importantly than just salaries, it gives us the resources that we need to deploy the people, to give them the communications tools, the housing, the office space, whatever they need in order to do their jobs, there’s not only the money to hire them, but then there’s the money to train and deploy them as well.

In sum, I think we’re looking at an overall growth pattern here. In FY2001, the State Department position request for Americans was about 15,000. With the request that’s pending on the Hill now, that pushes the State Department’s – so it would push the State Department’s overall staffing to almost 21,000 – 20,960. So the positions have been steadily increasing over time.

[…] So, in sum, I think that this reflects the appreciation that this institution and the Secretary has to find the additional resources that are needed. It reflects our identifying and, in fact, paralleling a lot of the reports that you’ve seen in the newspapers. I mean, just mentioning the Stimson study, it talks about increasing core staffing, it talks about training, it talks about increasing public diplomacy, and it talks about stabilization, and it talks about working with the military. And these are all factors that you can see we are asking for positions for in the 2009 budget. And the 2009 budget is still pending on the Hill. We think that it’s totally appropriate that the State Department is part of the national security apparatus of the United States, and what we need to do is get the 2009 budget passed so we can get on with the task at hand. (End of Excerpt)


Yay! It all sounds like really great fun. I wonder why he's only talking about FY09? We're talking about success and track record here, aren't we? Let’s see if we can cut through the bull -


President's FY 2006 Budget Request
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Opening Remarks │ March 9, 2005

New Positions Requested: 221
Results: Congress did not even fund the Administration's inadequate FY05 to FY08 position requests which sought to add a total of 760 additional State positions.
(Source: AFSA, July 16, 2008)

(Note: Ms. Rice assumed office in January 2005, so the leg work for the 06 budget request would have been done under the previous SoS; In FY 2005, 183 new positions were requested, also under the previous SoS)


President's FY 2007 Budget Request
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Opening Remarks │ March 9, 2006
New Positions Requested: 100
Results: Congress did not even fund the Administration's inadequate FY05 to FY08 position requests which sought to add a total of 760 additional State positions
(Source: AFSA, July 16, 2008)


President’s FY 2008 Budget Request
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Senate Testimony │ February 2007

New Positions Requested: 254
Results: Congress did not even fund the Administration's inadequate FY05 to FY08 position requests which sought to add a total of 760 additional State positions
(Source: AFSA, July 16, 2008)


President’s FY 2009 Budget Request
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Opening Remarks │ February 13, 2008
New Positions Requested: 1,100 in the Foreign Service; 300 in USAID
Results: Prior to the end of the fiscal year on October 1st, Congress passed a continuing resolution (CR), a stopgap spending legislation that will run through March 6, 2009. Will the next Congress pass this appropriation? Stay tune.


On the FY 2009 request, AFSA in a testimony to Congress has this to say: "As previously reported, the President's now-pending FY09 budget request seeks to add 1,076 new positions at State and 300 at USAID (almost all for Foreign Service personnel). AFSA would have preferred to have seen this funding request made in Secretary's Rice's first -- not last -- year in office, but it undeniably represents a commendable push to better staff and fund the diplomatic platform upon which foreign policy and development assistance are implemented. More here on AFSA’s take on the staffing issue."


If new positions have actually been funded under any of the first three budget requests (FY06-FY08), please do tell. In June 2008, AFSA talked about the FY-08 Iraq Supplemental appropriation that it said “appears poised to pass Congress in the near future which contains $25 million to expand Foreign Service staffing” (on the fiscal year that just ended). It estimated that funding as enough for an additional 120 Foreign Service members. However, I cannot find final word on how many positions were exactly created. There were also 100 new Diplomatic Security positions, which I presumed also came under the Iraq Supplemental, but I'm not sure if these new positions were actually one and the same or altogether different. Grrrr.... yaba yaba do! If there is somebody in the know out there, please enlighten me because this is giving me a bad headache.


In any case, the formal budget request numbers (supplemental not included) tell quite a good story. New positions requested in the last four fiscal years: 221, 100, 254, and 1076.


How many of these requested positions have actually been successfully funded and created? It seems to me that a quick answer to the above question would actually separate fact from myth.



Heating Up? Israel v. Iran

Israel is ready and more than able.

"We are ready to do whatever is demanded of us" in order to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, IAF commander Maj. -Gen. Ido Nehushtan told German magazine Der Spiegel in an interview published Tuesday.

