Departure Assessment of Embassy Baghdad

Departure Assessment of Embassy Baghdad

MountainRunner has Manuel Miranda's (Office of Legislative Statecraft, U.S. Embassy Iraq) 'departure assessment' on Ambassador Ryan Crocker's and State's effort in Iraq.

Quote:

---

From the General Assessment:

After a year at the Embassy, it is my general assessment that the State Department and the Foreign Service is not competent to do the job that they have undertaken in Iraq. It is not that the men and women of the Foreign Service and other State Department bureaus are not intelligent and hard-working, it is simply that they are not equipped to handle the job that the State Department has undertaken. Apart from the remarkable achievements of Coalition forces in the pacification of Iraq, the few civilian accomplishments that we are presently lauding, including the debathification law and the staffing of PRT's are a thin reed. It was regrettable to see the President recently grab on to it.

The purpose of the Surge, now one year old, was to pacify Iraq to allow the GOI to stand up. The State Department has not done its part coincident with the Commanding General's effort. This is not the fault of intelligent and hard working individuals skilled at the functions of the "normal embassy." The problem is institutional. The State Department bureaucracy is not equipped to handle the urgency of America's Iraq investment in blood and taxpayer funds. You lack the "fierce urgency of now."

Foreign Service officers, with ludicrously little management experience by any standard other than your own, are not equipped to manage programs, hundreds of millions in funds, and expert human capital assets needed to assist the Government of Iraq to stand up. It is apparent that, other than diplomacy, your only expertise is your own bureaucracy, which inherently makes State Department personnel unable to think outside the box or beyond the paths they have previously taken.

---

It is a very interesting read. Thanks for posting it, Matt!

Well, that's a big FU to Crocker and Rice and Bush. And given his past behavior, it wouldn't be a surprise if he leaked the letter himself. As a lawyer, he'd never write this letter if he didn't think it might end up in the wrong hands. So, what does he have to gain from this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beelzebubalicious

Well, that's a big FU to Crocker and Rice and Bush. And given his past behavior, it wouldn't be a surprise if he leaked the letter himself. As a lawyer, he'd never write this letter if he didn't think it might end up in the wrong hands. So, what does he have to gain from this?

---

Interesting question and a partial answer may show up in a year or so; say after January 20th, 2009. If his assessment is accurate, or even moderately so (and I have no reason to doubt it), then it could be viewed as a public service announcement :wry:.

Matt, An excellent article!
Although sadly 110% accurate, it does not contain anything new to those who have served in an embassy as a non-State player.

Quite a bit can be attributed to weak leadership, but the fact remains that economic and political sections were not trained for nation building. Removing those sections from an embassy leaves you with little more than an often huge internal security and support staff.

For most Foreign Service folks, the idea of invading and occupying a land afflicted by dictatorship, social and political upheaval or civil war and turning it into a democracy is profound and otherwise a function of the military.

Information management combined with lack of leadership at post can be an eye-opener for the uninitiated. Frequently information that does not 'ride the party line' will be refuted, or worse, merely dismissed -- another example of not being trained or experience for the job (of HUMINT).

Hey Marc !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

If his assessment is accurate, or even moderately so (and I have no reason to doubt it), then it could be viewed as a public service announcement :wry:.

---

I'm of the opinion this article will surface as nothing more than a disgruntled former State employee (the list is rather long, but distinguished :confused:).

Hey Stan,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

Hey Marc !

I'm of the opinion this article will surface as nothing more than a disgruntled former State employee (the list is rather long, but distinguished :confused:).

---

I have absolutely no doubt it will be spun that way by certain political groups :D.

Marc

Manuel Miranda is a former counsel to the (Republican) Senate Majority Leader, not a career FSO.

I saw the memo last week, and had two immediate reactions:

1. A lot of it rang true of a number of peacebuilding operations (in particular, his points regarding the unwillingness of some to go the extra mile and show initiative outside their job descriptions, and the tendency of donor officials to underestimate, and fail to work through, local politics).
   
2. He took 10 pages to make, in essence, only 3-4 very general points. As a result, the rant:useful advice ratio* was rather larger than it should have been.

(*I'm copyrighting this before Steve steals it, but it needs a better acronym. Suggestions?)

The other thing that's damning is that he offers no advice or solutions. Without that you're just part of the problem. I bet Manuel did a whole hell of a lot of complaining, but not a lot of anything else.

Of course, this will be taken up by those who are opposed to the effort and made to be something it isn't.

As for acronyms, how about ROT - Rant:On-Target (advice). Or just a cause effect - RANT = Rant -> Advice Not Taken.

Good Points, Eric. With all those smarts, a couple of suggestions are in order (but not before the Pres comes a callin') ;)

Rex, how 'bout...

The Real Effects of Rantin' and Roamin' or RERR :eek:
This should not be confused with those who identify with the symptoms of common sense disorder, as RERR victims are curable and most need not experience a return of these symptoms.

Why suffer when you don't have to? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen;39892[*

, the rant:useful advice ratio* (*I'm copyrighting this before Steve steals it, but it needs a better acronym. Suggestions?)

---

Rex:

Where I come from, we call that the BS to Bang Quotient. (BS:Bang Ratio would also work)

I ain't exactly inspired with confidence in the State Department, but this reads more like a press release from John Mcain or Harry Reid's office than an actual critique. The paucity of descriptive nouns and associated figures in favor of jargon is irritatingly excessive, to the point where the most concrete (yet by every means still vague) criticisms I could identify dealt with staffing and a lack of a Thomas-like system for Iraqi government documents localized into US English.

So seriously, how is this sort of garbage useful in anyway? Who the hell could plan and budget fixes for any of the problems this man's "identified?" More to the point I can't even connect the general areas of issues he's raised with specific pitfalls in say the Embassy's role in cajoling Iraqi majlis to support the legislative benchmarks.