Hitting Bottom in Foggy Bottom

[Sylvan]

You know, I'm really starting to wonder about State. That said, while I am generally cynical, I suspect Sylvan's comments take it a bit too far.

However, I know a couple folks who recently did the FSO oral exam. Their impression was that nobody in their groups were offered a slot in the next A100 class. If any did get slots, I suspect it was very, very few. Many of those candidates were people on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th attempts at it - some on their 6th or 7th (that's crazy, imo). And the descriptions of these people suggest that they are fairly capable. Why all of this selection nonsense? If this game is really that ridiculous, then I'm seriously considering not bothering with the oral exam. Why spend the time and money to fly down there, get an overpriced hotel room, and waste an entire day dicking around with their BS if this is how they play their game? Aren't they short handed? Aren't they woefully incapable of meeting the demands of any "whole of government approach"? But they're also not hiring because they're not willing to recruit people who, for whatever reason, don't seem to fit some ideal mold according to the personnel who administer the oral exam? What sense does that make?

I exagerate, but not much.
In zabul we had one state department rep for a critical southern province providing mentorship to a state level governor.
The first was a public affairs officer. Not a governance expert or diplomat.
The second was a former Marine officer in his first state department gig. You may remember his name. Matt Hoh.
There are maybe 10 provinces in all of Afghanistan who are strategically critical to our fight. How many people work for State? Yet in the most critical areas where we need our civilians in the fight, State can't be bothered.
Everyone with a brain has correctly identified that the military should be secondary in our overall strategic strategy. Yet no one BUT the military has stepped up to provide the leadership required to execute our national strategy. And no one has failed greater in that regard that State, who fails to even recognize they HAVE failed.

[MountainRunner]

The issue of attracting and deploying State personnel of the quality and quantity necessary is certainly recognized. The recent White House / NSC 1055 report noted this same problem:

(d) how best to expedite revitalizing and strengthening civilian department and agency capabilities, both qualitatively and quantitatively, to enable them to effectively execute these programs and activities.

The argument of missing leadership can be taken a step farther, or rather in a different direction outside the Executive Branch entirely. In Congress, with the notable exception of Sen. Lugar (and the ascending Sen. Kaufman), attention to the issues of public diplomacy and strategic communication are coming from the Congressmen and Senators on the Armed Services committees, not the foreign relations (or foreign affairs as it's called in the House) committee. The money issue last year was from the defense appropriators (recall the late Rep. Murtha's comments) and not from the foreign ops appropriators (the committees, House and Senate, that fund State). With the exception of Lugar, proposed legislation to fix SC/PD comes from SASC/HASC members. Members of SASC/HASC, not SFRC/HFAC, are paying attention to the gagging effect of the modern interpretation of the Smith-Mundt Act.

Notably, SASC successfully inserted into the NDAA a $55m authorization for State activities (which I would have loved to see the defense appropriators fund, but alas, they ignored it). This is the VOICE Act (see here for more) includes $30m for BBG and more for State proper. To be fair, HFAC (House Foreign Affairs Committee) doesn't have real power to accomplish much and few in SFRC (Senate Foreign Relations Committee) really care about these issues, except for perhaps three Senators. These three are Lugar and the only two Senators to attend the SFRC hearing that heard from four Under Secretaries of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (three past + current). Notably, the two that were present, Kaufman and Wicker, are also on SASC.

By the way, at the hearing, a prior U/S of PD/PA noted that it took 5-7 years to get a PD person online. This issue has not gained the attention it needs.