Daily Archives: August 31, 2009

Where in the world did Secretary Clinton vacation?

August 31, 2009 By in Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S. Missions
Photo from US ConGen Bermuda
August 20, 2009

Yes, Secretary Clinton went on a holiday and the press had a field day trying to guess if she went to New Mexico, Vegas, or Los Angeles. They tried their guessing game with the Spokesman:

QUESTION: Well, is Secretary Clinton on holiday? She’s not going to New Mexico just – (Laughter.)
MR. KELLY: I think I can assure you she’s not going to New Mexico, no.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: What exactly was the itinerary that was approved?
MR. KELLY: Matt, we don’t go into the details of that. You’ll have to ask the —
QUESTION: Ask the North Koreans?
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Thank you. Were there other stops – were there other stops?
MR. KELLY: There were other stops on their —
QUESTION: Two other stops?
MR. KELLY: — proposed itinerary.
QUESTION: Yes. Would one of them be a place that’s —
MR. KELLY: There were other stops.
QUESTION: — one of them be a place that North Koreans might not generally be comfortable with going to?
QUESTION: Disney World?
QUESTION: A little bit north. Are they going to Vegas?
MR. KELLY: I’ll repeat, Matt, we don’t go into the details of —
QUESTION: Are they going to Las Vegas?
MR. KELLY: You’ll have to ask the North Korean mission, Matt, if they’re going to Las Vegas. QUESTION: What about Los Angeles?
MR. KELLY: I believe you’ll have to ask the North Korean mission, Matt.

I don’t know if the North Koreans were able to track Bermuda on their map. Above photo showed the Secretary of State and President Clinton with some US ConGen Bermuda’s staff a few days ago. The Clintons were with (right-left) Consul General Grace Shelton, Deputy Principal Officer Frank Fulgham and Consul Margaret Pride in Hamilton.

$75 million to run a single PRT is not excessive?

August 31, 2009 By in Foreign Service, Govt Documents, Iraq, State Department, US Embassy Baghdad
Map from OIG/MERO Report

The State Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has just released two Iraq-related reports the last few days. One on the Embassy’s transition planning as the Department take on increased roles and responsibilities following the withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011 (we’ll get to that in a separate post); the other report is a review of the effectiveness of Regional Embassy Offices (REOs) in Iraq.

Quick background:

“In the summer of 2004, upon the disestablishment of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the Department established Regional Embassy Offices (REO) in the cit­ies of Basra and Hillah in southern Iraq, and Kirkuk and Mosul in northern Iraq.1 In February 2009, REO Kirkuk closed. Most of its functions were transferred to the Regional Reconstruction Team (RRT) located in downtown Erbil. In May 2009, REO Basra was closed and replaced by the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Basra. When the OIG audit began in December 2008, three REOs were operating, but as of the date of this report, only REO Hillah is active.”

Now – the good news:

“REOs, as diplomatic extensions of Embassy Baghdad, were important in pro­jecting an active USG presence in Iraq’s outlying provinces. REOs effectively served as bases for conducting engagements with Iraqis, reported firsthand on political and economic developments in the provinces, and acted as vital nearby staging areas for personal protection operations.”

The not so good news? These bases for engagement come at a pretty stiff price tag:

“[…] Operating and supporting a forward-deployed USG civilian presence is a challenging and expensive proposition. Due to the unstable security environ­ment in Iraq, REOs depended on private contractors to provide life support and personal protective services. At the time of this audit, there were a total of 265 USG staff members at REO Basra, RRT Erbil, and REO Hillah, and a total of 1,027 life support and personal security contractors — a ratio of nearly four life support and personal security contractors to each USG staff member.”

$75 million to run a 37-member PRT. From the OIG report:

REO Hillah was established in June 2004 on the site of the former regional headquarters of the Coalition Provisional Authority for south central Iraq. The south central area is known as the Shia heartland, with the city of An Najaf serving as the capital. Babil Province, south of Baghdad, has a mixed Sunni and Shia population, and is an important transport and fuel network, which creates sectarian volatility. REO Hillah mainly served as a base for five PRTs operating in Babil, Karbala, Najaf, Wasit, and Qadisiyah. However, by early 2008, four of the PRTs in Hillah were trans­ferred to their respective provinces, and REO Hillah supported only PRT Babil.

OIG visited REO Hillah in February 2009, and an interim report was issued in April 2009 recommending: (1) stopping or curtailing all capital improvement proj­ects; (2) relocating PRT Babil and other USG employees to a nearby U.S. Army base; (3) curtailing or transferring REO Hillah security and support staff to other locations in Iraq; and (4) decommissioning and returning the Hillah hotel property to the Government of Iraq.

Embassy Baghdad objected to OIG’s recommendation to accelerate the closing of REO Hillah stating that speeding closure and relocation would undermine an existing process moving forward at a measured pace. The Embassy emphasized the need to consider the negative impact on all of the organizations and personnel supported by the REO.

Embassy Baghdad had calculated $55 million in annual security costs at REO Hillah to support approximately 300 personal security specialists and a perimeter guard force. The annual support costs for about 350 KBR employees and locally hired Iraqis was estimated at $20 million. REO Hillah is currently supporting one 37-member PRT, and OIG determined that $75 million in annual operating costs was excessive and an expensive way to support a single PRT. OIG observed that cost savings of $6.5 million a month meant that closure of the REO by May 2009 could result in savings of more than $32 million in FY 2009.

