U.S. Diplomacy

Breaking news: U.S. Embassy broke into and set afire by Serbian protestors. Here’s the brief from International Herald Tribune,”Serb rioters broke into the U.S. Embassy Thursday and set fire to an office after a massive protest against Kosovo’s independence that drew an estimated 150,000 people.

Masked attackers broke into the building, which has been closed this week, and tried to throw furniture from an office. A blaze broke out inside one of the offices and parts of the facade also caught fire.

Authorities drove armored jeeps down the street and fired tear gas to clear the crowd. The protesters dispersed into side streets where they continued clashing with authorities.

The neighboring Croatian Embassy also was attacked by the same group of protesters.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack strongly urged the Serbian government to protect the U.S. Embassy. He said the U.S. ambassador was at his home and was in contact with U.S. officials.”

This is an open thread for anyone who would like to comment on the volatile situation.

(Associated Press photo)

Secretary Rice gave her last testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week.

The hearing began with a moment of silence in memory of the recently-deceased California Democrat and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Tom Lantos. Howard L. Berman, another California Democrat, was appointed as the Committee’s Acting Chairman.

He began his chairmanship by welcoming the increase in spending for the State Department’s budget: “Madame Secretary, I strongly support the Administration’s overall international affairs budget request for Fiscal Year 2009. It surpasses current spending by nearly three billion dollars, a welcome turn of events.”

Congressman Berman continued: “The new budget request starts to address the reality that we have been far too slow to face: Our civilian agencies are woefully unprepared to handle the unprecedented global security challenges confronting the United States today.

Here’s just one example of that: A study just released by the RAND Corporation shows that despite the common notion that civil capabilities and military power are equally important to counterinsurgency operations overseas, the meager and infrequent bump-ups in the State Department’s budget have been “dwarfed” by massive increases in Pentagon spending. The report goes on to note, and I’m quoting here: “If Islamic insurgency is the gravest threat to the United States and its interests in the near to middle term, and if countering this insurgency requires a broad and balanced array of capabilities, the grim implication is that the United States is ill equipped to counter the gravest threat it faces.” It goes on to say that we “must invest to correct (these) deficiencies and imbalances.”

Acting Chairman Berman’s full remarks can be viewed here.

The Committee’s minority leader, Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also lamented Lantos’ death and then went on to express her concerns about a long list of challenges for US foreign policy, including: nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Iran, Darfur, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and others. You may access the full text of her remarks here.

Next Secretary Rice made her opening remarks, a transcript of which can be viewed here (as delivered). (A video of Secretary Rice’s testimony can be viewed by clicking here, and a video of the entire hearing can be viewed here).

Contrary to the hearing’s title “International Relations Budget for Fiscal Year 2009,” the remarks of both the lawmakers and the witness focused only briefly on the budget request, and more so on a variety of hot button conflicts in the Middle East—Iran’s nuclear program, the Israeli/Palestinian issue, US troop commitment in Iraq, the Lebanon/Syria relationship—the Pakistani election and relations with China. The bulk of Secretary Rice’s discussion about the budget is contained in her prepared remarks, which were provided to the Committee in advance.

Congressman Ackerman used this opportunity to press Secretary Rice on whether her administration intends to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. The issue caused controversy earlier this month when President Bush left the option open–in opposition to Congress’ wishes, while members of his administration spoke otherwise. In the hearing Secretary Rice confirmed that it is “not our intention to seek permanent military bases in Iraq.”

It appears that foreign audiences were also eagerly watching Rise’s testimony. The Armenian online news site Defacto reported on Congressman Brad Sherman’s proposed budget for Armenia. The Russian online news outlet Kommersant reviewed the testimony with particular attention to the Secretary’s and lawmaker’s remarks toward Russia.

The Voice of America reported yesterday on the Department of Defense’s plans for its U.S. Africa command, or AFRICOM.

While NPR reports that the idea to create the new command was “has kicked around the halls of the Pentagon for more than a decade,” the command was recently created so that US-Africa military liaisons be united under one command, as opposed to three in the past (U.S. Central Command, Pacific Command, European Command).

