Why can’t we have T-Hackers stay ahead of potential breaches?

Clark Kent Ervin, the former inspector general of the State Department (2001-2003) and of the Department of Homeland Security (2003 to 2004) who is currently the director of the Aspen Institute’s homeland security program recently wrote an op-ed for NYT excerpted below:





"Perhaps the biggest lesson for airline security from the recent incident is that we must overcome our tendency to be reactive. We always seem to be at least one step behind the terrorists. They find one security gap — carrying explosives onto a plane in their shoes, for instance — and we close that one, and then wait for them to exploit another. Why not identify all the vulnerabilities and then address each one before terrorists strike again?



Since the authorities have to succeed 100 percent of the time, and terrorists only once, the odds are overwhelmingly against the authorities. But they’ll be more likely to defy fate if they go beyond reflexive defense and play offense for a change."

It’s hard to argue with his point, for we clearly are reactive.  It’s as if our enemies have found our magic buttons, and they know exactly which button would get the desired reaction.

On December 2001, shoe-bomber Richard Reid made an unsuccessful attempt to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami with PETN as explosive.   According to Wikipedia, pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) is one of the most powerful high explosives known, with a relative effectiveness factor (R.E. factor) of 1.66. It is also used as a medical drug to treat heart conditions.

Soon after that, we all had to take off our shoes, get wand screenings and pat downs at security points in our airports and at airports overseas. Shoes have become weaponized; they might as well join those box cutters and a whole lot of items now enshrined in the list of prohibited items when we fly.  Some funnies and some not so funny stories here. 

In 2006, the transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot to detonate liquid explosives carried on board at least 10 airliners travelling from the United Kingdom was discovered which resulted in chaos on how much liquids one can carry onto commercial aircrafts.



Imagine if you were breastfeeding or pumping milk the day those restrictions took effect? TSA says air travelers may now carry liquids, gels and aerosols in their carry-on bag when going through security checkpoints but “all liquids, gels and aerosols must be in 3.4 ounce (100ml) or smaller containers. Larger containers that are half-full or toothpaste tubes rolled up are not allowed. Each container must be 3.4 ounces (100ml) or smaller.” Somewhere, some not so nice folks are laughing.   

What are they going to think of next?

According to this report from Stratfor, when suicide-bomber Abdullah Hassan al Asiri attempted to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Deputy Minister of Interior Prince Muhammad bin Nayef  this past August, al Asiri who was described as a human Trojan horse activated a small improvised explosive device (IED) he was carrying inside his anal cavity. (Eww!)  PETN was reportedly the explosives used. The minister survived, the bomber did not.

Then on 25 December 2009, PETN was also found in the possession of Underpants Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who attempted to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 while approaching Detroit from Amsterdam. Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to detonate PETN sewn into his underwear, by adding liquid from a syringe.

In the aftermath of these recent failed attempts, especially the latter, it looks like we are now faced with the distinct possibility of 1) a full body security scan which uses high frequency radio waves to produce an image of the human body to determine if passengers are smuggling items (such as drugs, cash or diamonds) in or underneath their clothing or 2) a full body scan which uses X-rays that pass through the body to trace swallowed items. Here is a good article on what Spiegel Online calls “strip search scanners.”

What are they going to think of next?  What if they succeed in putting explosives in ..... um, never mind. 

Banks hire the best hackers money can buy to steal from them—and then show them the holes in their defenses; by compromising their systems, they are able to protect their systems.  Have we done that?  According to this September 2009 GAO report on aviation security, TSA has implemented activities to assess risks to airport perimeters and access controls but has not conducted vulnerability assessments for 87 percent of the nation's approximately 450 commercial airports or any consequence assessments.  We're talking just aviation here, what about the rest?



Why can’t we do the equivalent of hackers when it comes to terrorism and stay one step ahead of potential breaches? The thing is we can't pretend to seal the holes in the boat when we don't know where we are leaking.  Until we know which parts of “us” are vulnerable, we will always play catch up.  And while we are stuck with protecting ourselves for the next shoe-bombing or underpants assault, the enemy may have already imagined other more creative ways to do us harm. The attack may not even have to blow anything up -- just throw us into chaos; at significant costs to our peace of mind and sense of security, and to the taxpayers’ pockets.



You’re going to start thinking Domani Spero has gone bat crazy …

Well, okay, maybe – but hiring T-hackers, for lack of a better word, would be no more expensive than what was already spent on security screenings since 2002, or the inevitable body scanners.  For all that expense and inconvenience, we only get the perception of security.  The shoe bomber was the reason we now take off our shoes at security checkpoints in airports but PETN is a plastic explosive that is not picked up by metal detectors. So... why are we  taking off our shoes, again?

According to another GAO report, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have invested over $795 million in technologies to screen passengers at airport checkpoints since fiscal year 2002. News reports indicate that the cost of body scan machines range from 175,000-250,000 each. 

How many airports are there?  According to the Airports Council International, the United States has over 19,847 airports based on the Department of Transportation’s 2007-2011 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). More than 3,364 of those airports are recognized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as being open to the public.  382 are Primary Airports, defined as having more than 10,000 annual passengers.



I don’t even want to do the math. My head already hurts.

See what I like about those T-hackers? A squad of dark rangers, brainiacs who can imagine the most dastardly attacks, the most unimaginable chaos and destruction, the dark days we do not want to see in the future – they could poke holes at our security portals and blankets now before a lone wolf or some real bad guys get lucky with poking around. 

  

Related articles by Zemanta

• PETN - hard to detect and just 100g can destroy a car (guardian.co.uk)

Insider Quote: I now completely despise these words...

