Most of the administration has stuck to that we-await-the-final-results template. When it came time to discuss Afghanistan in her speech today to the Brookings Institution, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton merely referred to “the next president” of Afghanistan, giving no names. Then there’s CIA Director Leon Panetta.

Via Steve Hynd, Panetta told the Voice of America:

“It’s clear that there was some degree of corruption and fraud involved in the election,” Panetta said. “It’s being viewed now by the commissions involved in counting those votes. I think what appears to be the case is that even after they eliminate some of the votes that resulted because of fraud, that Karzai will still – still looks like the individual who’s going to be able to win that election.”

And here’s where diplomacy gets in the way of common sense. Everything Panetta said is true. His observations are even mundane and understated. But Panetta’s not some blogger, he’s the director of the CIA, and so when he makes a statement the likely outcome in a disputed election, Afghans are going to presume that the top American intelligence official is decreeing an outcome.

The CIA defends the interview. “Director Panetta said exactly what he meant,” said CIA spokesman George Little. He didn’t confirm the results of the Afghan election.  He talked in terms of the likelihood of a particular outcome.  Any suggestion that he made a final call is wrong.” And again: right! On the merits: right! To an American audience: right! But what will the Afghans think?

QUESTION: No, no, no, hold on. Ian, POGO says that it’s got no response from you guys to its 10-page letter to Secretary Clinton about the Embassy in Kabul, the guards at the Embassy in Kabul. And the response that they got is a – refers them to the daily press briefing, the answers that were given on – I believe it was September 1^st. Is that really an appropriate response to an oversight or to – you know, a group that sent you – that compiled all this information and –
MR. KELLY: You’re saying this was their response to – POGO?
QUESTION: No, no. This was the State – State Department’s response to POGO to the 10-page letter that was sent to Secretary Clinton.
MR. KELLY: Well –
QUESTION: It’s a very short one-line – one or two-line thing that says, “We refer — ” you know, it provides them with the link –
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: — the URL to the month – to that transcript.
QUESTION: It almost looks computer-generated.
MR. KELLY: Can I see that? Do you have a copy of it?
QUESTION: Sure.
MR. KELLY: Okay.
QUESTION: You posted it.
MR. KELLY: All right. I’d like to see it and then we can comment on it.

Tomorrow’s briefing is going to be rad.

One of the whistleblowers who helped expose the guard scandal at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul has just been forced to resign after his company—whose client is ArmorGroup, North America (AGNA)—came to believe that he had reached out to D.C. for assistance. The company told POGO that the whistleblower’s resignation was voluntary.

However, information obtained by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) strongly suggests he was pressured into resigning to avoid being fired, an action often referred to as constructive dismissal.

POGO is deeply concerned about the action allegedly taken against the whistleblower. He is being forced out at a time when three of the supervisors responsible for allowing the misconduct at Camp Sullivan have been allowed to quietly resign and escape accountability. As per our letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of September 1, 2009, POGO calls on the State Department to take immediate action to protect both the physical and employment security of whistleblowers who have stepped forward with allegations of serious misconduct involving ArmorGroup, North America and others.

My emphasis. Remember, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said yesterday that ArmorGroup had brought damaging photos itself to the State Department’s attention “ten days ago.” But now a patron of ArmorGroup is retaliating against whistleblowers?

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Well, except…

QUESTION: Just the discrepancy between what I think some folks from OIG were saying that they were only notified yesterday. You said that they were notified ten days ago. Can you just clarify that? I mean, are you sure it was ten days ago that OIG was first – that they –
MR. KELLY: Oh, you might be right. You might be right on that.
QUESTION: Well, can you –
QUESTION: Can you –
QUESTION: — get that for sure?
MR. KELLY: Yeah, sorry. Yeah, I may have misspoke on that one.

But even that discrepancy is relatively minor. Kelly said that the State Department sent ArmorGroup nine letters since 2007 complaining about its fulfillment of contract responsibilities. And he meant this as an exculpation, not a concession that State has faced systemic problems in exercising oversight of its security contractors. For instance:

MR. KELLY: Starting in June 2007, all the way through April 30, 2008, and then actually there was a ninth [letter to ArmorGroup from State], and this was the most serious one. It’s called a show cause notice. A decision to issue a show cause notice is a serious matter and was not taken lightly. The issuance of a show cause notice was necessary due to repeated staffing shortages, which had been brought to the attention of the contracting officer. The show cause notice was the first step towards considering termination of the contract and was carefully considered by all concerned parties. … This was September 21^st, 2008.

