Af/Pak Stabilization Strategery: The Missing Number

The Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan released its Af/Pak Regional Stabilization Strategy (January 2010) last week.  Briefly -- nearly 1,000 personnel on the ground by early 2010 and some 20-30% additional staffing after that.  I’ve dug up an OIG report from last year that talks about staff expansion of protective service in Afghanistan.  If the OIG number actually means 14 FSOs to each of the new consulates in Mazar and Herat plus 67 protective service personnel in each location – that amounts to almost 5 security contract personnel for every direct hire employee.  And we’re not even talking yet about the additional protective service and life support requirements for the 1,000+ surge personnel.

The $400 million indicated below as resource requirement is probably nowhere closed to the actual amount when personal protective service and life support services are taken into account.  Since we unavoidably are going to “surge” the contractors into Afghanistan – shouldn't we have those numbers?  Just because we can’t see them, doesn’t mean we’re not paying for them. 

By the way, you must see this numbers from Sam Stein about how the Top Defense Contractors Spent $27 Million Lobbying At Time Of Afghan Surge Announcement. Ugh!

Excerpt from Af/Pak Stabilization Strategy: PDF | HTML

Hundreds of civilian experts have answered that call to service, and we are now in the midst of the most significant deployment of U.S. civilian expertise to a war zone in decades. The increase, coordinated by the Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan and Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew, includes some of the top experts from 10 different U.S. government departments and agencies. Many have previous experience in Afghanistan or other conflict environments. U.S. civilian experts contribute to the mission in field, especially in the East and South where a majority of U.S. combat forces are operating and many of the additional 30,000 forces announced by President Obama will deploy. They partner with Afghans to enhance the capacity of national and sub-national government institutions, and to help rehabilitate Afghanistan’s key economic sectors. When their tours are complete, permanent civilian experts are encouraged to continue service on Afghanistan or Pakistan, in Washington or abroad, as well as to help in training their successors. Our goal is to create a cadre of civilian expertise on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Enhanced Civilian Presence: The vast majority of civilian experts deploy to Afghanistan for a minimum of one year. Under the first phase of this uplift, the civilian footprint in Afghanistan will triple from roughly 300 personnel on the ground in January 2009 to nearly 1,000 on the ground by early 2010. We anticipate further increasing our civilian staffing in 2010 by another 20 to 30 percent, concentrating experts in the field and at key ministries that deliver vital services to the Afghan people. Each U.S. civilian hires or works with an average of 10 Afghans and other implementing partner personnel. Additionally, civilians act as force multipliers for military personnel, helping build relationships with local community leaders and coordinate military civil affairs projects with civilian programs. Civilian personnel will remain deployed in significant numbers even after the security situation improves and our combat troops come home.

Expanded Presence in Ministries and Outside of Kabul: Responding to the Afghan government’s request for targeted technical assistance, we are placing more than 50 additional civilian advisors in core Afghan ministries. Outside of Kabul, we are deploying several hundred additional personnel to more than 50 locations. In addition to staffing PRTs, civilians are living and working alongside forward deployed military units in District Support Teams (DSTs). Civilians will also extend our permanent diplomatic presence outside of Kabul by staffing new consulates in Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat, which will serve as assistance platforms for the North and West and also symbolize our long-term, increasingly normal relationship with Afghanistan.

Resource Requirements

Resources available to meet requirements from FY 2010 and prior year appropriations: approximately $400 million.           

* * *

A publicly released OIG audit of USTC/Blackwater/Xe’s performance in Afghanistan in 2009 includes this item:

"The Department has decided to open consulates in the north of Afghanistan at Mazar-e-Sharif and in the west at Herat. According to Department cable 027341 of March 29, 2009, 14 Foreign Service Officers will be deployed to these locations in 2009. USTC has submitted a proposal to add 67 personnel to each location. The RSO in Kabul has reported that the security threat in Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat is considerably lower security than in Kabul."



This IG report was prepared last year; before rockets were fired on the new consulate site in western Afghanistan.  

Related Items:

-01/21/10 Af/Pak Regional Stabilization Strategy (January 2010) HTLM

-08/31/09   Performance Audit of the U.S. Training Center Contract for Personal Protective Services in Afghanistan (MERO-A-09-08) Aug 09

Snapshot: USTC/Blackwater/Xe in Afghanistan

2,730 missions | 0 casualties | 0 incidents with deadly force

This is the personal security contractor that everybody loves to hate. State’s Inspector General’s Office conducted a performance audit of the U.S. Training Center (a Xe company) contract in Afghanistan last year and had some good things to say:     

“In 2008, USTC conducted 2,730 personal protection missions in support of staff from the Department of State, including the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, USAID, and various Congressional delegations (see Table). In 2008, 257 (9.4 percent) of the missions were performed for USAID. During the entire time USTC has operated in Afghanistan, no one under USTC’s protection has been injured or killed, and there have been no incidents involving the use of deadly force. OIG observed personal protection missions and interviewed various representatives from the Department of State and USAID who regularly use USTC’s personal protective services. The representatives reported that USTC employees are professional, make them feel secure, and are respectful to both officials under chief of mission authority and their Afghan counterparts.”

Staff composition as of April 8, 2009

USTC staff consists of a project manager, personal security specialists, administrative and support employees, and interpreters, as well as local guards who are third-country nationals. As of April 2009, there was one project manager, 75 personal security specialists, 18 administrative and support personnel, 20 local guard force personnel, and five interpreters (94 Americans, 20 Columbians, and five Afghan interpreters).

On the need for a dedicated Contracting Officer’s Representative to Embassy Kabul to provide proper oversight of contractor activities, the OIG reports:

Despite its overall satisfactory contract management, DS could improve its performance in two areas, both of which have been mentioned in previous OIG reports. First, two Assistant Regional Security Officers at Embassy Kabul are currently acting as Contracting Officer’s Representatives (COR). These officers’ many other duties may prevent them from providing adequate oversight of the USTC contract, particularly as personal protective service needs increase in Afghanistan. Second, the current acting CORs do not review or verify the personnel rosters (muster sheets) before they are sent to USTC and then DS in Washington, DC.