Image by Yandle via Flickr

"I'm spending all week this week in a training. This is also my last week on my current rotation, which means I have some projects to finish. This makes being unavailable 7 hours a day very inconvenient. Due to said training, I now completely despise the following words: "synergies", "deliverables", "results-oriented" and "tranche". We're only 2.5 days in. I'm sure there will be more."

Carrie in Are You a Whiiiiiiiiiiiner??
from FS Blog: Worldwide Available
My Opinions Are Mine and Mine Alone

Insider Quote: He Who Runs On is White Noise

"It has become increasingly apparent over these months that I have a problem, and it is all-too-common in the new-to-bureaucracy demographic. Ladies and gentlemen, I am too prosaic for my own good. Wordy, even. So, in recognition of this situation, I made an early New Year’s Resolution: to become “cogent Ben.”

You see, in a culture where millions of words are exchanged daily in the form of telegrams, e-mails, cables, and faxes, He Who Runs On is the one considered white noise. People like succinct and they like punch. There’s only 24 hours in a day and heaven forbid we waste these precious seconds working our minds around passive voice and dangling modifiers. Naturally, we would want to avoid this anyway — it is just terrible writing, after all — but simple S-V-O should be considered the sentence structure du jour."

By BenJust Spit it Out Alreadyfrom FS Blog: Random Neural Firings

Quickie: English Lessons Via Mobile Phones

Image via Wikipedia

Rhys Blakely of Times Online reports that the British Government has joined forces with the six largest mobile operators in Bangladesh to unveil the world’s largest project to teach a language using mobile phones (UK to teach English in Bangladesh via mobile | November 16, 2009). Excerpts:

Starting this week a scheme managed by the BBC World Service and funded by the British Government will offer the 50 million Bangladeshis who own mobile handsets the opportunity to dial up a series of three-minute-long English lessons for 3 takas (2.5p) each — less than the cost of a cup of tea at a roadside stall in Dhaka.[…]With three billion mobile phones now in use globally (compared to 1.5 billion television sets), the use of handsets as educational tools is increasingly being explored.[…]In Thailand, graduate students sit tests via text message, while in Japan — where mobile phones outnumber computers five-to-one — handsets have been used for several years to teach English as a second language. One survey found that 70 per cent of Japanese students preferred receiving lessons on mobile phones than on computers.[…]Mobile learning may be particularly useful in countries where populations are widely dispersed, such as in Mongolia, where special English lessons have been developed for waiters and bank tellers, which are distributed through text messages.

Exciting times for micro-learning! Read the whole thing here.

Lessons Learned Resources

Image by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com via Flickr

I have put together a compilation of lessons learned resources with some relevance to the State Department and the Foreign Service here. The web page is live in googlepages and will be updated as needed; a new link is added from Diplopundit's Online Resources for easy access (see right side-bar). Any suggestion for additional materials would be deeply appreciated. I also found this Mike Licht image of a lessons learned tombstone. He writes in his blog that "A “Lessons Learned” report is a ceremonial corporate mea culpa that will be swiftly embalmed, buried, entombed in archives, and unread by the next set of leaders, who will embark on similar misguided projects of their own." I hope that is not the case here.

Hard Lessons: The Iraq Reconstruction Experience| Released by SIGIR in January 2009

Hard Lessons concludes with 13 lessons drawn from 6 difficult years of Iraq reconstruction. Virtually all the leadership interviewed for this report agreed that the US approach to contingency relief and reconstruction operation needs reform.

Oral Histories: Iraq Provincial Reconstruction Teams| 2008-2009

The Iraq PRT program has highlighted the challenges that the U.S. government faces in conducting operations in conflicted environments. The Iraq PRT Project collected insights and lessons learned from government, military, and non-governmental officials. Interviews were conducted by the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training under a contract with the Institute of Peace.

Includes interviews with 72 Government Officials from 2008-2009. There are also several interviews of military officers and NGO personnel.

Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq| Special Report, March 2007

This report examines the U.S. experience with PRTs in Iraq, notes shortcomings, and suggests ways they could be more effective. The report is based on statements by panelists at a public forum held at the Institute on February 14, 2007, and on interviews conducted by the author with government agencies and commercial contract firms that participate in the PRT program. Report is by Robert M. Perito, senior program officer at the United States Institute of Peace.

Oral Histories: The Sudan Experience Project| 2006-2007

Sudan's North-South Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) is a unique example of an effort by the international community to negotiate and to implement a peace agreement. The Sudan Experience Project Oral History Library contains the transcripts of nearly 100 interviews with those who negotiated and who are implementing the CPA. These first person accounts and the lessons learned from their experience are a substantial contribution to our understanding of the challenges of negotiating and implementing complex peace agreements.Includes interviews with 33 Negotiators and 57 Implementers taken from 2006-2007.

Oral Histories: Afghanistan Provincial Reconstruction Teams | 2005In November 2005, there were 22 PRTs in Afghanistan: nine were directed by the U.S. and countries belonging to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force directed the other 13. The Afghanistan Experience Project collected lessons learned by Provincial Reconstruction Teams by interviewing 52 government officials, military officers, and representatives of international and non-governmental organizations who had served in Afghanistan. Interviews were conducted by the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training under a contract with the Institute of Peace.

Includes interviews with 52 Government Officials in 2004-2005. There are also several interviews of military officers (12) and IO/NGO personnel (4).

The U.S. Experience with Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan: Lessons Identified | Special Report, October 2005This report is the product of the United States Institute of Peace's Afghanistan Experience Project. It is based on extensive interviews conducted with American and foreign officials, soldiers, and representatives of nongovernmental organizations that worked directly with Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan. It also reflects interviews conducted with a broad range of contacts during the author's visit to Afghanistan in June 2005. The report discusses lessons identified by those who served in Afghanistan. It is intended as a training aid for developing programs that prepare American personnel for service in peace and stability operations. Robert M. Perito, Coordinator of the Afghanistan Experience Project at the U.S. Institute of Peace, prepared this report.

