In a small, windowless office with barren walls in the Pentagon's E-ring, four-star Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright sits behind an empty desk. He's spent the month of August on "terminal leave," tying up the loose ends of his 40-year military career, in which he rose to become the second-highest-ranking uniformed military man in the nation, before losing his chance at one final promotion.

"Hoss," as he's known to his friends, was always a controversial figure within the military aristocracy: a Marine with a penchant for technology, an iconoclast who made his reputation bucking the conventional wisdom, an insider who was always trying to force the Defense Department to think outside the box. He was often impolitic and caught up in controversy, but his determination to drive the discussion on things like missile defense, cyberwarfare, and military strategy made him stand out as the general who talked straight and wasn't afraid to ruffle feathers.

It was these very qualities that made him "Obama's favorite general," according to Bob Woodward's book Obama's Wars. When asked whether that was true, Cartwright said he believed it was -- once upon a time. He also acknowledged that Obama promised to promote him to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then reneged on that pledge after a whisper campaign against Cartwright, reportedly coming from within the Pentagon, made his appointment politically difficult for the White House.

But looking back he has no regrets.

"I wouldn't change anything. I wouldn't do it any different," Cartwright told The Cable, in the first interview he's given since stepping down. His retirement became official this week.

The break between Cartwright and his two bosses, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, came after the contentious debate in late 2009 over the surge of troops in Afghanistan. Cartwright worked with Vice President Joseph Biden on a plan that placed a greater emphasis on counterterrorism than counterinsurgency, and included a smaller footprint with fewer additional troops. They presented that plan to Obama without the prior approval of Gates and Mullen.

Gates has publicly denied that this episode cost Cartwright the chairman's job and said in June that "Hoss Cartwright is one of the finest officers I've ever worked with."

But Cartwright acknowledged in his interview with The Cable that his insistence on giving options for alternative policies in Afghanistan, alternatives Gates and Mullen didn't like, caused a falling-out that along with the whisper campaign in which critics accused him of insubordination and leaked details of an inspector general's investigation into a possible relationship he had with a female aide (he was later cleared of any wrongdoing), scuttled his chances to take the chairman's seat.

"Yeah, they did make it personal," Cartwright said, though careful not to name Gates or Mullen in particular as being behind the effort to smear him. "But at the end of the day, that's their choice. I can live with this skin very easily."

"At the end of the day, the measure of merit was not necessarily whether the relationships were strong," he said. "The measure of merit was: All the things that I needed to do as vice chairman, all the things that Chairman Mullen and Secretary Gates needed to do, none of that stuff ever suffered as a result of this.… The department never suffered. The war fighter never suffered."

Regardless, the Biden-Cartwright plan, known as "counterterrorism plus," eventually lost out to a plan much closer to the counterinsurgency heavy approach that Gates and Mullen were advocating. Cartwright said he never thought he was breaking the chain of command or committing insubordination by dealing directly with Biden or Obama.

"Well, you know, in someone's eyes, maybe I broke the chain of command. But from the standpoint of the law, no. And so I'm very comfortable with where I was," he said. "My job is not to come up with a strategy and say, 'This is the answer.' My job is to give the president and the administration a broad enough range of choices that are credible choices and let them find in it the broader strategy as they look across all the other elements of power that they have."

Within those choices for how to proceed in Afghanistan, Cartwright was in favor of a "counterterrorism plus" approach that would have required fewer surge troops.

"Actually, I was arguing more about balance," he said. "In other words, I believe that if you weren't going to put enough force in to control the entire country, then the tied-down force had to have its flanks protected. And therefore you had to have a mobile force that was more counterterror-type force than you did."

Many in the war-fighting community believe that Cartwright just didn't get it because he never led troops in battle. He rose through the ranks as a Marine aviator and then spent most of the last decade as the head of U.S. Strategic Command or as a top Pentagon official. For the soldier on the field in Afghanistan, Cartwright's idea for fewer troops just placed the troops in battle in greater danger. For many in the military, the choice was to go big or go home.