But according to Project on Government Oversight Executive Director Danielle Brian, that “most serious” show-cause notice may have been first issued on Sept. 21, 2008, but it had a rather serious predecessor:

[I]n July 2007, State issued a “cure notice,” a formal advisory that AGNA’s deficiencies were endangering the performance of the contract. In the cure notice, State identified 14 performance deficiencies, including the failure of AGNA to provide an adequate number of guards, relief personnel, and armored vehicles. The contracting official stated “I consider the contract deficiencies addressed below to endanger performance of the contract to such a degree that the security of the US Embassy in Kabul is in jeopardy….”

A follow-on cure notice was issued in April 2008, for, among other things, “failing to correct many of the deficiencies identified in the July 2007 cure notice.” And then State re-awarded ArmorGroup its $189 million contract the following July.

Numerous emails, photographs, and videos portray a Lord of the Flies environment. One email from a current guard describes scenes in which guards and supervisors are “peeing on people, eating potato chips out of [buttock] cracks, vodka shots out of [buttock] cracks (there is video of that one), broken doors after drnken [sic] brawls, threats and intimidation from those leaders participating in this activity….” Photograph after photograph shows guards—including supervisors—at parties in various stages of nudity, sometimes fondling each other. These parties take place just a few yards from the housing of other supervisors.

Asked about ArmorGroup at a press briefing today, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said that Clinton would have “zero tolerance for the type of conduct that is alleged.” But when a reporter challenged Kelly over the fact that State has put ArmorGroup on notice about inappropriate behavior in Kabul since June 2007, this was his response:

We’ve been investigating this organization for some time now. We understand that we have made some – we have pointed out to them some of the deficiencies. And I can’t answer right now from this podium exactly what they have done in response to this letter.

It’s into this sort of oversight environment that Blackwater Xe is looking to re-up its contracts with State to protect diplomats.

Ian Kelly, the State Department spokesman, handled that question yesterday:

…as far as the P-5+1 is concerned, of course, you know that Javier Solana sent out an invitation. We, of course, are waiting for an answer to that invitation, and we haven’t –
QUESTION: But you could meet without –
MR. KELLY: We haven’t received…

The P-5+1 is the diplomatic shorthand for the five permanent U.N. Security Council members — the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia — and Germany, who have been patiently making overtures to Iran over its nuclear program for years. Solana, the European Union foreign-policy chief, has tried to restart nuclear diplomacy this year, and the Iranians have praised the offer while not taking steps to actually discuss it.

Now put that together with this quote that Mir Hussein Moussavi’s foreign spokesman gave to Eli Lake of The Washington Times:

Mr. Makhmalbaf said Mr. Mousavi and others in the opposition fear that Western leaders will eventually negotiate with the Iranian government despite its loss of legitimacy since the disputed elections.

“We are afraid Western countries, including the United States, will sign a deal with an Ahmadinejad government [even though] it is an illegal government that has not been elected and has come to power by a coup d’etat,” he said.

Even if it turns out that the regime survives this current crisis, the Obama administration is positioning itself not to rush in to any talks, and instead place the incentive on the regime to positively accede to the P-5+1 process, which so far this year, it’s not shown much of a willingness to accept.

Of course, if it does, then it really will place the administration in a bind. Does the administration and its allies then try to link human rights obligations to any nuclear deal, knowing that the regime won’t accept that, and thereby jeopardizing the prospect of keeping Iran free of nuclear weapons? (And that’s presuming that, say, China and Russia will accept that, which they probably won’t.) Or does it hold to its top priority of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and implicitly grant the regime legitimacy? Right now, though, the administration’s construction at least buys it time to judge Iranian intentions — and decide whether a regime willing to so blatantly steal an election is really rational enough to hew to its international obligations.

Relatedly, how long until State Department spokesman Ian “there’s no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats” Kelly finds, uh, a new position where he can spend more time with his family?