The OIG report concludes that “USTC personal protective services have been effective in ensuring the safety of chief of mission personnel in Afghanistan’s volatile security environment. Additionally, OIG found USTC has effective control over government-furnished equipment. Nevertheless, OIG has identified several areas in which contractor performance could be improved.”  The audit provides a 6-item recommendation. You can read it here.

Actually not just OIG.  Ambassador Ronald E. Neumann, our former Ambassador to Afghanistan (2005-2007)  last December also had this to say at a congressional hearing:  "I would like to pay special tribute to the brave and hard working personnel, RSOs and ARSOs, who have protected me and my missions in dangerous times. I would also like to acknowledge my respect for the men of DynCorp and Blackwater who ran my personal protection details in Iraq and Afghanistan. They performed with courage, judgment and restraint and one lost his leg in the process. Whatever opprobrium now attaches to others I owe all those gallant men—State Department and contractor employees--my gratitude and I am glad to have a public forum in which to express it."

Related Item:

OIG Report No. MERO-A-09-08, Performance Audit of the USTC Contract for Personal Protective Services in Afghanistan - Aug. 2009 | PDF

US Embassy Kabul Honors Steven Thomas Stefani IV

Photo from US Embassy Kabul/Flickr

On January 12, the US Embassy in Kabul held a ceremony to honor USDA employee, Steven Thomas Stefani IV who was killed when his PRT team convoy was hit by roadside bombs in 2007.  USDA also announced the establishment of the Tom Stefani Award for Reconstruction and Stabilization in Fragile States.  USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack made the following remarks:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been deploying civilian agricultural experts to Afghanistan since 2003. Among the nearly 100 who have accepted the challenge was Steven Thomas Stefani IV - "Tom" to his family, friends and colleagues at the U.S. Forest Service.



Today we are gathered to honor Tom, who until his untimely death in October 2007 was a model of how Americans and federal employees can make a positive impact on the lives of those around them.



Tom was raised in Auburn, California. His friends remember a sweet-natured kid with a sideways smile who ran around in oversized cowboy boots and a giant hat falling over his eyes.



He was the kind of boy who worked hard and made his parents proud. He raised prize-winning sheep for the local fairs where he was a standout 4-H-er. He was an Eagle Scout and an honor student. And like his parents, Barbara and Steve, Tom lent a hand to those in need in his community, helping to organize fundraisers and gatherings.



As a student, Tom studied soil salinity in the deserts of the Western United States. And as a Range Manager for the U.S. Forest Service in Nevada's Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, everything began to fall into place - his Eagle Scout background, the 4-H accomplishments, years of helping his Dad with the family construction business, his education, and a lifetime of caring for animals.



Tom loved the Forest Service and he loved the outdoors. Naturally, the challenge of Afghanistan's beautiful, hardscrabble landscape beckoned to him.



Like so many other dedicated USDA employees, Tom requested to serve in Afghanistan because he wanted to work to improve the lives of the Afghan people who live in this great country, people who have suffered through years of strife and conflict.



While some people saw only denuded grazing lands and wasted soil in Afghanistan, Tom recognized the opportunity to restore a once legendary agricultural region. He accepted his responsibility to serve as he had so many other challenges in his life -- he embraced it in a great, big bear hug.



In Afghanistan, while Tom was developing projects he worked directly to plan a large-scale poultry farm and a cold storage facility. He worked alongside grape producers to improve trellising methods. His contributions were real and they're lasting.



Tom made the ultimate sacrifice to this nation and to our nation when his PRT team convoy was sabotaged by roadside bombs. But unlike his assailants -- who scattered into the rocky hills like shadows - Tom, even today, continues to accomplish positive things for the people of Afghanistan.

McCain Delegation Visits Afghanistan

Photo from US Embassy Kabul /Flickr

 

A delegation lead by Senator John McCain which included Senator Joseph Lieberman, Senator John Thune and Senator John Barrasso traveled to the Arghandab Valley in Kandahar, Afghanistan (above) to meet with troops and commanders of both the U.S and NATO military along with the ANA and ANP.  They were accompanied by Gen. Stanley McCrystal and U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry.  More photos here from the Flickr page of US Embassy Kabul.

In Kabul the McCain delegation made remarks to the press. Excerpt below from Senator McCain: 

We believe we have the right team, the right resources, and the right strategy.  We are confident that if we stay the course that we can succeed here in Afghanistan as we have in Iraq.

As I mentioned, we just came from Baghdad.  The month of December, there was not a single United States casualty, an ample testimony to the success of the surge -- the same strategy that is being implemented here in Afghanistan with very different circumstances, but the same fundamental strategy.

We’re very proud of our team -- Ambassador Eikenberry and General McChrystal, General Rodriguez and others -- who I think have provided outstanding leadership.

There are two concerns that I and my colleagues, who can speak for themselves, share.  One is, of course, the mid-2010 departure date… excuse me…2011 departure date.  That date, in my view, is artificial and should only be based by conditions on the ground.

I was pleased by the comments made here by Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton that this is an aspirational date and not a date that would necessarily mean withdrawal of U.S. troops.  We cannot send a message to al-Qaida and the Taliban that they can lie low for a period of time and wait for us to depart.

The other concern that we have is the issue of a sufficient number of trained Afghan troops.  Our view, and that of most experts, is that we need 400,000 trained Afghan troops to take over the security responsibilities of this nation.  So we will be seeking both the funding and the policy that would mean that the Afghan military can be built up to a total of 400,000 troops in order to fulfill the responsibilities and meet the challenges that they face.

Read the full text of the remarks to the press by Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, Senator Thune and Senator Barrasso (January 7, 2010).    