But Cartwright says he just didn't see it that way -- and when the president asked him for his own opinion, he was bound to give it to him. And he still stands by the advice he gave. Cartwright's view is the emphasis should be on finding ways to wind down the war more quickly and leave Afghanistan in the hands of the Afghans.

"At the end of the day, from a grand strategy standpoint, this is a very cost-imposing strategy on us and, not having a clear idea of how long we're going to stay other than until the cash runs out, is important to understand," he said. "You can't kill your way or buy your way to success in those activities. It's got to be diplomatic. And Afghans have to be convinced that it's time for them to do their own thing."

At his retirement ceremony on Aug. 3, which Mullen and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta attended, Cartwright quoted Teddy Roosevelt's famous speech, "In the Arena," which begins, "It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena."

This week, he said the pushback he received was the unavoidable consequence of doing his duty.

"If getting criticized was my worry, if that was the merit of the job, then I wouldn't be there anyway. You do what you think is right," he said. "At the end of the day, you do your own self-reflection. You look in the mirror and you say: Is the integrity where it belongs? Is anything you provided in the way of advice so far off the base as to be reprehensible? I never came to the conclusion in either case that either the integrity had suffered or that the advice was bad advice."

As he sits in his uniform at his empty office, Cartwright thinks about what he wants to do next. He said he might enter a think tank or academia while he decides how to contribute to military policy from the civilian side of the discussion. He leaves the Pentagon with a sense of accomplishment and without remorse.

"My advice wasn't always taken, but it always at least informed the debate, which was my measure of merit," said Cartwright. "That people were so strongly against it at times, well shoot … these are big decisions."

Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides said yesterday that the State Department doesn't want to get into a budget battle with the Pentagon over funding, but that he's aware that dwindling national security funding may make competition inevitable.

"We at State and USAID are not trying to rob the Pentagon to pay ourselves," Nides said in a speech at the Center for American Progress. "As everyone knows, we're facing the process of major budget cuts. These cuts could be the most significant we have had in two decades, and they could have a devastating impact on the work that we do."

Nides, who has only been at State since the beginning of this year, recounted the rise in State Department and USAID funding that began in 2007, but which is now set to be reversed in what promises to be the most frugal spending season in a generation. The State Department's fiscal 2011 budget turned out to be 13.6 percent below what was originally requested, and the current House appropriation bill would cut that figure by another 18 percent in fiscal 2012.

Talking about the ever increasing role of the State Department in conflict zones and the need to maintain American engagement in a changing world, Nides pointed out that State will get $4 billion more for war operations this year, while the Pentagon budget for war operations will go down by $45 billion.

"It is helpful ... [but] we cannot just fund our efforts in the frontline states and gut our base budget for everything else we do in the world," Nides said.

So what's the solution? According to Nides, there should be a unified national security budget that would join defense, diplomacy, and development into one big pool of cash. And in fact, the government is actually moving in that direction.

Nides noted that the deal to raise the debt ceiling that President Barack Obama struck with Congress last month actually combines diplomacy and development with defense under the heading of "security spending" legislation for the first time, meaning that Congress is getting on board with the idea. "That is the good news," he said.

But there's a risk that State could get burned in this shift. As we've reported several times, GOP leaders might have agreed to this aspect of the deal because they want to disproportionally cut State and USAID while not cutting defense, and still be able to claim they cut spending for "security."

Nides is well aware of the threat. "There is a real risk that Congress could decide to shield defense spending and other categories of spending by cutting everything else, and that, my friends, is the bad news," he said.

Nides' predecessor Jack Lew, now the head of the Office of Management and Budget, said recently that the debt ceiling deal will cut $420 billion from "security spending" over the next ten years, with $350 billion of that coming from "defense."