The 9/11 Commission Report | Public report released on July 22, 2004

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

Quickie: Consul-at-Arms' Manner of Substance

Image via Wikipedia

Consul Leslie Slote over at Consul-at-Arms has an excellent post on Manners of Substance. A "must read" especially if you're just starting out in the FS or if you are managing ELOs in your section. Quick excerpts below:

On INVOCATIONS & BENEDICTIONSShow some respect. I don't care what your personal religion is or what you think the Bill of Rights says about not respecting religions (that's not actually what it says, look it up); if the bishop or chaplain or shamen says "Let us pray" (or the local equivalent, then you've got to show that you respect your hosts.

On NATIONAL ANTHYMSLearn to recognize them, both our own and that of the host country. No one will expect you to sing the local national anthym (it's not yours, after all), but you should recognize it and show respect when it's being played or sung.

On SPEAKERS

If someone is giving a speech, turn your fool cell phone to vibrate only. People will understand if you pull out your phone and look at it, even get up and head towards and exit. After all, diplomats can get genuinely emergent calls at any time and no one should get bent out of shape. But if the prime minister's speech is interrupted by the American vice consul's cell phone everyone is going to remember it.Yes, lots of local guests will fail to heed this and their cell phones will ring and they may or may not be embarrassed. Don't worry about them; worry about you. And worry about your reputation.

* * *

You really should read the whole thing here. In addition to the cited references by Consul-at-Arms, Diplopundit has put together additional protocol items listed below that you might find useful.

Related Items:

• 2 FAM 300 Protocol, Precedence and Formalities
• eDiplomat: Diplomatic Protocol
• Protocol for the Modern Diplomat: 2005
• Protocol: Bibliography
• The Air University Protocol Handbook for the Air Force Spouse
• US Army: A Guide to Protocol and Etiquette for Official Entertainment | 2001

US Embassy Iraq: 5 Years Later, Some Questions Answered

Image via Wikipedia

The US Embassy in Iraq opened on July 1, 2004 in the Green Zone, in the former palace of Saddam Hussein. Early this year, the Embassy moved to a new compound and had a dedication ceremony on January 5. Last month, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report on US Embassy Baghdad.

There’s one thing I like about reading those OIG inspection reports; they occasionally provide us with answers to nagging questions. Diplopundit has been quiet perplexed about the large number of ambassadors and former ambassadors serving in Iraq. I realized that Iraq was a foreign policy priority in the previous eight years, but I was concerned about the number of ambassadors congregating in one single post. The practice sent a signal, unintentional it may be that “at grade” FS officers could not cut the cake, thus higher ranking officers were required. So a perfectly talented DCM in Beijing could not get to Baghdad, because a perfectly talented former ambassador was going to Baghdad as DCM.

Previously, I was aware of three former and current chiefs of mission in Iraq in addition to Ambassador Crocker (Patricia Butenis, then DCM who was previously US Ambassador to Bangladesh; Robert Ford, then POL Counselor who was previously Ambassador to Algeria and J. Adam Erile, the PD boss who was credentialed as US Ambassador to Bahrain). It turned out there were more ambassadors in Iraq than I thought and there was a reason for their recruitment and presence in Iraq. According to the OIG report:

“At the time of the inspection, seven active or former chiefs of mission were working as embassy section heads or as the DCM in Baghdad; the Ambassador had personally recruited all of them. This concentration of senior Foreign Service talent reflected the importance of Iraq and was congruent with the rank structure of the U.S. military with whom they worked.”

I don’t know what the rank structure was during the Petreaus-Crocker partnership, but right now the MNF-I has General Ray Odierno, with Lieutenant General Chris Brown CBE as his deputy and there’s Command Sergeant Major Lawrence Wilson. Oh, plus seven other senior military officers with the ranks of Lt. Gen, Major General and Brig. General. The FS is a much smaller organization (more band members in the military) so it does makes you wonder about congruence. I wonder how many ambassadors and former chiefs of mission did we send to Vietnam during the war for rank structure congruence? The Historian’s Office thought the question was “quite intriguing” but says it does not have the resources to perform such complex research for the general public.I should note that we sent entry-level diplomats to Vietnam straight out of A100 in the late 1960’s (including apparently a whole class in 1969). Richard Holbrooke, yes that one, who was then 22 years old, was a USAID provincial representative in the Mekong Delta.

* * *

I’m no longer young enough to know everything. I’ll admit that I’ve always found the staffing at the US Embassy in Baghdad (and not just the presence of multiple ambassadors) a mystery. I understand that even AFSA was in the dark on the embassy’s staffing pattern there.

Take the example of political officers in Iraq. No other US embassy in the world has this many political officers; not Moscow, nor Delhi, not even Beijing. No other post, that is – except Iraq and of course, Saigon previously. Makes you wonder why the concentration of poloffs in Baghdad? Now it can be told …. Here is what the OIG says about the Political Section staffing/operation at the US Embassy in Baghdad (long excerpt):

Led by a seasoned Arabist, a large section of 25 officers produces well-informed reporting on Iraqi politics. Despite security constraints, political officers maintain extensive contacts with Iraqi politicians, though meetings outside the International Zone require elaborate protective details. The quantity of reporting has declined in the past year but its quality has increased, as the section carried out a plan to send a smaller number of higher value cables tightly targeted to policy concerns.