The McCain delegation also visited Baghdad on January 5.  No way to tell what the senators did in Iraq because the only thing the US Embassy Baghdad has on its website is this notice “U.S. Senators at the Press Conference at U.S. Embassy Baghdad.” Oh, yeah – it also has a “gallery” of the visit containing five thumb print sized photos. You need a magnifying glass to see who’s who in those photos, of course; so I can't tell if that is Big Foot attending the conference. Why even bother? Can't say.    

The four-member congressional delegation also made it to Islamabad late Thursday to meet with Pakistan's civilian and military leaders.  The trip must have been a secret; there was nothing on US Embassy Islamabad’s website to indicate they were even in town.  VOA and the Pakistani press, of course, confirmed the congressional visit. The bright side -- at least the embassy there did not pretend to give us news or utterly useless photos of the visit.

US Consulate Herat Moves Forward

5 Star Hotel of HeratPhoto from Foreign Ministry of Afghanistan

Ambassador Karl Eikenberry was in a lease-signing ceremony last Wednesday for the US Consulate in Herat, in western Afghanistan. The event was attended by Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta . According to Wikipedia, Herat is the third largest city of Afghanistan, and the gateway to Iran, collecting the highest amount of customs revenue for Afghanistan. The country shares a 936 km border with Iran.

Excerpted from Ambassador’s Eikenberry remarks during the ceremony:

There are few occasions more important and symbolic in the friendship of nations than for a U.S. Ambassador to be able to stand before you and announce with great pride, as I do today, that the U.S. Government is establishing a Consulate in "Shahr-e Bostan Herat" – this ancient, wonderful city of Herat.

When the U.S. Government first considered its options for opening Consulates, there was never any doubt that the ancient crossroad of Herat would be one of the cities selected for extending U.S. representation within Afghanistan.[…]Since last spring, when we first identified properties that might serve as a future U.S. Consulate, the 5-Star Hotel property literally stood out as the most logical and usable space to lease until we could buy land and build a more permanent Consulate compound.

Signing this lease today brings us one big step closer to opening the Consulate in Herat.

Let everyone understand: Our aim in Afghanistan and in establishing U.S. Consulate Heart is to promote peace and security, prosperity and stability.[…]Our history and experience of diplomatic relations with many countries shows that our diplomatic presence brings economic opportunity for many as it promotes stronger governance and rule of law to all. We are a country founded on such principles and values. Opening Consulate Herat is a tangible reflection of our commitment to such common interests.

This ceremony, following as it does upon the signing ceremony several weeks ago for the lease of land permitting the opening of another U.S. consulate in Mazar-e-Sharif next year, affirms America’s enduring friendship with Afghanistan and its people.

Read the full remarks here.

It looks like no western media covered this event. China’s Xinhua and People's Daily Online did have brief reports on this on Wednesday including the foreign minister’s remarks: “Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta noted that the opening of the U.S. consulate will not affect the relations between Kabul and Tehran.”

From best I could tell, there is only one 5-Star Hotel in Herat, which is the 5-Star Hotel of Heart. Here is a photo of the hotel from Flickr, with the user’s comments: “I think the 5-Star part is more self-proclamation and naming than the official prestige category bestowed on hotels. Still this is probably one of the best hotels in Afghanistan, and doubtlessly the best outside Kabul.”

From Wikitravel’s entry: “Five Star Hotel, (North east of downtown - every taxi driver knows where it is). A favorite with NGO workers and expats the Five Star hotel is a comfortable western style place. A good option if you have your own transport, otherwise you are at the mercy of overcharging taxi drivers. $50 per night.”

Other photos around Herat here, here and here.

David Ensor to US Embassy Kabul?

Via Al Kamen: “Word at the State Department is that David Ensor, longtime national security correspondent for CNN and more recently executive vice president for communications at Mercuria Energy Group in London, is being talked about to run the public affairs office at the embassy in Kabul.” (links added)

Huh? What? Hmmnn. Why?

Just a couple quick thoughts –

First, I think US Embassy Kabul’s PAS office has done a marvelous job over there. The post that needs help is the other half of Af/Pak, and it’s not Afghanistan. Public diplomacy efforts have taken a beating in Pakistan, and hope and help is probably needed there more than anywhere else.

Second, when was the last time you’ve heard of a non-career appointee run a public affairs shop at the embassy level?

Hmmn, let me see – how about Dan Senor, remember him? Probably most noted as chief spokesperson for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq in the old days.

The CPA was not quite the embassy but close enough. The Bush II White House, after all called Senor “Advisor to the U.S. Presidential Envoy in Iraq” (that is, Presidential Envoy L. Paul Bremer III, Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority).

I've watched Ensor on CNN; I remember him as telegenic; don't know his politics. Before joining CNN, he served as ABC News' diplomatic correspondent from 1995-1998.Still -- I hope no one is trying to replicate the CPA’s “Green Room” in Baghdad at the US Embassy in Kabul …

Quickie: Tent Problems with Team USA in Kabul?

Cover via Amazon

Mark Perry, a military and foreign policy analyst whose most recent book is Partners in Command, George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in War and Peace has an interesting article in the December 10 issue of Asia Times (The day the general made a misstep).

Some quite meaty blind quotes if you ask me, not just from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, er make that from the 3Ds. But if there’s smoke, there’s fire. So the fact that these relationship and personality problems are leaking out means that whatever other larger problems we have in Afghanistan, our first problem appears to be with the Team USA tent we have pitched in Kabul.

Quote 1: A US Development officer says:

“They absolutely flooded the zone.” […]"There must have been hundreds of them. They were in every province, every village, talking to everyone. There were 10 of them for every one of us."

Quote 2: A senior State Department official says with a tinge of bitterness:

"What a shock. If you deploy a gang squad, they're going to find a gang." […] "They were looking for an insurgency and they found one."