The unification of these units into a single command was intended to give it more focus, and the ability to act more nimbly to events that transpire on the continent, says Charles Kosak, Director of African Affairs in the office of the secretary of defense, in an interview with VOA.

VOA reports that the Africa Command is scheduled to reach full operational status about October of this year, when a full complement of 1,300 personnel will be in place at its interim headquarters at in Stuttgart, Germany. The Defense Department hopes eventually to have regional offices in various parts of Africa, but no new military bases are reported to be a part of the command.

The leaders of the new command, who met at a conference at the University of Southern California on Friday, explained that AFRICOM was designed with an understanding of the ties between security, development and diplomacy,” and therefore “will not take a leading role in African security,” but will “offer support to African governments and regional organizations.”

The Defense Department-run website for AFRICOM desribes it as “a different kind of command” that “reflects a much more integrated staff structure, one that includes significant management and staff representation by Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other U.S. government agencies involved in Africa. The command will also seek to incorporate partner nations and humanitarian organizations, from Africa and elsewhere, to work alongside the U.S. staff on common approaches to shared interests.”Kosak added in the VOA report that the integration of staff structure is intended “simply to have these skill sets in the command so that the USAID rep[resentative] can help the Department of Defense, can help Africa Command, work better with USAID, with its multitude of programs on the continent.”

This discussion comes amid concerns more broadly that the Department of Defense has began to overstep its mandate and take on more diplomatic and development work usually left to the State Department and USAID.

Nicole Lee of the Washington-based TransAfrica Forum, an advocacy group, expressed at the USC conference a concern that the restructuring of AFRICOM and its mandate signals a shift in US-African relations away from traditional diplomacy. According to the VOA, she said: “I think the biggest concern with AFRICOM is no one really is clear on what exactly it’s going to do. When the Defense Department is asked regarding the issues that AFRICOM is going to deal with, it sounds a lot like what the State Department is supposed to be involved with and leading on.”

Jendayi Frazer, the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs testified her support for the creation of AFRICOM before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa in August of 2007. According to her testimony it would seem like things between Defense and State on the issue of AFRICOM were getting off to a great start:

“From the inception of AFRICOM, the State Department has been closely involved in the planning process, beginning last fall when the Department of Defense established its AFRICOM Implementation Planning Team. Both the Bureau of African Affairs and the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs assigned senior officers to this planning team, working with Department of Defense officials full time for many weeks to address the myriad of issues that arise when this type of major inter-agency collaboration is envisioned. Several other State Department bureaus also had officers participating, bringing functional expertise to key portions of the planning process. This process has largely occurred in an atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration, with both Departments sensitive to the requirements and concerns of the other. The result, to date, is the development of a framework that is supportive of both U.S foreign policy interests as well our regional security objectives.”

She closed her remarks by saying “The Department of State views the creation of AFRICOM as a major advancement in our comprehensive Africa policy and engagement strategy. It is the beginning of a long and fruitful collaboration. It is, in many ways the marriage of State’s expertise and authorities with the military’s resources and security experience, and we are excited about it. I would be glad to take any questions that the committee might have.”

But according to reporting back in November by the Associated Press, there has been criticism of AFRICOM coming from “within the U.S. government itself, notably from State Department officials.”

Kurt Shillinger, an analyst at the South African Institute of International Affairs, told the Associated Press: “Some officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development worry their humanitarian programs could be “stigmatized” by direct links with the military, which has melded aid programs with combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan- wars unpopular in most of Africa.”

A/S Frazer was the keynote speaker at the USC conference on Friday. We will keep our eyes peeled for a transcript of her remarks either posted on the USC or State Department site. In the meantime, those of you looking to learn more about AFRICOM can look here:

• “Does Africa Need AFRICOM?” blog post on Nachrichten Heute
• An article titled U.S. Africa Command: A New Strategic Paradigm? published in January of 2008 in Military Review.
• An article titled “Africa’s Security Challenges and Rising Strategic Significance” published in Strategic Insights in January of 2007.
  