This section of 25 officers is overstaffed. Its numbers were determined in 2007, when Ambassador Crocker requested a civilian surge to match the military’s surge of troops. Crocker cabled that he needed up to twice as many political officers, including more qualified Arabists. The Department was unable to provide enough Arabic speakers — the section has only three or four available at any one time — but it did agree to double the number of officers. The result is overly narrow portfolios, competition for information and contacts, and more reporting than is strictly needed. Officers returning for a second tour found “more bureaucracy but less real work” this time around.

The OIG team reviewed positions carefully with the political minister-counselor and concurred with his conclusion that the section would have higher morale and productivity with fewer officer positions, though it cannot function with fewer than two OMS positions because of gaps from the frequent R&Rs. The Embassy has already identified positions it wishes to cut.

The weakest aspect of reporting is the lack of tools to support it. Too many officers keep track of their contacts on back-of-the-envelope systems, some of them little more than stacks of business cards. The biographic information needed for successful meetings in the Middle East is dispersed in several files where it is difficult to find. The Embassy’s strategy of relying on a contractor in the Ambassador’s office for some of its most important contacts suffered when the contractor departed post and took his files with him rather than turning them over to the political section.

Short assignments and constant rotations also place a premium on the transfer of knowledge from departing officers to new ones. In theory, mandatory overlaps allow each new arrival to be trained by a predecessor, but departing officers are often too exhausted to pass needed information on. There are few standard operating procedures (SOPs). Many officers consider their pre-deployment training weak, particularly in tradecraft.

These problems are compounded by the absence of a deputy responsible for day-to-day management of the section. Following the Ambassador’s instructions, the minister-counselor focuses on substance. Three co-equal unit chiefs focus on the section’s products rather than its processes. Strong as the minister-counselor is in mentoring individuals, he cannot effectively manage a section this large without a full-time deputy who could create more tools to support reporting officers, including SOPs, “smart books” on portfolios, and a contact management system that is accessible to all section officers. The latter could contain protected estimates of reliability, be searchable by issue as well as by name, and be interoperable with protocol and other contact databases.

Okay, first -- I still could not wrap my head around that part about having a civilian surge to match the military’s surge of troops. You’d think that the work requirements would be identified first before you calculate the number of officers needed to tackle the requirements. But apparently it works the other way around. Still one has to wonder where that order really came from – the Front Office in Baghdad or the Seventh Floor in Foggy Bottom.

On a related note, read Patricia Kushlis of WhirledView on Iraq is not Vietnam and the PRTs are not CORDS). A WhirledView commenter was as perplexed as I was:

“I don't know what they DO actually do, but delivering demarches, arranging cultural exchanges, negotiating agreements with, say, the national science agency, reporting what you heard on the street -when you don't speak the language - just ain't it. WHAT ARE THOSE 1000 "diplomats" DOING that they must risk life and limb for - and further risk the deaths of innocent bystanders if they venture out of the Green Zone with their Praetorian Guards? Going in harm's way in order to pretend that we have a normal diplomatic relationship with a fully independent government????? Nonsense...nonsense on stilts.”

Now the civilian surge – um, excuse me – civilian uplift is on in Afghanistan.While the rightsizing train may be winding its way down US Embassy Baghdad, recruitment for Kabul and its provinces is gearing up. So what used to be the Iraq tax, can now be technically called the Aftax. How many jobs are currently vacant at your post because of personnel shifting assignments to Afghanistan (and Pakistan)? I won't be surprise of course, if the top dog assignment cycle is now called - Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Bid Cycle. I do wonder if State has learned anything from Iraq on staffing a diplomatic mission in a war zone. No, Pakistan is not a war zone, but we might call it an area of supreme interest with its own corresponding civilian uplift.Wouldn’t this just be the perfect topic for that proposed Lessons Learned Center (LLC) for the State Department?Second -- lack of systematic knowledge transfer and continuity is hardly a surprising end result. This is a problem with some embassies and consulates as well, but exacerbated in Iraq due to shorter tours in a much more stressful and demanding environment. On the dispersion of biographic information into multiple files which make them difficult to find -- whatever happened to the Net-Centric Diplomacy project? (The OIG talked briefly about NCD in its semi-annual report to Congress 2008-2009). The NCD’s intent as I understand it is for information sharing not hoarding. But how would that work in an environment like Baghdad where there is competition for information and contacts? Simple - human behavior trumps technology. Also, a contractor departed post with his files, developed through his work under USG, of which I presumed he was handsomely compensated -- and we let him get away with it? One more thing for the LLC.

Finally, on the seasoned Arabist leading the POL section at the time -- perhaps I should add that any job under the Chief of Mission is very much like being a band member; you follow the direction of the band leader, and you don’t ever play your own song. That’s that, unless you have another job lined up. On that item about results over process and day-to-day management -- I have to wonder if perhaps somebody out there took to heart Tony Lake’s ideas on this. In Somoza Falling (A case Study of Washington at Work p.285) , he argues that we need to have diplomats of “individual brilliance…” men and women who understand foreign societies, who can relate to foreign realities …policy generalist and not, not managers.

But – if you can’t manage the chaos, how can you find that “individual brilliance?” One more thing for the LLC.

Related Item:Embassy Baghdad, Iraq: Report Number ISP-I-09-30A, July 2009http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/126600.pdf

Video of the Week: Barry Schwartz on our loss of wisdom

Barry Schwartz makes a passionate call for "practical wisdom" as an antidote to a society gone mad with bureaucracy. He argues powerfully that rules often fail us, incentives often backfire, and practical, everyday wisdom will help rebuild our world.