Quote 3: From an Eikenberry colleague:

"McChrystal came in and he just thought he was some kind of Roman proconsul, a [Douglas] MacArthur." […] "He was going to run the whole thing. He didn't need to consult with the State Department or civilians, let alone the ambassador. This was not only the military's show, it was his show."

Quote 4: A senior Pentagon official:

The PACC is "a stovepipe operation" [….]. "It's beautiful. It's headed up by McChrystal acolytes, former special operations officers who view him [McChrystal] as their patron. So they follow his lead. And there is no requirement for them to share any of the information they get from Kabul with the State Department or anyone else - let alone with Eikenberry. This is McChrystal's game. The PACC people in Washington pass information to McChrystal without going through any channels and they take the best information from Kabul and they brief [JCS chairman Admiral Mike] Mullen - and he briefs the president. So during the run-up to the Afghanistan decision, the military always looked current. They had the best information. Everyone else looked like a bunch of amateurs. Eikenberry was out of the loop. He had no chop [influence] on any of it. They just ran circles around him."

Quote 5: A senior State Department official in Washington:

"We kept saying 'we need to open up to the other side, like we did in Iraq with the Anbar insurgency,' and the military kept saying, 'well this isn't Iraq.' And so we'd answer: 'fine, so if Afghanistan isn't Iraq, then why do you keep talking about a surge?' And we never got an answer."

Quote 6: One State Department employee says:

"You can only be treated like a bunch of idiots for so long before you get fed up," […]. "It was PowerPoint after PowerPoint, all filled with this lingo and it all sounded pretty scientific. But it all amounted to the same thing - who do we kill. Well, it won't work."

There are at least three individuals in the article who are not wearing paper bags over their heads: James Clad, a former Pentagon deputy assistant secretary of defense for South Asia; Graham Fuller, a former Central Intelligence Agency station chief in Kabul and Andrew Bacevich, the dean of America's military thinkers.

More in the article. Read the whole thing here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Officials Try to Unite on Afghan Plan (nytimes.com)

Will the Afghanistan Civilian Surge Go Super Surge?

It looks like the much touted 974 figure is just a “down-payment” to the “total” civilian surge to Afghanistan. SRAP deputy Paul Jones is now talking about more civilian advisers to Afghanistan beyond the 974 expected to get there in early 2010. Ambassador Holbrooke’s deputy was over at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday and had this to say:

The President will soon request from Congress the resources needed to implement this focused civilian effort. His request will include not only a sizable increase in civilian assistance, but also funds to support deployment of additional civilian experts beyond the roughly 1,000 U.S. government civilians who will be on the ground by early next year. These civilians will help build Afghan governance and private sector capacity. In the field, they will work from District Support Teams and PRTs, side by side with our military. Some will also extend our permanent diplomatic presence outside of Kabul by staffing new consulates in Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat.We are now in the midst of the civilian surge. I spoke last Thursday at the Foreign Service Institute with a class of 90 experts from USAID, USDA and State who will be deploying before Christmas; the next such class is in two weeks, so our tempo is quick. On Friday, I met with a packed room of Foreign Service Officers looking to sign-up for tours in 2010 and beyond. Next week, I’ll travel to Camp Atterbury, Indiana, where every civilian deploying to the field undergoes a week-long, realistic, intensive field exercise with our military counterparts.Secretary Clinton is proud of noting that among these civilians are our top experts from 10 different U.S. government departments and agencies. And once deployed, they report to our Embassy in Kabul through a unified civilian chain of command, with senior civilian representatives at every civ-mil platform. In short, our selection, training and leadership is better than ever before. The result is improved civ-mil coordination at all levels of our effort in Afghanistan, and gives us the civilian expertise out in key districts that will allow our locally-focused strategy to succeed. Admiral Mullen attested to the quality of the civilians during his appearance before the Congress last Thursday.

See Mr. Jones’ full remarks at the AEI here.

Although we now know that there are 10 participating agencies, we still do not have a breakdown of which agencies are going to Afghanistan, and how many staff they are contributing to this effort. We also still do not have the breakdown sector-wide of these civilian experts.

And – some of you may know this, but I still have no idea where the larger part of the 974 are coming from. See my previous post 974 to Afghanistan for the Civilian Surge. Or where are they going to get the “beyond” 1,000 civilian experts now planned.

I also almost forgot to mention – this OIG report from August 2009 indicates that there are “nearly four life support and personal security contractors to every one U.S. Government staff member at these Regional Embassy Offices and Regional Reconstruction Team.” That report was on the regional embassy staffing in Iraq. Note that Mr. Jones above has the “District Support Teams and PRTs” in Afghanistan --different name but I suspect, functionally similar to REOs in Iraq.

Afghanistan is in a far worse state than Iraq, of course, but if we go by the Iraq calculation rounded down, that 974 civilian surge number actually means additional life support and personal security personnel of 2,922 or a total surge of 3,896 individuals (life support and protective services normally handled by contractors).

On a related note, Laura Rozen of Politico has posted a December 5 memo from retired General Barry R McCaffrey, who is now adjunct professor of International Affairs at West Point. The memo “provides a strategic and operational assessment of security operations in Afghanistan.” In it the general says that the “civilian agency surge will essentially not happen” – see below:

“The international civilian agency surge will essentially not happen ---although State Department officers, US AID, CIA, DEA, and the FBI will make vital contributions. Afghanistan over the next 2-3 years will be simply too dangerous for most civil agencies.”

A bunch of folks would have something to say about that from Foggy Bottom to Pennsylvania Avenue.

974 to Afghanistan for the Civilian Surge

Image via Wikipedia

Last month, Jack Lew, the State Department’s Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, visited Camp Atterbury-Muscatatuck Center for Complex Operations in Indiana and had a town hall.

Here is part of what he said:

“This is really important work. It’s really hard work. We have a lot of confidence in all of you as you go out to Afghanistan to be able to make a difference. And here in a week and a day, when it’s a new beginning for the government there, it’s a time of hope for the people there, we can’t lose sight of the challenges. You’re going to be dealing with bureaucratic challenges, political challenges, security challenges, and people who may not always be motivated the way we would want them to be motivated. I have confidence that each of you can make a difference in the work you do, and I hope the training here has helped prepare you to go out and be as effective as we know you can be.”