• Advanced Questions for General William E. “Kip” Ward, U.S. Army Nominee for Commander, U.S. Africa Command at a Senate Committee on Armed Services testimony.

After the gloomy report this blog gave last January that the State Department would be forced to cut its diplomatic posts by 10%, good news comes through the wire:

“Bush Aims To Hire More Diplomats“

February 4, 2008–President Bush wants to hire nearly 1,100 new diplomats to address severe staffing shortages and put the State Department on track to meet an ambitious call to double its size over the next decade, according to administration officials.

The additional positions are part of Bush’s budget for fiscal 2009, which he will submit to Congress today, according to documents described by officials. The spending request is subject to congressional approval.

Bush’s proposal envisions adding 1,076 jobs at the State Department and diplomatic missions overseas in what officials believe would be one of the largest one-year boosts to the ranks of the foreign service.

The department is facing a critical shortage of diplomats, and many embassies are operating at 70 percent of their desired staffing levels. Last fall, the department said 10 percent of vacant positions would have to remain unfilled this year because of a lack of personnel.

The plan includes 450 jobs to free up current diplomats for intensive language and national security training; 350 posts for a new Civilian Stabilization Program, which would work to improve conditions in post-conflict zones; 200 diplomatic security agents; and 50 political advisers for military commands…”

The Details

Out of the $3.1 trillion dollar budget plan, funding for the State department and other international programs would increase $5.4 billion to $38.3 billion, a 16.5% increase from 2008.

Reuters published a list of foreign affairs highlights from the budget proposal:

“* $400 million to help Iraq achieve economic, democratic and political stabilization; and $1.1 billion to help Afghanistan promote economic growth, strengthen its governing institutions, improve access to health care and education and increase democratic governance;

* $830 million to Pakistan to aid security, combat terrorism, promote democracy and further economic development.

* $699 million for U.S. government news and information television, radio and Internet broadcasts overseas with a focus on the Middle East, North Korea, Myanmar, Iran and Cuba;

* $6 billion for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a program that is expected to spend $30 billion over the next five years to help millions of people affected by the AIDS crisis;

* $550 million for the Merida Initiative to fight drug-trafficking and organized crime in Mexico and Central America;

* $400 million for a new international clean technology fund as part of Bush’s Climate Change Initiative;

* $1.5 billion for U.N. peacekeeping operations including initiatives in Sudan, Congo, Liberia, Lebanon and Haiti. “

FederalTimes.com also offers a summary of the budget’s highlights according to government agency:

“State Department

The State Department’s proposed $5.4 billion increase in discretionary spending would help fund the hiring of an additional 1,524 new employees. New hires would include 300 Foreign Service officers proficient in critical languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Hindi and Urdu, 200 employees dedicated to working with the Defense Department and other federal agencies to counter major national security threats, 70 employees to improve security at embassies and consulates, and 130 employees to improve security of visas and passports.

And the Agency for International Development wants to add 300 more Foreign Service officers to the thousand or so it now has. Richard Greene, State’s deputy director of U.S. foreign assistance, said AID should have about 2,000 Foreign Service officers by 2011.

“AID’s work force has simply not kept up with its programmatic responsibilities,” Greene said. State would also boost its border security staff by about 10 percent, to total 5,215. The agency plans to hire 300 employees to adjudicate increasing numbers of passport requests and 121 employees to fight passport and visa fraud, and 27 other support positions in fiscal 2009.

The budget calls for $844 million to start building 11 new embassies, including compounds in Kabul, Afghanistan; Bangkok, Thailand; and Krakow, Poland. State has slated $1.8 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance in fiscal 2009, $364 million more than the previous fiscal year.

State plans to spend $249 million on a new Civilian Stabilization Initiative, an interagency program that would help stabilize countries as the transition from war to peace. The initiative would help develop the rule of law in transitioning countries, as well as help set up police forces, public administration and infrastructure.

The budget also would provide $414 million for information technology such as a messaging and archiving project that aims to consolidate old cables, memoranda and e-mails into a single platform that can be easily accessed around the world. State will also work on content management and electronic medical record systems that can be used worldwide.” 