Excerpt from talk:Practical wisdom," Aristotle told us,is the combination of moral will and moral skill." A wise person knows when and how to make the exception to every rule,as the janitors knew when to ignore the job duties in the service of other objectives. A wise person knows how to improvise, as Luke did when he re-washed the floor. Real-world problems are often ambiguous and ill-defined and the context is always changing. A wise person is like a jazz musician --using the notes on the page, but dancing around them, inventing combinations that are appropriate for the situation and the people at hand. A wise person knows how to use these moral skills in the service of the right aims.To serve other people, not to manipulate other people. And finally, perhaps most important, a wise person is made, not born.Wisdom depends on experience,and not just any experience.You need the time to get to know the people that you're serving. You need permission to be allowed to improvise,try new things, occasionally to fail and to learn from your failures. And you need to be mentored by wise teachers. Full transcript is here.

In his 2004 book The Paradox of Choice , Barry Schwartz tackles one of the great mysteries of modern life: Why is it that societies of great abundance — where individuals are offered more freedom and choice (personal, professional, material) than ever before — are now witnessing a near-epidemic of depression? Conventional wisdom tells us that greater choice is for the greater good, but Schwartz argues the opposite: He makes a compelling case that the abundance of choice in today’s western world is actually making us miserable.Infinite choice is paralyzing, Schwartz argues, and exhausting to the human psyche. It leads us to set unreasonably high expectations, question our choices before we even make them and blame our failures entirely on ourselves. His relatable examples, from consumer products (jeans, TVs, salad dressings) to lifestyle choices (where to live, what job to take, who and when to marry), underscore this central point: Too much choice undermines happiness.

From ted.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lessons from the Ant Colony: Overcoming the Biases of Web 2.0 (readwriteweb.com)

FS Blog: Calling a Spade a Spade

The Consular Officer writing under the name NoDoubleStandards has been blogging since April 2009 so his blog Calling a Spade a Spade (Rants of a Foreign Service Officer on the things that matter to you -- and matter to you not at all) is not really new. But in case you missed some of his great posts particularly on the consular trade or his advice for new FSOs, check out these links below:

"These Faces and These Places Are Getting Old" - Daughtry

The Challenge of Effective Consular Management of Locally-Employed Staff

Visa Interview Pet Peeves

Advice for New FSOs from Someone Who Has No Business Giving It

Insider Quote: Learning a Language - the Best Antidote to That Classic Sin

"Learning a language is a path to the avoidance of the kinds of misunderstandings and miscalculations that give rise to conflict. It is essential to understand how the native speakers of the language think. It is the sine qua non of transnational cooperation and alliance management. It is also the best antidote to the classic sin of analysts and military commanders: the tendency to view one’s partners and competitors as the mirror image of oneself, projecting onto them one’s own values and thought processes rather than understanding their perspectives and proclivities in their own terms, for what they are. In peacetime such false expectations are a source of tension; in wartime they can lead to surprise and defeat."

Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr.
Honoring Language Learners

At the spring’s graduation ceremonies at West Point to present awards to cadets who had excelled in learning Chinese and Russian

Sexing up the 360-Degree Feedback, Revisited

Cartoon by Brian Aggeler from State Magazine

I posted Sexing up the 360° Feedback back in April of 2008. Recently I’ve found an excuse to revisit this topic when I read Michelle Stefanick’s paper on Powell’s Leadership Principles- Time for State Department to Revisit for the U.S. Army War College (March 30, 2009│Strategy Research Project; PDF). Below is what she writes about the 360-Degree Feedback:

Initially utilized in an ad hoc basis, the Department later implemented a “360-Degree feedback” system, a tool to provide insight on employees from peers, subordinates, and supervisors, for both career developmental and assignment purposes. If effectively implemented the “360-Degree feedback” can add significant value for self improvement. Rater anonymity promotes feedback candor, and keeping a target individual’s results confidential enhances the safety that is so important for personal growth. The immediate concern of many practitioners is that the value of the feedback for learning and development is compromised if conditions of psychological safety such as feedback confidentiality and rater anonymity are removed, particularly in an organization where there are concerns over issues of trust, candor and openness of communication.

Unfortunately, the Department has distorted from the true purpose of this effective tool by expanding its usage to accumulate evidence on whether a nominee should be selected for leadership positions, such as ambassadors and Deputy Chief of Mission. The Department believes this process identifies whether the nominee has the required leadership qualities and now uses it for placement of all FS employees. It has been used as a means of weeding out candidates as well as establishing an environment that challenges an employee’s due process.

The “360-Degree Feedback” process is an effective leadership development tool when properly applied. Improper use can be both detrimental to the employee and the institution, particularly if it hinders an employee’s due process and trust within an institution. During the selection process for filling positions, particularly leadership positions, the Department should reconsider its application of the “360-Degree Feedback” tool and take heed to the cautionary warning amongst practitioners themselves.

Below is what I wrote over a year ago (with very minor tweaks) …and nothing I’ve seen has made me changed my thoughts on this:

Anonymous FSO over at The Way I See Things recently posted Knowing Who You Worked With and writes that: “Supposedly all DCMs and CGs now have 360 reviews done of them before they're hired. But the candidate selects his reviewers, and the results are, of course, never made public.”

I think the 360° feedback has indeed become a rolling buzzword in Foggy Bottom and mission corridors. One of the bureau bees told me not too long ago that State takes very seriously the leadership qualities of its senior officers, most particularly those going to larger posts. As proof of this, she added, the bureau now routinely requires 360° feedback for all their DCM candidates (I have not heard that one about the CGs). Anecdotal evidence also shows that some posts are requesting “360° feedback” when bidding on some section chiefs positions. I must admit that I am not sure how much of the 360°s going on right now are done formally through FSI’s Leadership and Management School or HR but I have seen one-page documents that some posts are using as 360° questionnaires (apparently with questions excerpted from the guidance cable).