"Modern technology is one thing, but the biggest advantage we have is our soldiers and officers. Israel is a small country. We neither have a big population nor natural resources. Our biggest asset is our human resources. And it is the Air Force that makes best use of it," he said.

The State Department and the Leadership Agenda

The Project on National Security Reform (PNSR) is a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization working to modernize and improve the U.S. national security system to better protect the American people against 21st century dangers. Funded and supported by Congress, foundations and corporations, PNSR is carrying out one of the most comprehensive studies of the U.S. national security system in American history. The project is located within the Center for the Study of the Presidency.

Led by a 24-member Guiding Coalition that includes former senior federal officials with extensive national security experience, PNSR in July 2008 issued its Preliminary Findings report, which identifies numerous problems plaguing the current national security system. Initiated in September 2006, with 13 working groups PNSR prepared 100 case studies of interagency operations since 1947, analyzed 20 major constitutional and legal issues, and rigorously studied the system’s organizational problems, their causes, and their consequences. More than 300 national security experts from think tanks, universities, federal agencies, law firms and corporations are contributing to the PNSR study. the final report will come out in early December.

In its Preliminary Findings (PDF), PNSR has identified fundamental insights that must inform any process of national security reform:

  1. National security reform must be conducted with a deep appreciation for the context within which national security interests are pursued.

  2. Success cannot come from leadership or organization alone. Both are needed and they must be fused into a dynamic, synergistic relationship.

  3. The system must produce a “collaborative government” approach that can draw on capabilities in any part of the government when necessary.

  4. Resources, both human and financial, must match goals and objectives.

  5. The system must focus on shaping requirements for meeting a wide range of present and future challenges, not just on those generated by current campaigns.

  6. Where the system cannot find adequate capacity on which to draw, it must build these capacities.

  7. The national security system must have structures and processes that enable it to deal more effectively with other nations and multilateral organizations.


A couple of its findings were focused on human capital and structure, especially on leadership development and the country team interagency cooperation (will address the latter in a separate post), both with crucial relevance for the State Department.

* * *

FINDING: Leadership and leadership development are critical to improving management and effectively executing agency and interdepartmental goals. The current national security system is hindered by insufficient focus on leadership development and the lack of an organizational culture that promotes entrepreneurial and strategic thinking.


In the military, the need to make decisions and inspire action at all levels of command is institutionally recognized. As a result, leadership is identified as an essential capability. It must be demonstrated in order to achieve promotion, and it is cultivated through education, training, and personnel assignments.


In strong contrast, PNSR has found that civilian agencies and their political and career leaders have not considered leadership a core competency for national security professionals. Rather, civilian agencies involved in national security have traditionally valued specialization and expertise over leadership and management skills, with career advancement usually based on policy or program expertise, individual performance, and tenure (italics mine).


As a consequence, few agencies have criteria to define the essence of good leadership, provide incentives for employees to develop their leadership capabilities, or provide the resources to improve and hone leadership skills. The absence of leadership practice at lower levels also promotes “safe management” and risk-averse decision making(italics mine). At a time when effective leadership is vital at all levels of the national security system, short-changing leadership development assures that the system will continue to falter.


This lack of attention to leadership is even truer at the interagency level than it is at the departmental or agency level. In most civilian agencies, for example, financial and career incentives are attached exclusively to individual performance rather than to team effectiveness.


These problems are exacerbated by today’s political system. Over the last 30 years, presidents have significantly increased the number of political appointees who have penetrated deeper into the system, reducing the number of leadership positions available to career professionals. This trend, which in part reflects the increased partisanship in U.S. politics that spills over into the national security arena, has a number of deleterious impacts:

  • It reinforces the lack of emphasis on leadership development as career professionals are less expected to become policy leaders at higher levels.

  • It complicates retention and fosters higher attrition levels as individuals who aspire to leadership roles see fewer prospects of achieving their goals. Given that political appointees’ time in office tends to be short, it exacerbates the loss of institutional memory.

  • Political appointees tend to focus more on “leaving their mark” than leading or managing.

  • Seeing themselves as implementers of a particular political agenda, many political appointees have little incentive to undertake diverse, critical, or innovative thinking.


* * *

Except for the Leadership & Management School at the Foreign Service Institute, the only bureau that I am aware of that pushes the leadership challenge within State, with top executive support is the Consular Bureau. The good thing about it is it gets folks thinking about leadership behavior in the context of their daily work lives. The downside of course is, 1) it is only one bureau among the octopus-like organization with so many arms and 2) the leadership culture cannot thrive unless there is a whole system approach to this change.


