Wednesday, May 24, 2017

2018 Budget Request Released; OBO Walks Away Unharmed



The 2018 State Department's 2018 budget justification was released yesterday, and with it a press conference was conducted. There you go, news media! Don't say Silent Rex doesn't ever think about you.

Here's how the request impacts my good friends in the Office of Overseas Buildings Operations.

The 2018 budget request basically cuts the funding for Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance, and the much smaller Compound Security Upgrade program, in half. The ESCM request is for $1,142,200, which is $1,731,156 less than last year. Nevertheless, it provides sufficient funding for seven new capital construction projects in some of the dodgiest places on earth. You can see the project list on page 162.

The Compound Security Program goes down to $50,000,000, which is $50.8 million less than last year. That program "funds comprehensive security upgrade projects, major forced entry/ballistic resistant (FE/BR) door and window replacement projects, chemical/biological retrofit projects, and security upgrades for soft targets," it says on page 163.

Here's the Q and A on security funding from the press conference.
QUESTION: Hey. Thanks for doing this. Two quick questions. Senator Lindsey Graham, who is in charge of the appropriations for State, said, quote, “You have a lot of Benghazis in the making if this thing becomes law.” Can you sort of clarify what the funding will be like for Diplomatic Security around the world, for embassy security, and respond to that charge?

MR PITKIN: Sure. This is Doug Pitkin. I’ll start with the security question ... The administration has appreciated the strong Congressional support for the department security programs over the past several years. They also note with appreciation that they fully funded – in addition to the supplemental, they fully funded the previous standing requests for both our embassy security programs and Diplomatic Security for FY17.

However, in looking at FY18, I think we have to recognize that there are significant funds in the pipeline, partly because of the supplemental that was provided in December. Also, for example, OBO, the Office of Overseas Building Operations, has some 53 projects in the planning process and under construction. And so what we’re proposing in FY18 is – essentially is to use some of our current-year money to buy down or apply towards our construction program in FY18. This shows up as a cut or a reduction in the strict budget line as we’ve presented it, but we will still be able to support $2.2 billion in FY18 embassy construction and security upgrades for those posts in the greatest need of such upgrades. And so this, essentially, reflects the fact that we’re taking a slight reduction in capital investments because we have a lot of funding that we – has been previously appropriated.

So that looks like the 2018 request, plus the "significant funds in the pipeline" from current year funding and supplemental appropriations, will equal last year's funding level for new construction and security upgrades. If that budget makes it through Congress, OBO will get away unscathed, at least for next year. 

Political Violence Against Americans in 2016

Yesterday, the same day the Department released its budget justification for next year, it also released the annual report on Political Violence Against Americans in 2016.
To advance American interests and U.S. foreign policy, Diplomatic Security (DS) protects people, property, and information at more than 280 State Department posts worldwide. As a leader in international investigations, threat analysis, cyber security, counterterrorism, dignitary protection, and security technology, DS is the most widely represented U.S. security and law enforcement organization in the world.

Political Violence Against Americans is produced by the Bureau’s Directorate of Threat Investigations and Analysis. Created in May 2008, the Directorate of Threat Investigations and Analysis strives to improve DS's ability to detect and counter threats, and to upgrade the Bureau’s capacity to rapidly disseminate threat and security information to U.S. embassies, consulates, and the private sector.

Introduction

Since its inception in 1987, the goal of Political Violence Against Americans has been to provide the reader with an awareness of the hazards facing U.S. interests abroad by chronicling incidents of terrorism and political violence impacting U.S. citizens and facilities overseas. This publication is not an all-inclusive compendium of acts targeting U.S. interests, but rather a sampling of events involving private Americans and U.S. Government personnel (including locally hired foreign nationals serving at U.S. diplomatic missions), as well as U.S. diplomatic and private sector installations. Whenever possible, the goals and ideologies of those responsible have been included; however, in some cases, incidents have been included despite a lack of clarity as to the motive or direct target, due to the clear intent to cause harm. In addition, some incidents may have been omitted due to their sensitive nature, as have the names of American citizens for privacy purposes.

Read the whole report here. And, the report's Conclusion:
Historically, overseas environments have presented potential hazards to citizens and diplomats of the United States. As our nation’s diplomatic presence and its commercial tourist trade broadened considerably throughout the twentieth century, potential dangers and vulnerabilities increased as well. Over the past quarter-century in particular, the rise of international terrorism and criminal activity has contributed to a worldwide increase in incidents of violence against individuals, organizations, and facilities of the United States. In some cases, U.S. citizens have been victimized randomly; in other cases, assaults appear to have been intentional.