They had a Q&A for about 10 minutes with about half a dozen questions. One question on expanding participating agencies, another one on program continuity, excerpted below:

QUESTION: Thank you, sir, for the opportunity. My question is related to the participating agencies in the mission. Are there any plans to expand the number of participating agencies, i.e., Department of Transportation?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: The Department of Transportation is already helping out with a number of functions, so they’re in the – not a great number, but there’s a handful of people from the Department of Transportation.[…]We didn’t sit down and say, we need X, Y, and Z agencies involved. We identified – ultimately the 974 positions that we’re now filling are 974 specific position descriptions. Each of you was recruited because you have a core capability to help with one of those, or a number – a set of those missions. And that’s what makes it challenging to recruit civilians, because you don’t – you can’t just ask for a team of a hundred people who do agricultural work or a team of a hundred people who do rule of law work. If there’s more work for the Department of Transportation, my conversations with the Department of Transportation lead me to believe that they are fully prepared to be part of the effort.

QUESTION: […] But in this short a time, I wouldn’t think it will be effective enough to complete the mission. And I myself hate that I’ll start something and leave it in the middle and then come back and somebody else will come after me, start from the beginning again.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: One of the challenges in crisis and post-crisis missions is continuity of program. These are not programs where you have decades to do it, so you have to work intensely in a short period of time, but we have deployments that have not traditionally been long enough. One of the things about the mission, and what all of you have signed onto, is a longer assignment than, historically, civilians have been taking. The fact that you have made commitments for a year is a huge improvement in terms of continuity, from a situation where we would send civilians out for three months at a time. People can do a lot of good work in three months, but the number of transitions makes continuity very challenging.So the fact that we’re in the process of building a civilian force from 320 to almost a thousand, and that will be, for the most part, full-year commitments addresses that issue right off the bat. I don’t think that we’ll get most people to sign up for two and three years, but we are encouraging people to make multi-year commitments.I think we have to be realistic that these are difficult assignments, and if we make the standard that you can only do this work if you do it for two or three years, that will artificially limit the effectiveness of our ability to get people in the right place at the right time. On the other hand, we are very much going to encourage and support multi-year commitments.We’re also going to try and stagger the turnover. We’re going to try and not have it be that everyone comes and goes on the same day. Part of the challenge in these transitions and the continuity is that the hand-off – it’s kind of like being in an American hospital on July 4^th weekend. Everybody’s new. You don’t want to be sick in America on July 4^th.A lot of the turnover in programs like this has tended, because of the schedule of Foreign Service assignments – has been all at once, partially because we’ve been staffing up gradually over an extensive period. People’s years will end at different times. And we’re very conscious of it, and building in with Kabul – with our Embassy in Kabul – a plan to not have the kind of sudden transition that really does create a problem in continuity. The military has been very effective in a lot of places, and Foreign Service has been very effective in a lot of places with these kinds of short-term but very intense assignments.I think going to a year for the basic assignment is a huge step forward. Having the transitions be smoother is a second one. And I think you put your finger on what is a critical challenge. These are not 12-month projects. The – many of the development projects that we’re going to be undertaking in the traditional development context take many years. We don’t have many years to show progress, because it’s a situation where if we can’t show progress quickly, the political reality on the ground won’t be there where it needs to be to keep moving forward.But that doesn’t mean you finish the job. Showing progress and finishing the job are different. We need to be able to show progress quickly, and then have a realistic trajectory towards the kinds of objectives, and ultimately the transfer of responsibility, from international and American staff and military, to Afghans.

Read the whole Town Hall transcript here.

On a side note -- the November 20 issue of WaPo had a piece on this training site: In Indiana, practice for 'civilian surge' in Afghanistan by Karen DeYoung, in case you missed that.

In any case, at the HFAC the other day, Secretary Clinton also mentioned the magic number of 974 for the civilian surge in Afghanistan:

"The civilian effort is bearing fruit. Civilian experts and advisors are helping to craft policy inside government ministries, providing development assistance in the field, and when our marines went into Nawa province this last July, we had civilians on the ground with them to coordinate assistance the very next day. As our operations progress, our civ-mil coordination will grow even stronger. We are on track to triple the number of civilian positions to 974 by early in January. On average, each of these civilians leverages 10 partners ranging from locally employed staff to experts with U.S.-funded NGOs."

You might remember that in the October 26 briefing that D/Secretary Lew did on the civilian hiring in Afghanistan, one reporter inquired about the sector-wise breakdown of this 974 figure. It was not available at that time, and I have not seen a follow up post on the solicited information from PA. The briefing did indicate that out of the 974 people, 64 will come from the Department of Agriculture and 128 positions will come from the Department of Justice. State has a total of 423 while USAID’s total number will be 333.

D/Secretary Lew also said this: “So we’re doing pretty well in terms of identifying candidates. We’re not seeing that there’s a lack – we’re seeing a great deal of enthusiasm and interest in going to post. I think that it speaks again both to the – how critical the mission is, and that it’s seen as joining a team that’s doing very important work.”

So there's no talk about going through that silly exercise called "Prime Candidate" again (real life not reality show) as was done previously. Thank goodness! But I am still curious about the breakdown of the 974 figure agency and sector-wise and most particularly interested on the composition of the 756 personnel coming from both State/USAID.

• How many of the 756 are coming from the regular Foreign Service? Regular USAID?

• How many are 5 U.S.C. 3161 employees? More here.

• How many are professional contractors?

• How many are on Limited Non-Career Appointments (LNA) like Matthew Hoh?

• How many are When Actually Employed (WAE) employees (retired Foreign Service personnel with limited work hours)?