The State Department published the transcript of a press conference it held on Monday discussing what the budget means for the Department.

The Budget also considerably increases funding for the military. Public Radio International broadcast an interview with New York Times pentagon correspondent Tom Shanker on Monday which sheds some light on the defense portion of the proposal and how it fits into the wider and historical context of government spending.  You can hear that interview by clicking here.

Condi, Our SHEro

While administration officials described “fierce behind-the-scenes battles over spending in the final Bush budget,” the  increase in funding for diplomatic activities was apparently due to persistent lobbying by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The Washington Post reports that Secretary Rice “went back three times to the internal budget review board — which includes Vice President Dick Cheney, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr., Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and National Economic Council Director Keith Hennessy — to appeal for more funds. In the end, she also spoke directly with Bush to secure an increase of $700 million for the State Department, 6.5 percent over last year’s budget.”

This is a shining example of why it is desirable that the Secretary of State be one who shares a tight bond with the President and his confidants.

We’ll keep our eyes peeled as this budget makes its way through Congress. The budget will, as per usual, spark a partisan showdown on Captiol Hill. The Washington Post reports that the President’s top officials were on Capitol Hill today “defending President Bush’s $3.1 trillion budget plan from complaints by Democrats that it adds almost $800 billion to U.S. debt and doesn’t pay for the war in Iraq.”

Stay tuned, and keep your fingers crossed that Condi can continue to deliver on the State Department’s $38.3 billion dollar question.

A 2006 assessment of the State Department’s Public Diplomacy (PD) program conducted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, a Cabinet-level office run out the White House) ranks the program’s overall performance “adequate,” (as opposed to “effective, moderately effective, or ineffective”). The more abbreviated “assessment summary” can be found here.

The State Department describes the key functions of Public Diplomacy and its foreign officers as “indispensable” to the conduct of foreign policy. Accordingly, PD’s key activities, as outlined in the assessment’s “program performance measures,” amount to no small feat for PD officers.

According to the assessment, the program’s main goal is generating an “audience with an improved or increased understanding of U.S. policies, society and values.” Some of the ‘softer’ goals listed in the assessment include reaching key foreign audiences through State Department-sponsored exchange programs and increasing the user satisfaction scores of the US Embassy Web sites.

The more public relations-type functions (to give a less cynical depiction) include generating “accurate/favorable portrayals” of U.S. policies in key foreign media outlets and engineering editorial and opinion commentary support by foreign audiences for U.S. policies and positions.

Then there’s the granddaddy of them all: reducing the level of anti-American sentiment among key foreign audiences. This goal is commonly referred to as “winning hearts and minds,” a campaign the US first launched during the Vietnam war, and now commonly refers to US efforts at improving relations with the “Muslim” world. Given the rise in anti-American sentiment across the Middle East and beyond, this particular performance measurement may drag down PD’s overall ranking for a good time to come.

With such far-reaching and invasive goals set out, it is no wonder PD’s lowest-scoring is the “Program Results” assessment section: “Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals? Answer: No” (the assessment sites as evidence polling from Pew Global Attitudes Project, Pew’s 2007 polling on global views of the US is shown below).

Relative to other US government programs assessed by OMB, PD’s “adequate” ranking puts it on the lower end of the performance spectrum. The State Department as a whole performs about as well as other government agencies (27 “effective” programs, 12 “moderately effective,” 13 “adequate,” 0 “inadequate”), such as Defense, (19, 19, 10, 0), Homeland Security (9, 18, 6, 0). Based on OMB’s most recent assessments, 22% of Federal programs are “not performing,” or are considered ineffective. To view an explanation of the ranking criteria, click here.

Though the ExpectMore.gov site has been criticized for the “shallowness of its content,” the 2006 assessment does a good job of conveying exactly what State’s PD program attempts to achieve (or, as the case may be, not achieve).