Political Violence Against Americans serves as a reminder that vigilance, preparation, and sensible discretion are valuable safeguards. Reasonable precautions can significantly minimize opportunities for those who would do harm to the people of the United States and its interests.


Throwback Thursday (1991, When DS Just Scraped By)

Gorby closes his speech notes, and resigns















It was a Wednesday, actually, but close enough. On December 25, 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev resigned as the last leader of the Soviet Union, and the Red Flag was lowered from the Kremlin for the last time.

With the end of the Cold War, the U.S. government stood down a lot of its national security programs. That didn't last long, and the post-Cold War euphoria is hard to even remember now, but while it lasted serious people questioned how much we needed to protect any of our national assets. The great national security threat we had been countering ever since the Truman Administration - assuming it ever really existed - surely existed no longer, as the thinking went. It was even supposed that terrorism would mostly end now that the Soviet Union would not be around to support groups like the Red Brigades and PLO.

Like I said, it didn't last long, but while it did, the USG cut funding.

See the excellent in-house history of Diplomatic Security for how its programs were affected after 1991.
The urgency to improve security after the Beirut attacks had faded, and for fiscal year (FY) 1988, the Reagan Administration requested $303 million for DS, well below the $458 million anticipated by the Bureau. Assistant Secretary Lamb admitted, “Each post is going to see cutbacks in every [security] program.” The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) set a ceiling of $303 million for DS’s budget in FYs 1989 and 1990 as well. In FY 1990, the total funds available to DS were only $180 million, and DS leaders questioned whether they could fulfill the security responsibilities authorized by Congress … The budget cuts, in part, reflected the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991.

Unlike today, there was no OCO funding back then to eke out the DS budget, but there was its predecessor, the Gulf War supplemental.
Meanwhile, tensions increased between the United States and Iraq during 1990 and 1991 when Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded the neighboring nation of Kuwait, and DS experienced the odd situation of facing increased demands for its services, notwithstanding cuts in its budget … The Department estimated that it incurred an additional $22 million in expenses for increased diplomatic security and another $11 million in evacuation costs as a result of the [1991] Gulf War. Ironically, Congress agreed to large security supplemental appropriations for Operation Desert Storm while debating a reduction of budget appropriation for DS … The [appropriation] supplementals for the 1991 Gulf War did not arrest the trend of budget cuts and staff reductions faced by DS. DS shifted its goals and philosophy from total risk avoidance, as promoted in the mid-1980s, to reducing risk “to an acceptable level” where possible, i.e. risk management. This shift in approach, DS hoped, would allow it to direct its increasingly limited resources toward its most urgent security needs. DS, together with the Overseas Security Policy Group, undertook a wholesale review of existing overseas security standards.

Security standards are politically sacrosanct things, at least until enough time has passed since the last embassy attack and Congress’ interest dwindles, along with its willingness to appropriate funds.
By the spring of 1991, the budget cuts began affecting DS operations. Lamb’s successor, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Sheldon Krys noted that staffing shortages had forced him to employ front office personnel on protective details. Overseas support positions were not filled, and technical security countermeasures work fell behind. In March 1992, Under Secretary of State for Management John W. Rogers informed the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State that the Department faced a conflict between security measures demanded by its revised security standards and the Department’s ability to pay for implementing those standards.

And so the unavoidable happened, and security programs were reduced to match the resources allocated for them. That situation continued until 1998 and the next round of embassy attacks.

Friday, May 19, 2017

Jason Chaffetz Folds Up His Cot and Goes Home






















Jason Chaffetz, the esteemed Representative from Utah's 3rd Congressional District, announced yesterday that he will resign from Congress on June 30, which sets up a special election for someone to serve out the remainder of his term.

He says he's leaving Washington because he's tired of sleeping on a cot in his office, and can no longer endure the burden of being away from his wife and kids.
My life has undergone some big changes over the last 18 months. Those changes have been good. But as I celebrated my 50th birthday in March, the reality of spending more than 1,500 nights away from my family over eight years hit me harder than it had before.