• How many are Foreign Service National (FSNs or LES) employees from other US Missions, borrowed for temporary duty in Afghanistan?

The 974 number is for Afghanistan alone. By the way, nobody is even talking very much these days about the staffing need at US Embassy Baghdad post-military drawdown or the staffing need at US Mission Pakistan with the expected expansion there. Also not discussed during these briefings are the number of life support personnel who will accompany the deployment of the 974 individuals.

Anyway -- the core question is a simple one -- how much of this specific civilian surge has the State Department been able to grow on its own? And perhaps, more importantly, how much will be outsourced, since almost nothing can be done anywhere anymore these days without contractors.

I am also interested for one other reason. Although additional hiring has been authorized recently for the Foreign Service, the demand still outpaces the supply at this point. Which means that if -- the entire 473 personnel going to Afghanistan are coming from the regular Foreign Service, there will be 473 slots at home and at 265 embassies/consulates that will go unfilled. Unfilled until new people are brought in, trained and sent off as replacements and all that will not happen overnight. In addition, some 450+ personnel most certainly will be needed for the inbound rotation to Afghanistan in fiscal year 2011. Beyond that, who knows?

US Consulate in Mazar-e-Sharif Moving Forward

Image via Wikipedia

The US Embassy in Kabul just announced that Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry and the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Dr. Rangin Dadfar Spanta, signed a new agreement under which the United States would lease an historic 1930’s hotel in Mazar-e-Sharif for use as the new U.S. Consulate. Below is the rest of the press release:

This newly-signed lease extends for 9 years and 11 months, with multiple rights to renew in the future. The United States has agreed to invest approximately $26 million to renovate the facility so that it may be used as an office building and housing for consulate employees. Mazar-e-Sharif is a dynamic commercial center of northern Afghanistan and a gateway to Central Asia. Our decision to place a consulate in Mazar signifies the U.S. Government’s commitment to Northern Afghanistan and our permanent commitment to relations with Afghanistan. Today’s lease signing is the first step in realizing this commitment to Mazar.

I cannot find a confirmation of this, but it looks like the hotel referred to here is the Mazar Hotel. Here is the undated description of the hotel from Lonely Planet:

This is a hotel in an 1930s style, all high ceilings, grand dining rooms and monolithic pillars. It's a little dusty, giving the impression that it doesn't see all that many guests, but the swimming pool is popular with local lads in the summer. En suite rooms are a flat price for single or double occupancy, and have the novelty of a bath as well as shower.

Another description from a traveler who stayed at Mazar in 2007:

We are staying at the Mazar Hotel for $50/night. Our room is really a cavernous suite with a bedroom, living room and bath. Our suite is at the end of one of the hotels two long wings. The ceilings must be 15 ft high. It is a huge place built in the 1930 and it doesn't look like any of the furnishings or fixtures have been changed in all that time. The electrical wiring is screwed up and the fuses keep blowing and there is no hot water. When Arvid makes the long walk to the office to complain the three men dressed like cadres of the Northern Alliance who had been there when we checked in are gone. We are the only guests in the building. There is a large dining room or rather banquet hall but it is closed indefinitely. This place is really strange ... it could be a movie set for one of those European art films where there is no dialogue or plot.

TSB of The Skeptical Bureaucrat confirmed that this is the hotel (see comments below). Click here to see the photos.

Squirrels Are Us?

Image by Lynoure via Flickr

Edmund Andrews reported over the weekend on the Wave of Debt Payments Facing U.S. Government (NYT | November 22, 2009):

The United States government is financing its more than trillion-dollar-a-year borrowing with i.o.u.’s on terms that seem too good to be true.

But that happy situation, aided by ultralow interest rates, may not last much longer. Treasury officials now face a trifecta of headaches: a mountain of new debt, a balloon of short-term borrowings that come due in the months ahead, and interest rates that are sure to climb back to normal as soon as the Federal Reserve decides that the emergency has passed.[…]The problem, many analysts say, is that record government deficits have arrived just as the long-feared explosion begins in spending on benefits under Medicare and Social Security. The nation’s oldest baby boomers are approaching 65, setting off what experts have warned for years will be a fiscal nightmare for the government.

“What a good country or a good squirrel should be doing is stashing away nuts for the winter,” said William H. Gross, managing director of the Pimco Group, the giant bond-management firm. “The United States is not only not saving nuts, it’s eating the ones left over from the last winter.”

But Nobelist Paul Krugman calls it The Phantom Menace.

Image by exfordy via Flickr

Still -- a tad scary, I supposed, when one realize a simple thing. It’s not only that we’re not saving nuts, or munching the bad ones left from last winter for that matter, but that we’re also giving “our” nuts away …

See -- there’s also Jon Boone in Kabul with more worrisome news from Afghanistan. He’s reporting that we are pouring millions into anti-Taliban militias in Afghanistan (Guardian | November 22, 2009). Apparently the Special Forces are funding fighters in Afghanistan and there are fears the strategy could further destabilize Afghanistan. “According to some western officials, the US government will make a pot of $1.3bn (£790m) available for the programme, although the US embassy said it could not yet comment on CDI.” He also writes that “senior generals in the Afghan ministries of interior and defence are also worried about what they see as a return to the failed strategies of the Soviet Union during its occupation of Afghanistan.”

Wait, wait a minute! Didn’t the we armed the somebodies out there in the 1980s against the Soviet occupation? What? We're not supposed to talk about that? The Guardian also reports that “in return for stabilising their local area the militia helps to win development aid for their local communities, although they will not receive arms, a US official said.”

How sure are we that they will not turn their aid money into arms to shoot at our guys?

This is just so, so confusing.

But I do feel sorry for squirrels like us. Are we ever going to enjoy our nuts again in peace like normal squirrels? Or is this as good as it gets?

There are families at US Embassy Kabul?

Image via Wikipedia

Secretary Clinton’s US Embassy Kabul meet and greet last week was labeled a “Meet and Greet at Embassy Kabul with Employees and Their Families.” This almost gave the impression of “normal” with dependent family members in the warzone.