As much as I’m happy to see efforts invested in matching senior jobs with the right candidates, I have to say that this makes me feel like we’re flying on the seat of our pants. This is “corridor reputation” in Word documents – except that candidates, now get to pick which corridor you can walk into and which part of their reputation you can listen to. To me, the 360° feedback gives us two certainties: 1) that the top bird had at least 6-8 birds in the world who liked him/her and, 2) the “top bird is a jerk syndrome” had not been systematically ruled out because of #1. (Note: this image was forwarded to me and I could not locate the name of cartoonist; please tell me if you know).


I have very strong reservations about the use of the 360° feedback for purposes other than developmental. The main goal of the 360-degree process -- where you "go around" employees, asking supervisors, direct reports, peers and clients about their performance, is to raise the employees’ awareness of how they impact others and act as a catalyst for their change in behavior. Margaret Kubicek in Training Magazine also writes that:

“To have any genuine value or meaningful impact, 360-degree feedback must be far more than a standalone activity. It should involve managing the individual's expectations, aligning questionnaires to competency frameworks, setting goals to integrate the exercise into personal development plans and providing feedback from trained facilitators.”

Using the 360° feedback for evaluative purposes especially when a candidate’s next job is on the line can easily transform this useful learning tool into an inflated, useless material with real consequences for operational effectiveness. Inflated? Nah!!


Below is my list on how to sexed up the 360° feedback:

A• Include people from my inner circle who can throw in harmless comments; this is needed to make feedback sound credible (e.g. “She works too darn hard for her own good at times.”)

B• Include people with whom I have excellent, solid relationships (no invites to ex-spouses or ex-bffs or those I head-banged with)

C• Include only those with excellent and effective communication skills who fits A & B

D• Include my junior protégées who thinks I’m Mother Teresa

E• Exclude peers who might be “borderline” raters; if I don’t know what you really think of me, you don’t make the list

F• Exclude FSN direct reports; if you have less than perfect English, you don’t make the list (see rule C)

Oops, pardon me - I think my cynical slip is showing here. But really, is it not that all you need is a carefully cultivated set of individuals, spread across the relevant rate groups, that you can then call on during the bid-time crunch?

I do realize that allowing employees to select their own raters increases the chance that the employees would internalize the feedback received and craft appropriate development plans. But since this is being used as a “placement” tool, allowing employees to select their own raters instead of randomizing raters from a larger pool almost certainly ensures that the Bureau only hears the upsides and almost none of the downsides of working with Mr. CG-to be or Ms. DCM-to be. My understanding is that in addition to the names that bidders propose as raters, the Bureaus can also ask additional individuals to provide reference input – the question is how often is that really done?

I think it is important that Bureaus have a good perspective of the bidders/candidates' people and leadership skills prior to sending them off to more responsible jobs. However, if State must use the 360 as a "review" or "reference" tool, it should refine the process as follows:

-» Randomize the rating pool to include the largest number of raters possible: the 6-8 raters should not be handpicked by the candidate. It is safe to assume that one can find 6-8 souls who would say Candidate X is fabulous even when Candidate X is a lousy boss. I do not have any argument with the number of raters required, more than eight feedback would probably be too much to handle; I just would like to see that the eight comes randomly selected from a realistic pool instead of a shallow tide pool (known sometimes as the mutual appreciation club).

-» Couple the “360” with the “lobby info” – almost all the individuals who have been lobbied to speak on behalf of the candidates are already positively inclined towards the candidates, or they won’t come calling; so balance this info with the randomized feedback to get a better view of each candidate.

-» Every candidate not selected for the job should be strongly advised to start a development plan (with assistance from a trained facilitator or coach from FSI’s Leadership and Management Schools; presuming that the school has qualified coaches). For every CG or DCM or Section Chief successfully assigned, there are others waiting in the wings. Those afflicted with "micromanagetitis" or ailing as “screamers,” should get a chance to improve themselves under competent guidance. I heard that unsuccessful bidders get their feedback from their CDOs (Career Development Officers) but unless CDOs have the specialized skills to assist these candidates, this part of the process is not going to contribute to any sustained momentum for development.

Brian Murphy writing for the Training Journal says that the 360-degree feedback as a tool harbors inherent dangers, particularly if the appropriate guidance and interventions are not readily available. I fully agree and that's why it's necessary in my view not only to have competent facilitators for this but to also to ensure that raters know how to provide effective feedback. Finally, I think Murphy provides wise insight when he writes, “The gathering of feedback data is simply the starting point in the development cycle. Raised awareness in isolation rarely leads to changed behavior."

Raised awareness in isolation rarely leads to changed behavior. I think that nails it on the head.

The CIA's Plan for Improving Foreign Language Capability

Image via Wikipedia

Last May, CIA Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Leon E. Panetta released a statement on strengthening the agency’s foreign language capabilities saying:

Within five years, we aim to:

• Double the number of analysts and collectors who are proficient in languages, particularly those that are mission critical;
• Increase by 50% the number of people with the right language skills serving in language-use positions; and
• Dramatically transform the way CIA trains our officers in foreign language capability.

To reach these goals, we will increase the number of officers in full-time language training. The number of officers from the National Clandestine Service in full-time training will increase by 50% and the number of analysts from the Directorate of Intelligence in full-time training will triple.

We will find innovative ways to acquire, teach, and maintain these skills. I have asked CIA University, our focal point for educational and training initiatives at CIA, to take the lead in identifying a mix of approaches to meet our objectives.


Among the initiatives that will be explored:

• Allowing qualified prospective employees to take language training while they await clearance,
• Offering night school, more external and online training, and more full-time training overseas, and
• Providing specialized training to officers who need to reach a higher level of proficiency in mission-critical languages, such as Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Pushto, Urdu, and Persian.