Julie and I have been married for over 26 years. We have three wonderful children. Two of our children got married over the past 18 months – each having found an amazing spouse. I couldn’t be more proud of them. Our oldest son recently graduated from the University of Utah and his wife from BYU. In August, they will move out of state for law school. Our daughter, who attended UVU, married a great young man who found a terrific job two time zones away. Our youngest daughter remains at home attending high school, but soon she, too, will spread her wings and set off on her life’s path. Julie and I are facing the reality of being empty nesters. All of us, it appears, are ready to begin a new chapter.

I’ve slept on a cot in my office largely to save money for the Chaffetz family, but also to remind myself that my service there was temporary. Though the time away and the travel have been a sacrifice, our family has always been united that public service was the right thing to do. We feel my time in congress has been well spent, but it now seems the right time to turn the page.

Okay. But I'm a little confused. Is this "I'm resigning to spend more time with my family," or a mid-life crisis, or something more opportunistic?

He spent 1,5000 nights away from the kids when they were young(er), but now that they're moving out of the house he finds the separation all too much to endure any longer?

Why resign now? He ran for reelection just six months ago. Did that cot get a lot more uncomfortable all of a sudden?

Why force a special election to fill his vacant seat? He could have announced his plans to retire and then finished his term, allowing his constituents a normal election cycle. Resigning out of the blue also leaves his Oversight Committee in the lurch, since he just called for a new round of high-profile investigations and now they'll need to fill his chairmanship in a big hurry.

I'm always happy to see an entrenched Congressman go away. But I don't think Jason will be going far, or away for very long.







Most Eyebrow-Raising Headline of the Week


"Yemenis compete for AK-47 in al Qaeda quiz" - Reuters

"Name three articles of the (Yemeni) constitution which contradict Islamic Law," read one on a sheet seen by Reuters ... "Any person who follows a law other than Islamic law is an infidel who must be killed. List three (scriptural) references for this," asked another. The first prize was a Chinese-made AK-47, the second a motorcycle and the third a laptop. Others included a pistol and cash prizes of 20,000 rials ($80).

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Times Square Vehicle Ramming Incident Stopped by Security Streetscaping













That motorist who drove into crowds of pedestrians in New York City today was stopped when he tried to drive onto a sidewalk and struck a row of bollards. See the photo above.

Kudos to New York City's Police and Mayor, because those bollards were placed in Times Square precisely to mitigate the type of vehicle ramming attack that occurred there today. In fact, they were completed just a few months ago. The city has obviously taken seriously the vehicle ramming attacks that we've seen in the past two years in France and Germany, not to mention Israel.
Calpipe Security Bollards (CSB), a division of Calpipe Industries, Inc. was contacted by The City of New York to design and manufacture a number of crash-engineered stainless steel bollards to be installed throughout Times Square, the most pedestrian heavy region in the world.

CSB’s team of design specialists developed a removable bollard system to accommodate the stringent specifications required by more than a dozen local, state, and national agencies. This installation is part of an ongoing project carried out by New York City in an effort to reduce pedestrian injuries and prevent unintentional and/or terrorist vehicle incursions. The scheduled completion date is November 1, 2016.

That's the way to be proactive, New York! And for you other cities, you're going to see bollards, too, I tell you.


Throwback Thursday: U.S. Diplomacy's Presence Shrinking (in 1996)
























Does anyone remember that guy standing next to Bill Clinton? He was a little hard to notice even when he was SecState, I'll admit, but that was Warren Christopher.

Nothing really changes here in the Seat of Government. Things come in cycles, the names and faces differ from one cycle to the next - sometimes, not always - but the basics stay the same. Just change the names and this WaPo piece from 1996 sounds like today's news.

U.S. Diplomacy's Presence Shrinking:
Country by country, post by post and mission by mission, the number of U.S. diplomats stationed abroad to track political affairs, police trade agreements and help American travelers is shrinking fast.

Relentless budget pressure that began in the mid-1980s accelerated with the Clinton administration's deficit-reduction plan, forcing the closing of consulates, aid missions, libraries, cultural centers and even a few entire embassies, from Italy to Indonesia, from Antigua to Thailand.

Since 1993 the State Department has cut more than 2,000 employees and shuttered consulates in 26 foreign cities. The Agency for International Development (AID), which runs foreign aid programs, has been hit especially hard by the Republican-controlled Congress and has closed 23 missions overseas.