Of course, family denotes the traditional basic unit consisting of two parents and children or spouse and children, or the not so traditional one parent/child/ren composition. As far as I know, the US Embassy in Kabul is still a fully unaccompanied post. Well, unaccompanied except for the ambassador’s wife, Ching Eikenberry and the spouse of the deputy ambassador, Dr. Marie Ricciardone. Both are reportedly working for the US mission in Kabul. Are there any other spouses, senior or otherwise, working at the mission there? Are there children in Kabul? Or is that post still, really for adults only and the title of the meet and greet was simply a "cut and paste" lapse?

I see that Liz of Nick and Liz Go Global will be joining Nick in Kabul in late November. But other than those couples, I don’t really know how many family members are on official orders in Kabul (local employees excepted).

There are six fully unaccompanied posts in the Foreign Service, according to the FSJ in March 2009: Baghdad, Kabul, Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, and Peshawar. The adult family member is able to accompany the employee if he/she is authorized by the Under Secretary for Management. But this is on a case by case basis. I understand that the adult family member must secure employment at the mission before authorization is granted.

In any case, if you are a spouse and looking for a job in Kabul – there are about 170 jobs posted for Afghanistan right now. A bunch of the jobs are on Limited Noncareer Appointment (LNA), which is usually what you get when you work at any overseas mission, anyway. These positions are limited in time – usually for about one year. But your employee-spouse will most probably be on a one-year assignment to Afghanistan, too.

HRC Presents Heroism Award to Matt Sherman

Secretary Clinton made an unannounced visit to Kabul yesterday and had a meet and greet with Embassy Kabul employees. She also presented FSO, Matt Sherman the Department of State’s Award for Heroism. Excerpt from the meet & greet:

“There is one Embassy staff member in particular, a Foreign Service officer who has gone above and beyond the call of duty that I just wanted to mention, because to a great extent, he represents all of you. Last May, Matt Sherman was on a mission with military colleagues when the lead convoy vehicle struck an IED and flipped. Matt raced from the safety of his vehicle to assist the wounded soldiers. And in recognition of his courageous and selfless actions, the troops of Task Force Spartan, Third Brigade Command Team, 10^th Mountain Division, from upstate New York, nominated him – let’s give a round of applause for Fort Drum, okay? (Applause.) The 10^th Mountain Division were the first American soldiers to come to Afghanistan after 9/11. I had the honor, when I was a senator from New York, escorting President Karzai to Fort Drum to thank the 10^th Mountain Division and to recognize their sacrifice.

Well, the Task Force and the Brigade Command Team and the 10^th Mountain Division have nominated Matt Sherman for the Department of State Award for Heroism. And Matt – where’s Matt? Matt, come up here. Matt, please. (Applause.)

Well, Matt, we have approved – big surprise – we have approved – (laughter) – this award in appreciation for your outstanding service. As I said, there are a lot of people who have performed just extraordinary and admirable service on behalf of the United States.”

Quickie: TelConference With Ambassador Eikenberry (That Did Not Happen)

Photo by US Embassy Kabulvia Flickr

Note: Since Spencer Ackerman retracted this story, the title of this post has also been updated. The original title was "Quickie: TelConference with Ambassador Eikenberry." You’ve heard about those “leaked” cables on Afghanistan? If not, read The Washington Post piece U.S. envoy resists increase in troops (November 12, 2009). The U.S. ambassador in Kabul reportedly sent two classified cables to Washington in the past week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

Spencer Ackerman has a follow-up on this:

It was a tense meeting this morning at the White House, as Ambassador Karl Eikenberry addressed the National Security Council by teleconference from Kabul just hours after the media got hold of his dissent on the crucial question of sending more troops to Afghanistan. “He is very unpopular here,” said a National Security Council staffer who described the meeting.[…]The prevailing theory is that “he leaked his own cables” because “he has a beef with McChrystal,” the staffer said. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Eikenberry’s successor as NATO commander in Afghanistan, has requested an increase in troops to support a counterinsurgency strategy with a substantial counterterrorism component.[…]The ambassador told the NSC not to send additional troops to Afghanistan “without an exit strategy” and urged that the president to adopt a “purely civilian approach” with the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development in the lead, not the military. According to the NSC staffer, Eikenberry “wants a realignment” of USAID, the Afghanistan inspector general’s office and the State Department’s stabilization and reconstruction office. Eikenberry said President Obama “wants that” — although Obama was not in the meeting — and he hailed the arrival of the new USAID administrator-nominee, Rajiv Shah, “because he will not wage war when the org charts start changing.”

Read the whole thing here.

Update: 11/13/09Whoops! Spence Ackerman has retracted this story:

"From the start, the post should have a) more clearly indicated that my source wasn’t present at the meeting; b) more clearly indicated that the account provided was single-sourced; and c) verified the information provided before publication. My enthusiasm for a hot story outpaced my professional judgment. For that I take full responsibility, retract the story and issue a full apology for its publication." Read: A Retraction of My Eikenberry Post. See what a retraction looks like here. Wow! You don't see this very often in the media now.

US Embassy Kabul: Honoring DEA Agents Lost

Photo from US Embassy Kabul via Flickr

At dawn on October 29, at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, the bodies of the three DEA special agents and 15 U.S. troops who died recently in Afghanistan were received by President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Michele Leonhart, the acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration.That same day, the US Embassy Kabul held a ceremony to honor the three DEA agents who lost their lives in the line of duty on October 26. The three special agents - Michael Weston, Chad Michael and Forrest Leamon -- members of the Kabul Country Office, died when the U.S. military helicopter they were on crashed while returning from a joint counter narcotics mission in Western Afghanistan. DOD has now identified the seven soldiers who also died that day. The helicopter was an MH-47 helicopter and the crash occurred in Darreh-ye Bum, Afghanistan. The soldiers names are here.

