Notice how Kerry says that we’re in a “global insurgency,” a frame he’s been using to recast the war on terrorism. And he adds that no addition of troops in Afghanistan is sufficient without a holistic change in strategy, something progressives are beginning to push for. “I’m eager to hear Sen. Clinton’s thoughts on the way forward in Afghanistan,” he says. Me too.

I expect she’ll back off her hard line campaign rhetoric on the issue. She will be keen not to paint Obama into a corner by demanding unrealistic timetables or requirements for ending the use of private security. Not sure how her folks at State would take losing their primary security force in Iraq overnight . . .

Spin or insightful prognostication? (Or both?) Perhaps we’ll find out later this morning. Keep obsessively refreshing your RSS reader for The Streak — or however you read our blog! — as I’ll be blogging the hearing. Things kick off at 9:30 a.m. EST.

The New York Times’ Mark Landler and Helene Cooper have a great story — great in terms of being so comprehensive that it makes commentary difficult, because most points worth making are actually in the story — reporting that Clinton is going with two deputy secretaries: Jim Steinberg, as Greg Sargent has tirelessly reported, for traditional deputy tasks like diplomacy, policy and management; and former Clinton administration budget chief Jacob Lew, who will push the bureaucracy to get money for the department.

This is something Bob Gates has been behind all through his Pentagon tenure as it is. Back in February 2007, right as Gates was coming into office, he expressed alarm that the State Department wasn’t shouldering enough of the burden in Iraq. He turned that burden-sharing concern into a fundamental theme of his secretaryship, and according to the Times, he’s naturally on board with Clinton’s move, as is incoming national security adviser Jim Jones.

“The Pentagon would like to turn functionality over to civilian resources, but the resources are not there,” the [transition] official said. “We’re looking to have a State Department that has what it needs.”

There is a question here of capacity, though. It’s one thing to give the State Department a bigger budget. But it’s quite another to give it a bigger budget and instruct it to take charge of certain things the military does, like, say, outreach to tribal groups far from embassies and consulates in the middle of shooting wars. The State Department still doesn’t have an expeditionary culture, largely because it hasn’t really had to have one for awhile. A question that Clinton should have to answer at her confirmation hearing is how she intends to address that. Will pay incentives change? Will foreign-service-officer training change?

If not, the natural instinct — at least in rubber-hits-the-road places like Iraq and Afghanistan — is for the military to remain in a dominant role, since it’s the far more capable organization.

A State Department official said the idea of naming a senior Iranian outreach coordinator was broached in the first transition meetings with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama’s choice for secretary of state, and her transition team earlier this month.

“The idea is that the position should build on the existing diplomatic framework,” the official said. He asked not to be named because a nominee has not been announced.

Lake says that they’re considering a career diplomat for the post. I can think of at least two Leveretts who fit the bill. Also? Just saying? Maybe not a bad job for Zalmay Khalilzad, the rather talented diplomat whom Bush sent to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations.

As Secretary of State-pick Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.N. envoy-choice Susan Rice separately visited the diplomatic agency’s headquarters in Washington’s Foggy Bottom neighborhood, persons familiar with the transition said that Rice wants to install her own transition team inside the department.

Such a move by an incoming U.N. ambassador is rare, if not unprecedented, because the job is based at the United Nations in New York, where Rice already has a small transition staff, the sources familiar with the incoming administration.

The push by Rice, an early Obama supporter whose position the President-elect wants to elevate to a cabinet post, is also a signal that she intends to use her influence with the new president to play a more significant role than previous U.N. envoys, they said. The transition sources spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

I’m not sure who’s on that team and have an inquiry out. And I should of course say I have no idea if this story is, you know, true. (All this comes via Megan Carpentier and Jason Linkins.)

It wasn’t long ago that the State Dept. was basically internet-illiterate. Now Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Colleen Graffy is oversharing on Twitter.

Graffy is in Iceland right now. (”DCM” means “Deputy Chief of Mission,” an embassy’s number-two official, right below the Ambassador.) I wonder what Matt Armstrong, chief chronicler of State Dept. communications bloopers, makes of the Foggy Bottum Twitter-embrace.

Megan Carpentier points out that Department spokesman Sean McCormack is also on Twitter. His last Tweet recommends a fatuous Robert Kaplan op-ed contending that the Muslim world is one undistinguishable agglutination of grievance. ]]> http://washingtonindependent.com/21346/diplomats-use-twitter-to-give-the-world-tmi/feed 8 http://washingtonindependent.com/20686/wapo-holbrooke-to-be-south-asia-troubleshooter http://washingtonindependent.com/20686/wapo-holbrooke-to-be-south-asia-troubleshooter#comments Wed, 03 Dec 2008 02:49:30 +0000 Spencer Ackerman http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=20686 Just as we were asking about where Richard Holbrooke’s going to end up — and thinking about sending him to Iraq — after Greg Sargent’s Obama source dissed the Bulldozer, here comes the Washington Post:

President -elect Barack Obama is seriously considering giving former ambassador Richard Holbrooke a key role in handling diplomacy in south Asia, a move that would put one of America’s most prominent international troubleshooters in the middle of trying to resolve the thorny and interrelated problems surrounding India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to several sources familiar with the transition.

Good for the country, good for the region, good for Holbrooke, good for progressives. One might say it’s all good!

Marc Ambinder runs down the list:

Richard Holbrooke, the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Dayton Peace Accord broker; Clinton’s chief defense adviser, Bob Einhorn, a Clinton administration veteran and non-proliferation expert, Andrew Shapiro, Clinton’s chief foreign policy adviser, Wendy Sherman, a senior adviser to Madelieine Albright and Warren Christopher, and Melaine Verveer, a former Clinton chief of staff and longtime Clinton confidante.

If this is the team, it’s a fairly progressive one. Holbrooke we’ve dealt with before, and chances are if he’s not going to be deputy secretary it’s hard for him to find a suitable place at the department. As for the others, Andrew Shapiro is probably the one that would most concern progressives, as he worked for Sen. Joe Lieberman on the 2000 presidential campaign and has been wary of setting a deadline for withdrawing from Iraq, but he’s also got the Steve Clemons seal of approval.

Einhorn and Sherman certainly qualify as progressives. Sherman, an Emily’s List veteran, did yeoman work in the Clinton administration trying to staunch North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Einhorn is a dyed-in-the-wool non-proliferation guy who’d be a bold choice for undersecretary for arms control. Melanie Melanne Verveer, I must confess, I don’t know anything about. [UPDATE: Including how to spell her name. Sorry!]

None of this is to say that progressives shouldn’t be watching to see whom Clinton places — and doesn’t place — in her State Dept. But judging from this list, they’d probably be pretty OK with several of Clinton’s top aides.