Three cheers for transparency… But by tasking this relatively small bureau with challenging goals such as “changing the hearts and minds” of vast, increasingly antagonistic foreign audiences—especially without necessarily pairing that goal with the implementation of effective and agreeable foreign policies—we will continue to “ExpectMore” out of State’s PD program.

Soft balancing against the United States is on the rise and the next President will face a myriad of challenges in asserting American influence, so argues Parag Khanna. His article in the New York Time Magazine this week encapsulates a vast swath of recent history and developments in geopolitics, particularly across the second world.

In the future he sees a security and soft power competition among three major powers, the United States, China, and the European Union. His prescription for the coming battle over influence, create a diplomatic industrial complex.

“Pentagonize the State Department…Diplomacy, too, requires the equivalent of geographic commands — with top-notch assistant secretaries of state to manage relations in each key region without worrying about getting on the daily agenda of the secretary of state for menial approvals. Then we’ll be ready to coordinate within distant areas.”

“Regional institutions are thriving in the second world — think Mercosur(the South American common market), the Association of Southeast Asian Naitons (Asean), the Gulf Cooperation Council in the Persian Gulf. We need high-level ambassadors at those organizations too.”

“Condoleezza Rice’s ‘transformational diplomacy’ is a myth: we don’t have enough diplomats for core assignments, let alone solo hardship missions. We need a Peace Corps 10 times its present size, plus student exchanges, English-teaching programs and hands-on job training overseas — with corporate sponsorship.”

In tackling public diplomacy, Khanna unleashes his “secret weapon,” the American citizenry. “American foundations and charities, not least the Gates and Ford Foundations, dwarf European counterparts in their humanitarian giving; if such private groups independently send more and more American volunteers armed with cash, good will and local knowledge to perform ‘diplomacy of the deed,’ then the public diplomacy will take care of itself.”

While his plan is fresh and bold, it ignores the current state of affairs among the diplomatic corps. As my fellow blogger eloquently pointed out the State Department is facing cuts across the board, the opposite direction Khanna suggests we should be headed. That said, the ills at the State Department can be remedied by assurances from the next President. Until State receives word of the next President’s priorities, I would advise a degree of caution in Khanna’s comparison to that of the military-industrial complex. It did not happen overnight; likewise it would truly be a diplomatic revolution were it to be realized in the coming decade(s).

Go check out his thought-provoking article and anyone interested might want to purchase his forthcoming book, due out in March.

On Friday the State Department announced that Nicholas Burns, Undersecretary for Political Affairs, will be retiring from the number 3 post in the Department. Burns said he was leaving because it is “time for me to meet my obligations to my wife and three daughters, and it’s time to pursue other ventures outside the government.”

Click below to watch Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s farewell remarks.

Burns’ departure also brought kind words from President Bush and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (also scheduled to retire at the end of his term). After 27 years of service, Burns is the highest ranking career diplomat in the foreign service.

The State Department announced Burns’ replacement–William Burns Ambassador to Russia up until today when the President recalled him from the Moscow embassy (Nicholas and William are of no relation).

An editorial in the Middle East Times calls Burns’ departure a “big loss” for the Bush administration, “coming at a time when the president hopes to shift the Middle East peace talks into high gear…

“Burns’ departure will deprive the administration of an experienced diplomat, one who understood the Middle East better than his bosses. In fact, Burns, who speaks Arabic, began his career in North Africa and the Middle East, first as an intern at the U.S. Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, then vice consul and staff assistant to the ambassador in Cairo, (1983-1985), and then political officer at the American Consulate General in Jerusalem from 1985 to 1987. In this position, he coordinated U.S. economic assistance to the Palestinian population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem…”

The editorial continues: “…In selecting William Burns to replace Nicolas Burns, Bush and his secretary of State demonstrated the president’s commitment in trying to extract a peaceful solution in the Middle East before he leaves office exactly a year from this Monday.”

While some are hopeful about William’s appointment for the prospects of peace in the Middle East, others are weary that Nicholas’ departure will short circuit on ongoing nuclear negotiations with India. The Associated Press reports in an article titled “Diplomat’s Departure Muddles Nuke Deal:”

“…The departure of the State Department’s No. 3 official adds uncertainty to a U.S. nuclear deal with India that is already in deep trouble.