Our thoughts and prayers to the loved ones they left behind. More photos here of the US Embassy Kabul ceremony.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama to meet plane carrying soldiers killed in Afghanistan (cnn.com)
• Obama Honors Fallen U.S. Soldiers at Solemn Service (abcnews.go.com)

Jack Lew on Civilian Staffing in Afghanistan

Yesterday, Jack Lew, the Department's Under Secretary for Management and Resources gave a briefing on progress made in civilian hiring for Afghanistan. He said that the Department is on-track to meet staffing goals in Afghanistan. In the Q&A that followed, Secretary Lew gave the staffing goal at this point:

The 974 is the goal. What I’ve been trying to express is that as the plan is implemented and as there are needs for additional experts, we are not saying 974 is the end of it and if you need 10 more agricultural experts, it’s over. We’re open, as the deployment takes effect and is fully implemented on the margins, to be flexible.

[…] civilians come in ones. They don’t come in battalions. So it’s a different concept to assign civilians. We’re really matching people to tasks. So as the Embassy identifies additional tasks, we are open. It’s not an unlimited openness. I mean, obviously, we’re limited by appropriations and available resources.

Of course, how can anyone talk about war zone staffing without bringing up the "near-revolt" in Foggy Bottom in 2007? "Secretary Rice was trying to compel Foreign Service officers to go to these places, and now you’re saying you’re having no trouble at all."DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: I don’t want to say it’s easy. This is very hard. I mean, they’re hard assignments. These are hard decisions for people to make to go over, and it’s hard work when they get there. So it’s challenging, and I think we have to be kind of conscious of the fact that it gets harder as you do it year after year, because people who are inclined to take assignments like this have already done it once or twice. So it’s a challenging undertaking.

I think that what I attribute the relative enthusiasm of the Foreign Service in the State Department to sign on for this mission really gets down to its core strategic importance and the leadership both from the Secretary, the Ambassador, Ambassador Holbrooke – the team that’s on it. Look, even the fact that I am managing the recruitment of the 974 people, I mean, I’m told that that wasn’t the way Iraq was handled. It wasn’t at a level – the Deputy Secretary level. There’s a lot of visibility to this, and there’s a lot of sense of calling, that it’s a mission that people, if they’re able to contribute, feel they should try to.I think that it’s not for everyone. Some people sign up, and by the time they get through training don’t decide it’s for them. Some people go out and come back. But that’s really very few compared to the total. And there’s nothing – there’s no compulsion in this. I mean, we still have the tools that were contemplated then should we ever need them, but --QUESTION: Meaning forced to serve?DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Yeah. The tools exist and everyone who is in the Foreign Service knows that that’s an option that’s available. But I’m very proud of our Foreign Service that it hasn’t been necessary to talk about that. Having been there several times now, I have a great deal of admiration and respect for people who are leaving their families behind, going to places where they’re in harm’s way, and doing work that isn’t always glorious and grand, but it’s important and they have to do it day after day.

An alternate video source is here at c-span. The transcript of his briefing is available here.

Truth or Consequence: Linked Assignments

Image via Wikipedia

The State Department’s OIG has recently released its inspection report of US Embassy London (OIG Report No. ISP-I-09-37A | July 2009). It talks about a lot of things, as these reports tend to systematically go through the different sections of the embassy and look at issues like management control, morale, etc. But I’m struck by what it says about linked assignments. This is a relatively new practice in the State Department of linking one-year assignments to Iraq and Afghanistan with the next onward assignment as part of the war zone incentive package:

“Another challenge has been the absorption of a large number of officers – 60 currently serving in London – who have returned from duty at extreme hardship posts such as Kabul or Baghdad with high expectations of a London tour of duty. Some lack the requisite debriefing or training.”

Elsewhere in the report the OIG writes:

“The impact on London’s ability to manage its staffing and the quality of its work is significant. For example, the current regional security officer (RSO) could only be assigned for a short tour in London (18 months) as his position had already been promised to an officer due to depart Iraq. Other positions have been or will be filled by returnees who have no experience or training for the work they will assume in London.

For example, by 2010 there will be only one officer in London’s large and busy economic section who has served previously as an economic officer. This gradual accretion of tied assignments in London’s staffing pattern has had the unintended impact of putting many positions in London out of reach for virtually all bidders, regardless of how qualified, except for returnees.”

Bob Barker in the old days signs off with, "Hoping all your consequences are happy ones." I hope so, too. I hope so, too.

Related Post:Quickie: Gunning for London via Baghdad? Better Hurry

Related Item:OIG Report No. ISP-I-09-37A | July 2009: US Embassy London, England

John Kerry: Man of the Hour in Afghanistan

The U.S. Embassy in Kabul has just released a statement on the Announcement of First Round Results of that contentious Afghan presidential elections:

The United States welcomes today’s announcement of certified results in the first round of the Afghan Presidential elections. We congratulate all candidates in this historic race, and applaud the vigorous campaigns run by President Karzai and Dr. Abdullah, garnering support across the country and ethnic lines. As neither of the top two candidates received more than fifty percent of the vote, the Constitution calls for the holding of a run-off. We welcome President Karzai’s statesmanlike acceptance of this result and his agreement to a second round of voting.The United States commends the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) and the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) for fulfilling their mandates, working in coordination with one another to ensure that the electoral and adjudication processes were carried out under Afghanistan’s Electoral Law and according to international standards.Read the whole thing and view the photos here.

Looks like our man of the hour in Afghanistan is no other than Senator John Kerry of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Photos below from the US Embassy Kabul's Facebook page.

That's Amb Eikenberry, the ECC official, Senator Kerry,UNAMA's Kai Eide and President Hamid Karzai

Senator Kerry with Abdullah Abdullah and Ambassador Eikenberry

Senator Kerry with President Karzai

Makes one wonder where in the world is the Special AfPak Rep, Richard Holbrooke?