Another major initiative will be to recruit and retain new officers who have critical language skills. We cannot train our way out of this problem. If we are going to succeed in this effort, we have to further diversify our workforce. I have directed our Human Resources office and our Recruitment and Retention Center to provide a long-term plan for hiring a qualified cadre of Americans who have foreign language skills.

“We cannot train our way out of this problem.” I agree. I'm just wondering if the State Department still think it can ...

Related articles by Zemanta

• Panetta's Focus on Chinese, Russian, and Arabic (usnews.com)

H.R. 2410: Towards a Modern and Expeditionary Foreign Service

TITLE III-- Subtitle A of H.R. 2410 calls for modernizing the Department of State. Section 301 specifically provides for “a more modern and expeditionary Foreign Service." I don’t know why “a more modern” language is used here. One is either modern or not. What does “more modern” actually means, I can’t say but see below. Full text of the bill is here.

SEC. 301. TOWARDS A MORE MODERN AND EXPEDITIONARY FOREIGN SERVICE.

(a) Targeted Expansion of Foreign Service- The Secretary of State shall expand the Foreign Service to--

(1) fill vacancies, particularly those vacancies overseas that are critical to key United States foreign policy and national security interests, and, in particular, to prevent crises before they emerge;

(2) increase the capacity of the Department of State to assign and deploy Foreign Service officers and other personnel to prevent, mitigate, and respond to international crises and instability in foreign countries that threaten key United States foreign policy and national security interests; and

(3) ensure that before being assigned to assignments requiring new or improved skills, members of the Foreign Service, other than foreign national employees and consular agents (as such terms are defined in section 103 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3903)), as appropriate, receive language, security, area, and other training that is necessary to successfully execute their responsibilities and to enable such members to obtain advanced and other education that will increase the capacity of the Foreign Service to complete its mission.

(b) Authorized Increases-

(1) AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE- The Secretary of State is authorized to hire an additional 750 members of the Foreign Service (above attrition) in fiscal year 2010 over the number of such members employed as of September 30, 2009, and an additional 750 members of the Foreign Service (above attrition) in fiscal year 2011 over the number of such members employed as of September 30, 2010.

(2) AT USAID- The Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development is authorized to hire an additional 350 members of the Foreign Service (above attrition) in fiscal year 2010 over the number of such members employed as of September 30, 2009, and an additional 350 members of the Foreign Service (above attrition) in fiscal year 2011 over the number of such members employed as of September 30, 2010.

(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary of State or the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to hire personnel.

(c) Expansion of Functions of the Foreign Service- Section 104 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3904) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:

‘(2) work actively to prevent, mitigate, and respond in a timely manner to international crises and instability in foreign countries that threaten the key United States foreign policy and national security interests;’.

(d) Worldwide Availability- Section 301(b) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3941(b)) is amended--

(1) by inserting ‘(1)’ before ‘The Secretary’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), at the time of entry into the Service, each member of the Service shall be available to be assigned worldwide.

‘(B) With respect to the medical eligibility of any applicant for appointment as a Foreign Service officer candidate, the Secretary of State shall determine such availability through appropriate medical examinations. If based on such examinations the Secretary determines that such applicant is ineligible to be assigned worldwide, the Secretary may waive the worldwide availability requirement under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary determines that such waiver is required to fulfill a compelling Service need. The Secretary shall establish an internal administrative review process for medical ineligibility determinations.

‘(C) The Secretary may also waive or reduce the worldwide availability requirement under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary determines, in the Secretary’s discretion, that such waiver or reduction is warranted.’.

(e) Recruiting Candidates Who Have Experience in Unstable Situations- Section 301 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3941), as amended by section 212(c) of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘(f) Experience in Unstable Situations- The fact that an applicant for appointment as a Foreign Service officer candidate has the experience of working in situations where public order has been undermined by instability, or where there is no civil authority that can effectively provide public safety, may be considered an affirmative factor in making such appointments.’.

(f) Training- Section 708 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4028) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:

‘(c) The Secretary of State shall ensure that members of the Service, other than foreign national employees and consular agents, as appropriate, receive training on methods for conflict mitigation and resolution and on the necessary skills to be able to function successfully where public order has been undermined by instability or where there is no civil authority that can effectively provide public safety.

‘(d) The Secretary of State shall ensure that members of the Service, other than foreign national employees and consular agents, as appropriate, have opportunities during their careers to obtain advanced education and training in academic and other relevant institutions in the United States and abroad to increase the capacity of the Service to fulfill its mission.’

* * *

First, if this bill passes, I hope this would just be a down payment on that much-talked about Foreign Service bench strength. This authorizes the hiring of an additional 1500 FS employees above attrition for State and 700 new employees above attrition for USAID in the next two fiscal years. A 2007 report from the GAO says that from 2002 through 2004, the DRI (Diplomatic readiness Initiative) enabled State to hire more than 1,000 employees above attrition to respond to emerging crises and allow staff time for critical job training. However, that increase was absorbed by the demand for personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan; and thus, the desired crises and training reserve was not achieved.

The Embassy of the Future Commission called for more than 1,000 additional diplomats—a 9.3 percent increase; however, the American Academy of Diplomacy documented the need for 2,848 additional State positions for core diplomatic functions and a training complement, as well as for 1,250 additional USAID positions by Fiscal Year 2014.


In a recent congressional hearing, Jack Lew pointed out that in FY 1990, USAID employed nearly 3,500 permanent direct hires administering $5 billion a year in assistance. As of FY 2008, USAID employed about 2,200 permanent direct hires administering $13.2 billion in assistance. Just one graphic example of doing more with less (one jaded employee said that if we continue doing more with less, there’ll come a time when we’ll be able to do everything perfectly with nothing).