…The deal would allow the United States to send nuclear fuel and technology to India, which has been cut off from international atomic markets because of its refusal to sign nonproliferation accords or accept their inspection regimes and its testing of nuclear weapons.

Although most major opposition in Congress has been countered, the deal still faces tough questions in India. The government has set up a committee to examine the pact, which Indian critics say could cap the country’s nuclear weapons program and would allow the United States to dictate Indian foreign policy…”

Yet the Times of India reports that President Bush expects Nicholas Burns will “continue to serve in an advisory capacity as the United States continues to make progress on the historic civilian nuclear agreement with India.”

Burns will be no slouch up until he leaves his post in March. The Agence France Presse reports that Burns will accompany Secretary Rice for key talks next week with her counterparts from Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany in Berlin to discuss the new sanctions on Iran.

Here’s the bad news. The Washington Post reports that the State Department will be cutting 10 percent of diplomatic posts next year.

Veteran diplomatic correspondent Karen DeYoung reports:   “Nearly one-quarter of all diplomatic posts are vacant after hundreds of Foreign Service officers were sent to embassies in Baghdad and Kabul, and Congress has not provided funding for new hires… The size of the foreign service, about 6,500 diplomats, increased by approximately 300 positions a year between 2001 and 2004, but since then Congress has rejected requests for additional hiring for all but consular and security positions.” 

This is bad news on many levels:  

–First the cuts make painfully apparent the reality that the State Department is starved of resources. At a time when global opinion of theUnited States is at an all time low, the overseas presence of our diplomatic corps is shrinking. The cuts seem especially drastic when one considers that throughout its history the State Department, relative to its mandate, has been chronically under funded.

A rigorous 2003 Task Force report published by an umbrella organization of US diplomatic groups recommends that Congress appropriate a full 30% increase in the State Department budget. That’s not a plea for more office supplies. It reminds me of Oliver Twist’s weary cry “please sir may I have some more…”  

Let’s think about how the effects of these budget cuts might play out. Next year the US Foreign Service will be 10 percent less able to negotiate hot-button issues with other leaders, report on developments from afar, promote US values to unfamiliar audiences, maintain constructive relationships with our allies, monitor and respond to the actions of our enemies, and protect our embassies and traveling countrymen, among many other essential activities. It’s a difficult picture to paint because the State Department’s activities are embedded in so many foreign interactions essential to our domestic livelihood.   

–But more importantly the budget cuts reflect a continuing emphasis on military capabilities rather than diplomatic capabilities in US federal budgeting priorities. In 2007 the defense budget totaled $439.3 billion for regular department spending, not including money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In 2008 its budget will increase 44 billion to $483 billion. Ironically enough that’s a 9% increase in the Defense Department budget…  

Defense’s bountiful budget allows it to even take on some activities traditionally left to State. The State Department’s office of Public Diplomacy attempts to win the “battle of ideas” by improving the US’ image abroad. That office enjoys an annual budget of $900 million. On the other side of the river, Secretary Gates last year created a new position called the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy, to spearhead the military’s strategic communications and run their “countering ideological support to terrorism” program.

According to the US National Defense Strategy, part of this program entails: “helping change Muslim misperceptions of the United States and the West; and reinforcing the message that the Global War on Terrorism is not a war against Islam, but rather is an outgrowth of a civil war within Islam between extremists and those who oppose them.” 

 The State Department has a large Public Diplomacy bureau that handles those very tasks, along with strategic communications in general. Of course we are all better off for having the largest number of and most effective strategists assigned to this daunting and vital task. Still, “Defense department” and “soft power” don’t logically go hand in hand. Furthermore, it would be understandable that a global public weary of American unilateralism might not trust the “spin” coming out of the military establishment. 

In short, when diplomatic activities start being transferred to the military branch, everyone suffers—not just the starving State Department.

On Tuesday, an American Embassy vehicle was the target of a bombing in Beirut. The explosion left two US Embassy officials with light injures. An American citizen, not affiliated with the US Embassy, was also injured. At least three people died and more than twenty were wounded.