The State Department is an old, traditional organization, and it is set on its ways in more ways than one, kind of really like grandpa who likes his coffee at exactly 9 o’clock in the morning among other things. Although it is true that almost all entry level officers do serve in one or two consular assignments and are therefore, captive audience for the Consular Bureau’s leadership initiative, the non-consular coned officers move into different career tracks (such as political, public diplomacy, economic and management) after their first two tours. And while leadership development is embedded into the training of our soldiers, for instance – it is not the same for our diplomatic personnel. Sure you get to do mandatory one week basic, intermediate and advanced leadership type course at the FS 03, 02 and 01 rank, but is that really enough? You won't get to the FS03 rank until maybe your 3rd or 4th tour. By then you will have already served between 4-6 years or even longer.


I supposed that compared to a non-existent leadership initiative prior to Secretary Powell’s tenure at State, the mandatory leadership training is a grand step forward. But - the last time I look, the average time in service between promotions is 7 years (I have not seen the latest promotion stats). And you get to take this course once within that time frame? And that is supposed to change our officers’ worldview about the whole culture of leadership? What about those who are plowing head on with their own leadership development at their own time and dime, does State even give brownie points for those efforts?


I have seen mid-level officers at the roll out of the consular leadership initiative. I remember one in particular who was in a top position and had also been to the mandatory leadership training; and you know what? Neither of this changed this person’s behavior. Sure this person is not a representative for all the good people we have out there. But this one had over a dozen entry level people working in his/her shop. Just as good leadership influences others to mimic those skills, bad leadership also influences subordinates in two glaring ways – 1) to swear never ever to be like the boss when you grow up, and 2) imitation is the best flattery kind of thing. When the boss is a short-termer (as good as the next EER or promotion only), some subordinate officers especially those green between the ears tend to be short-termer as well.


I would argue that the mandatory basic leadership training should start at A100 and at entry levels for all specialist groups and be consistently re-enforced in practice and at every level in the training continuum. Why? Because you want to “brainwash” (in a good way) the new intake at first blush with good leadership principles and instill a positive culture that they can then help build up at State. (I’m sure you want to know from which planet I'm coming from...). This would be something for another post, but I should just add that top leadership must also learn to walk the talk. All that talk about leadership becomes nothing but crappy talk unless the boss is demonstrating the essential leadership behavior that is being taught in the classrooms.


Somebody is bound to tell me that it cost money to train all these people who we’re not even sure will get tenured. Frankly, I've never heard of a single case of non-tenure. No doubt it happens but what is the rate for that? I will grant that money matters must have something to do with this program calculation. But I think it really has more to do with organizational priority.


Ambassador Prudence Bushnell
who was once dean of FSI’s Leadership and Management School says that we have made progress in the leadership front but the Foreign Service is:

“[...] still not an organization that values leadership across the board. A boss may demonstrate leadership, or not. He or she may understand what it is, or not. Either way, it’s fine. Clearly, too many people still don’t get it: leadership is not some touchy-feely, people-related thing that’s nice to do if you have time after tending to process and paper. Nor does it mean serving the next person up the ladder exclusively, as if only people at the top can get something accomplished. And it’s not something you delegate to the head of your management team.”


A boss may demonstrate leadership, or not. He or she may understand what it is, or not. Either way, it’s fine.
Yes, I do think that is a pretty accurate statement. The bottom line - the boss still gets that promotion, a DCMship or even an ambassadorship even if he/she thinks of leadership as a touchy feely cultural practice from Venus or Mars divorced from the real hard work on Earth. Can you contemplate a Lt. Colonel (equivalent to an FSO2) doing a stretch assignment without stellar leadership skills? Or for that matter, a Brigadier General (equivalent to Counselor in the Senior Foreign Service) without solid leadership experience?


Meanwhile we put some of our best ambassadors who really get it on leadership - out to pasture in some university here, oh there. I heard that Ambassador Eaton, most recently of Panama is currently a "diplomat in residence" in Texas. Another ambassador, one of our tiny crew of Arabic language speakers, could not get an onward ambassadorship because somebody reportedly did not like him, so he'll retire. Welcome to The Office - the elite version.