Second, this does not talk about “directed assignment” but it talks about filling critical vacancies and increasing “the capacity of the Department of State to assign and deploy Foreign Service officers and other personnel.” It also talks about worldwide availability as in “each member of the Service shall be available to be assigned worldwide.” Makes you wonder why this is in the bill unless this is a soft nudge to use the directed assignment authority. Worldwide availability has been in the books for a long time but – it has been exercised only to a limited degree. In 2007, the Government Accountability Office has recommended that the State Department use this authority: “State has not traditionally assigned its limited number of employees to particular posts based on risk and priorities; rather, it has generally assigned staff to posts for which they have expressed an interest. We recommended that State consider using its authority to direct staff to accept assignments, as necessary, to ensure that critical gaps are filled.”

Third, it talks about Recruiting Candidates Who Have Experience in Unstable Situations saying that “experience of working in situations where public order has been undermined by instability, or where there is no civil authority that can effectively provide public safety, may be considered an affirmative factor in making such appointments.” Right now, veterans are the only group subject to a hiring preference, but only post-FSWE and after the oral exam. According to career.state.gov “Veterans who pass the Oral Assessment and qualify as preference eligibles are entitled to .175 for a 5 point preference or to .35 for a 10 point preference, based on a seven point scale. Specialist candidates, who are assessed on a 100 point scale, and who pass their oral assessment are entitled to an additional 5 to 10 points added to their competitive rating. Candidates must submit form DD-214 to document creditable military service.”


I don’t know what shape this “affirmative factor” would take on eventually. But two large groups of prospective applicants would probably fall under this category of “experience in unstable situations” – military personnel and 3161 employees.

Finally, the last part of this section addresses training in the FS – in one part providing that FS personnel (except FSNs and consular agents) “receive training on methods for conflict mitigation and resolution and on the necessary skills to be able to function successfully where public order has been undermined by instability.” And the second part providing that the SoS, “ensure that members of the Service (except FSNs and consular agents), have opportunities during their careers to obtain advanced education and training in academic and other relevant institutions in the United States and abroad.”

Like I said in my previous post on that new cone – this does not talk about reforming the promotion process in the Foreign Service. And that will have an impact if this bill passes. Employees who feel that their careers may be negatively impacted by taking a year or two out for advanced schooling may think twice about pursuing advanced education and academic training.

It is a different story in the armed services, of course. Have you noticed how many of our military officers retire from the armed services with PhDs? It has been said that almost every officer in the US military gains a graduate degree by the time they reach the rank of O-5, around 15-20 years of service. I don’t know if it is still true, but there was time when you can’t get promoted to a major without a master’s degree. In fact, General David Petraeus did receive his MPA in 1985 the year he made major. Two years later, he received his PhD in international relations from Princeton University and made LTC in 1991. His published works span from 1983-2008.

Military officers can pursue full-time studies toward a master’s or doctorate degree through programs paid for by the military. Many more officers pursue advanced education on their own time. The US Army for instance has the Advanced Degree Program and the Fully Funded Legal Education Program (FLEP) just to name two.

The military also spends a significant amount of time considering not only its future challenges 25-30 years from now, but also the education requirement of its future leaders:

This is the fundamental challenge the U.S. military will confront: providing the education so that future leaders can understand the political, strategic, historical, and cultural framework of a more complex world, as well as having a thorough grounding in the nature of war, past, present, and future. [...] The complexity of the future suggests that the education of senior officers must not remain limited to staff and war colleges, but should extend to the world’s best graduate schools. Professional military education must impart the ability to think critically and creatively in both the conduct of military operations and acquisition and resource allocation. The services should draw from a breadth and depth of education in a range of relevant disciplines to include history, anthropology, economics, geopolitics, cultural studies, the ‘hard’ sciences, law, and strategic communications. Their best officers should attend such programs. Officers cannot master all these disciplines, but they can and must become familiar with their implications. In other words, the educational development of America’s future military leaders must not remain confined to the school house, but must involve self study and intellectual engagement by officers throughout their careers. Read more here.

As for State -- I cannot immediately name a single program in the State Department except those advanced degrees pursued by Foreign Service officers in the war colleges and a few degrees on Social Work by employees in the Consular Bureau. Can you? How many diplomats do you know have taken sabbaticals to pursue advanced degrees in various institutions of higher learning after they’ve joined the Service? Ryan Crocker spent a year in Princeton pursuing course work in Near Eastern studies in 1984. But how many officers came in with a B.A and retired with a B.A.? In the military, it's kind of hard to find a single general without an advanced degree under his/her belt (there probably isn’t even one).

If you drill beyond the surface, you may recognize this as true -- whereas the pursuit of advanced education and continuous learning has been woven deeply into the fabric of military culture, the threads are not fully present in the State Department. That’s one change that needs to occur if the State Department expects to provide foreign policy and rigorous intellectual leadership into the next century. And if that happens, I'd be happy to call it "more modern."

Related Item:
GAO-07-1154T: State Department: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps

Related Posts:

• H.R. 2410: Obama Administration Supports Bill But …
• H.R. 2410: A New Multilateral Diplomacy Cone?
• H.R. 2410: Lessons Learned Center, Coming Soon?
• H.R. 2410: Public Diplomacy Takes Center Stage
• H.R. 2410: Little Devils in the Details
• H.R. 2410 Foreign Relations Authorization Act Passes House
• H.R. 2410 Clears HFAC, Sec. 333 Stricken from Bill
• H.R. 2410: Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011