In addition to the operating costs, REO Hillah had 10 capital improvement projects underway, including three not yet begun and valued at $1.4 million, four projects that were 15 percent completed leaving $235,000 unobligated, and three projects 25 to 73 percent completed with $643,000 unobligated, adding up to potentially nearly $2.3 million in unexpended funds. OIG has learned that the Embassy has stopped all capital improvement projects at REO Hillah. The Embassy’s contracting officer’s representative, with management support, rejected requests by the site contractor to continue with several proposals, including work on a firing range, procurement of communications systems for fire trucks, and purchase of handheld radios.

However, as of July 2, 2009, Embassy Baghdad had not taken any further action toward closing REO Hillah. Therefore, OIG reiterates its recommendation to accelerate the relocation of PRT Babil and the closure of REO Hillah.

The Embassy is understandably concerned about the “negative impact on all of the organizations and personnel supported by the REO.” But please let’s think about this for a moment. If REO Hillah is supporting a 37-member PRT, that’s over $2 million dollars to support each PRT member in that location. The move would be inconvenient for sure, but how much of a negative impact is there going to be if the PRT operation moves to the nearby U.S. Army base as suggested by the OIG? I would have felt much better if Embassy Baghdad quantified that in their response to the report; otherwise, I can’t help but agree that $75 million is just a tad much as operation cost for a 37-member PRT.

On a related note — AFP recently reported that in May this year, the administration projected a 3.998 trillion dollar budget for 2009 with a deficit of 1.841 trillion dollars, reflecting swollen spending amid the worst economic crisis on record. The estimated budget deficit for the current fiscal 2009 ending September 30 will reportedly be trimmed to 1.58 trillion dollars, around 262 billion dollars lower than forecasted. Yay?!

Related Items:

Insider Quote: Specialist and Generalist

August 31, 2009 By in Foreign Service, FS Blogs, Org Life, Quotes, Realities of the FS

A Wide Receiver catching a ball.Image via Wikipedia

When it comes to distinguishing between the Foreign Service career paths, many officers still give me a blank stare when I mention I’m a specialist and not a generalist. I get the impression that once someone is in a-100 class (generalist’s orientation) they never hear about the specialist path. […] I understand American’s coming from other agencies serving a tour as an FSO not picking up on it. Everything in the department of state is new to them. I’m talking about regular FSOs that have already worked for several tours. I explain to them the differences in pay, job responsibilities, usually no language training, etc. Invariably, I get asked by post to fill in for officers even though I’ve never received any generalist training in that regard. I’ve been a backup for management officers but that usually the norm for an IT person, since we work under that section and learn about it anyway. But my current post has brought up other back-fill positions that I really have no right to do at the expense of my own responsibilities. I’m all about working as a team, but that’s like putting a running back into a wide receiver position. You better plan on seeing a few balls get dropped.

Specialist and Generalist
From FS Blog: 240to120.com

ConGen Mumbai: Everybody Needs Love

August 31, 2009 By in Consular Work, Court Cases, Foreign Service

All You Need Is LoveImage via Wikipedia

Sigh! As if life is not hard enough down in the trenches …

A good thing that Judge Paul Friedman of the US District Court of the District of Columbia dismissed this case.

One plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a pro se complaint seeking to compel the issuance of a visa for his fiancée and requesting one million dollars in damages for the allegedly wrongful initial denial of the visa, and for “unreasonable harassment” and denial of civil rights in the process. Compl. at 2. The Court appointed pro bono counsel for the plaintiff and stayed the case to allow the parties time to resolve the matter. The plaintiff’s fiancé has since been issued a visa, and the plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service as a defendant. See Joint Status Report, July 30, 2009, ¶¶ 2, 4; Order, Aug. 11, 2009 (dismissing the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service as a defendant).

The plaintiff, however, asks the Court to admonish or sanction the remaining defendant, the U.S. Consul General in Mumbai, India, for its conduct in what plaintiff alleges was delay in the process of obtaining the visa. See Joint Status Report ¶ 5(a). The defendant contends that this Court has no jurisdiction over this matter, there was no wrong-doing by the defendant, the case has become moot with the issuance of a visa for the plaintiff’s fiancée and that therefore, the sole remaining party should be dismissed. See id. ¶ 5(b). The plaintiff has not identified either a cause of action upon which may be based a claim for sanctions, admonition, or damages against the U.S. Consul General for Mumbai, or a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over such an action. The Court is aware of no such jurisdiction or cause of action. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

But that’s not all. Included in the papers is the Court’s expression of appreciation to Karen Grisez, Esq., and to the firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for its able pro bono publico representation of the plaintiff, who was proceeding in forma pauperis.


In forma pauperis . Someone who is without the funds to pursue the normal costs of a lawsuit or criminal defense.


I know what you’re thinking. How did Romeo get around the I-134 requirement? I mean, if you can’t afford the normal cost of a lawsuit, how can you afford to live with your US-bound fiancée in America? The Affidavit of Support need to show that the sponsor’s income is 100 percent of federal poverty guidelines as required under Section 212(a)(4) of the INA. Um, okay, I get it — somebody else signed the I-134? But if the fiancee becomes a public charge later, would USCIS then turn around and deport her back to her … hmmn? no?

Did I say I’m glad the good judge dismissed this case? But darn, a million US dollars! That would have been as good as a lottery …