-- snip --

In the short run, the cutbacks appear likely to have little direct impact on most Americans. Travelers who get sick or lose their passports may have to travel farther or wait longer to get help. Business executives may find fewer Foreign Service officers available to help them make contacts or cut red tape.

-- snip --

There is another side to the debate, however. Critics of the retrenchment say that over time it is bound to have a strongly negative impact on this country's ability to protect its citizens, promote U.S. interests and influence events.

Those observers include foreign policy specialists, experienced diplomats, secretaries of state from both parties and a wide variety of public interest, human rights and volunteer organizations. They fear that an erosion of Foreign Service training and field experience, combined with the loss of listening posts and a cutback in cultural exchanges, inevitably will diminish the contacts, experience and savvy that underlie successful diplomacy.

-- snip --

Christopher and his best-known predecessor, Henry A. Kissinger, have repeatedly sounded the alarm about what they see as a dangerous erosion of this country's ability to influence events abroad without sending troops.

"Our overseas representatives {are} already working under the most severe budgetary conditions ever," Kissinger said recently. "Further cuts would necessitate closing many overseas posts, with the result that there would be less complete political and economic reporting on foreign conditions, less effective representation and advocacy of U.S. interests in foreign countries and less adequate services to U.S. citizens traveling abroad."

-- snip --

The total budget for civilian international programs, the so-called 150 account, started to decline in the mid-1980s. It leveled off during the Bush administration, then resumed a downward slide in President Clinton's first year.

The 150 account includes the State Department, AID, the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) and the U.S. share of United Nations operations. In actual dollars, it dropped from $25.2 billion in 1984 to $18.4 billion this year, a 27 percent decline. After adjusting for inflation, the decline was 51 percent -- and that does not take into account additional erosion caused by the decline of the dollar against many foreign currencies.

-- snip --

At AID, the overall work force has been reduced from 11,500 to 8,700 and is heading down to 8,000. The number of full "sustainable development missions" -- on-site teams promoting long-term diversified economic development -- will decline from 70 at the start of the administration to 30.

-- snip --

The State Department is promoting the concept of "diplomatic readiness," similar to military readiness, in hopes of persuading Congress to divert some money from the defense budget into diplomacy and foreign aid -- activities that, in the diplomats' view, save money over time by reducing the need for military actions.

But there appears to be little realistic prospect that Congress will halt the downward trend in foreign affairs spending. Some key Republicans such as Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.) are openly hostile to the Foreign Service, whose activities Gramm derided as "building marble palaces and renting long coats and high hats."

Even members more sympathetic to international engagement have said the most they can hope for is to avoid further sharp cuts. Some were upset last year when they offered to find an additional $1 billion for the 150 account, only to have the administration rebuff the offer because the White House refused to identify an offsetting amount to be cut from domestic programs.

-- snip --

However, the proliferation of tiny countries in recent years already has forced the State Department to abandon that principle [of universal presence]. The embassy in Seychelles is closing this year; that country and the Comoros, where the embassy closed in 1993, will be served out of Mauritius. Jeanette W. Hyde, the U.S. ambassador in Barbados, is also the ambassador to Grenada, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda and St. Kitts and Nevis. In most of those tiny Caribbean states, there is no U.S. diplomatic staff at any level. The same is true in the Solomon Islands and Equatorial Guinea.

-- snip --

The administration is seeking $5.45 billion for the State Department's 1997 share of the 150 account, about $170 million less than it sought last year. Christopher told a House Appropriations subcommittee that the amount is "the bare minimum we need to protect our nation's interests while balancing the federal budget in six years."

If Congress gives State what it is asking for, officials said, six posts on the "hit list" for 1997 will be spared: the embassy in Apia, Western Samoa; and the consulates in Florence [Italy]; Edinburgh, Scotland; Curacao [Netherlands Antilles]; and Matamoros and Hermosillo, Mexico. If Congress cuts deeper, those posts and probably more will have to go, Christopher said.

Say, did that federal budget ever get balanced? Probably not.

In 1996 our diplomatic presence stood at 238 embassies and consulates “plus a dozen or so special missions.” How does that compare to our diplomatic presence today?

Today it’s 259 embassies and consulates in 197 countries: 170 Embassies, 78 Consulates General, 11 Consulates, plus 5 Branch Offices and 11 other missions to multi-national organizations, for a total of 275 missions of all kinds.