The attack was the first on American interests since 1991, leading analysts to raise questions about a renewed threat for Americans traveling or living in Lebanon.

A sociology professor at Lebanese University, Talal Atrissi, has a cynical outlook: “We have entered a new phase of targets, everything is now possible. It is a threat to spread chaos if no solutions are reached.”

On the other hand, political science professor Shafik Masri did not suggest this attack was part of a “new track,” but that it was a continuation of attacks in recent months.

Not getting coverage in American media, but of note was the denunciation provided by Hezbollah’s spiritual leader Hassan Nasrallah:

“We condemn and denounce any explosion that takes place on Lebanese territory, regardless of who is targeted, and especially if innocent people are killed.” However, take that comment with a grain of salt. In 1983 Hezbollah killed a total of 241 Marines, Navy Personnel and Army Soldiers in the bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut.

Whether this attack is part of a new phase or a continuation, the bottom-line is that Lebanon remains a volatile state. The power struggle between the Shia community and the Christian Maronites is not fading, leaving the government in disarray. In addition, Syrian interests in the country aim to stoke fire whenever a relative calm appears to set in.

President Bush recently nominated a new Undersecretary of State for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy, to replace the outgoing Karen Hughes. His pick, James Glassman, is currently chairman of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, the government agency that oversees U.S. international broadcasters, and a a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank. His background, however, lies in US economic and technology policy. You can read more about him here. The AP reports that given the brevity of his term (13 months until the newly elected administration takes office in January 2009), Glassman was chosen “in part because he has already won Senate confirmation for his current job, which he began in June, and the administration was looking for someone who could avoid a bruising confirmation fight in an election year.” Mr. Glassman will be in charge of improving America’s image abroad and leading US efforts to “counter violence and extremism and further the principles of democracy and liberty.” After Bush’s term expires in 13 months he’ll go back to thinking about the American economy. This appointment has drawn the usual snide remarks from the public diplomacy-watchers. Many pundits joked about the book Glassman co-authored, Dow 36,000, published in 1999 before the dot-com bubble burst. (The book now sells used for $0.01 on Amazon.com). Andrew Leonard commented on Salon.com: “Few people encapsulated the madness of the 1990s stock market bubble better than Glassman, and the appropriateness of such a blithe purveyor of happy talk as the Bush administration’s chief spinmeister for foreign policy seems both absurd and utterly unsurprising… The best thing that can be said about “Dow 36,000″ is that while wrong-headed, it is not pernicious.”

James Fallows, Altantic Monthly national correspondent and former Carter speechwriter, originally questioned Glassman’s appointment, and after sleeping on it, (or after a late-night phone call from…?) took it back the next day.

Michael Currie Schaffer of The New Republic sarcastically wrote: “Luckily, the America-hating masses of Pakistan probably never had the chance to follow Glassman’s cheerleading into the stock market back before the bubble burst in 2000.” Undersecretary Glassman shouldn’t fret too much, though. In the eyes of the pundits it would be difficult to do a worse job than his predecessor Karen Hughes. Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post wrote: “Hughes wasn’t hired to create cultural change inside the State Department; she was hired to improve America’s image abroad. And she failed miserably at that task, at least in part because she failed to use her close relationship with Bush to get him to stop doing the things that made her job so impossible.” Another blogger opined: “Departing is the shockingly ineffectual Karen Hughes. All right, I take that back. Predictably ineffectual, given that she was nothing more than a beneficiary of the spoils system.” Despite what the bloggers say it’s hard for the polling numbers to make Hughes’ performance look much better. Many global polls show that attitudes toward the US are at an all-time low. At the an impromptu appearance President Bush made at a State Department event bidding farewell to Karen Hughes, he joked: “I wouldn’t be standing here without Karen Hughes,” he said of his long-time advisor. “One of her jobs was to teach me how to speak English.”
       

If the President is looking to learn from the incoming Undersecretary I would warn him against taking Glassman’s advice on the stock market.