Related Items:

Leadership at State: A Work in Progress (PDF)
Ambassador Prudence Bushnell
Foreign Service Journal – November 2005


Promoting Leadership Development:
Consular Leadership Tenets
(PDF)
(State Magazine - May 2007 p.2)


Foreign Affairs Manual
(PDF)
13 FAM 300

Project for National Security Reform
PNSR Preliminary Findings (PDF)
July 2008 - 111 pages


Monday, November 17, 2008

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 7th 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 selectthe Deputy Secretary. This position should go to someone you could consider your alter-egosomeone 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.


Sunday, November 16, 2008

Why You Need To Be Gracious – Always

The Agency Review Teams for the Obama-Biden Transition will complete a thorough review of key departments, agencies and commissions of the United States government, as well as the White House, to provide the President-elect, Vice President-elect, and key advisors with information needed to make strategic policy, budgetary, and personnel decisions prior to the inauguration. The Teams will ensure that senior appointees have the information necessary to complete the confirmation process, lead their departments, and begin implementing signature policy initiatives immediately after they are sworn in.

The Agency Review Team leads will spearhead the review efforts in their respective departments. For the State Department, Tom Donilon and Wendy Sherman are the designated team leads. A quick biographic notes on the two from the Obama Transition:


Tom Donilon
is a partner at the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers and serves on the firm's global governing committee. Tom served as Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs and Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department of State during the Clinton Administration. Since leaving the Department he has remained deeply involved in the national security arena. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Aspen Strategy Group, the National Security Advisory Group to the Congressional Leadership, the Brookings Institution Board of Trustees, the Miller Center of Public Affairs Governing Council, and the Trilateral Commission.


I probably should note that when Warren Christopher came to State, he brought with him a trusted group of associates to the Seventh Floor including his Chief of Staff and Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tom Donilon. Donilon oversaw the Secretary's schedule, paper-flow, speeches and media contacts. Donilon who had been a senior official on Clinton's 1992 campaign also helped Christopher with the transition.


Wendy R. Sherman
is a Principal of The Albright Group LLC and of Albright Capital Management LLC. Ambassador Sherman served as Counselor and chief troubleshooter for the State Department, as well as Special Advisor to President Clinton and Policy Coordinator on North Korea. Sherman is a recognized expert on national security issues and serves as a frequent analyst in major news outlets. She was recently appointed by Congressional Leadership to serve on the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.


The U.S. – China Economic and Security Review Commission
has this to add: From 1993 to 1996, Ms. Sherman served Secretary of State Warren Christopher as Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, where she directed the legislative efforts of the State Department with the U.S. Congress. Among other issues, she led the successful efforts to obtain the funding for Russia and the newly-independent states after the break-up of the Soviet Union and support for the Dayton accords.


From July 1997 through January 2001, she was the Counselor of the Department of State, with rank of Ambassador, appointed by President Clinton and confirmed by the United States Senate. Ms. Sherman served then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as a special advisor and consultant on major issues of foreign policy, provided guidance to the Department and undertook special assignments. At the same time, she was the Special Advisor to the President and Secretary of State and North Korea Policy Coordinator.

* * *

I’ve never worked for either of these guys but you will note that both were in the government primarily in the 90’s during the Clinton Era. There’s a lesson here for all working bees. You need to be gracious always – really. No need to call the band for surviving Ambassador X in country Y. No need for grand parties at final take off for that absolute kiss ass director. Yes, even if you may despise your politically appointed boss; yes, even if the one you have is not only a screamer but also, you know, hollow - you still need to be gracious.

Brian Aggeler: State Magazine, September 2008


It is irrelevant whether you are leaving or they are leaving. For one thing, it's only work. For another - it's a small world out there; the State Department believe it or not - is an even smaller world. We're all practically kissing cousins brushing shoulders in the famous corridors of Foggy Bottom and in all chancery corridors overseas. I know - ain't that weird!? I know somebody who knows you - our own three degrees of "corridor reputation." But I digress ....

In any case, like The Terminator says, “I’ll be back.” That could mean some familiar old faces from the Bush II Era shepherding the transition process in 2012 or 2016 at Foggy Bottom. Or some may actually return to stay for oh, four- eight years – it depends. The thing is, you just never know who will turn up every four years or so. Which I think is actually quite charming, kind of like opening gifts in a holiday that occurs every four years. You know you're going to get a gift, you just don't quite know what to expect.


Uhm, don’t worry about me; I’m always gracious except when I’m not.