But the truth is that future Congresses will determine how much gets cut from "security" and how much from "defense" -- and the Pentagon has a lot more friends in Congress than Foggy Bottom.

State does have one friend on the supercommittee that is responsible for making the first round of cuts: Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA). So that should solve everything, right?

For Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), the path to reelection might go through New Delhi. He's pushing the Obama administration to nominate former California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who recently endorsed him, as the next ambassador to India.

"We write to support our friend, former Lieutenant Governor of California, Cruz Bustamante for the position of United States Ambassador to India," Sherman wrote in a letter he is planning to send to President Barack Obama, obtained by The Cable. "Mr. Bustamante has proven himself to be a capable, hard-working and dedicated civil servant. Given his long career of public service and his extensive work on issues of international trade and economic development, we are confident that Mr. Bustamante's appointment would bring strong leadership to the relationship between the United States and India."

The letter, which Sherman circulated this week to all California Democratic offices in search of co-signers, argued that Bustamante "has a wealth of experience and an extensive knowledge of Indian culture, politics and business." As chairman of the California Economic Development Commission, Bustamante helped open new international trade offices, including six in Asia (although none in India).

Other than that, his ties to India or foreign policy in general appear to be thin and he doesn't have international stature comparable to the last ambassador to New Delhi, former Rep. Tim Roemer.

Bustamante endorsed Sherman for reelection earlier this month. Sherman is currently in need of high-powered California endorsements because he is running against another well-liked incumbent Democrat -- House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Howard Berman (D-CA).

Berman and Sherman were both drawn into a newly created district in the Los Angeles area and will have to run against each other in what's shaping up to be a highly competitive and costly race. Berman has already announced that California Gov. Jerry Brown, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Henry Waxman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky will all serve as honorary co-chairs for his campaign.

So far, Sherman's got the endorsements of California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, California State Controller John Chiang, L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca, L.A. City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, and others. Sherman also has poll numbers showing him in the lead, but it's still early in the race. Berman and Sherman might also have to run against each other twice, because the top two contenders coming out of the "jungle primary" next June will face off again in the November 2012 general election.

Sherman's chief of staff Don MacDonald told The Cable today that there's no linkage between Bustamante's endorsement and Sherman's letter recommending him for the India post.

"As to any suggestion that Sherman is doing this in return for some political benefit, Sherman actually urged that Bustamante seek this position well before redistricting, and a likely very tough race, came into focus. The endorsement came months after Sherman first mentioned the ambassadorship to him, well after Sherman had decided to undertake these efforts," MacDonald said.

Cruz placed second to Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003 election to recall Gov. Gray Davis and then lost an election in 2006 to become California Insurance Commissioner.

"When voters of California elected him lieutenant governor, they knew that on any day that person could become arguably the second or third most important government official in America," MacDonald continued. "So Cruz Bustamante has tens of millions of Californians who believe in his ability as well. With all due respect to the foreign policy wonks of the world, Governor of California is a much tougher job than ambassador."

The American victims of several terror attacks perpetrated by the regime of deposed Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi are asking the State Department to break off some of Qaddafi's frozen assets and give it to them.

There are about $37 billion of frozen Libyan assets in the United States, some of which were Libyan government funds and some of which were the personal fortune of Qaddafi and his family. When Qaddafi made nice with President George W. Bush's administration, he agreed to pay the U.S. victims of his crimes $1.5 billion in restitution. But now, those victims are saying that isn't enough money to cover the cost of what they were promised, and they want the Obama administration to divert more funds to make up the difference.

"The State Department under President Bush didn't get enough money from Qaddafi to pay the awards. They are likely $200 million to $400 million short," Stuart Newberger, the lead attorney for victims of UTA flight 772, told The Cable. UTA 772 exploded in 1989 over the Sahara desert, killing 171 people, including 7 Americans, one of whom was Bonnie Pugh, wife of the U.S. ambassador to Chad, Robert Pugh. High-ranking members of the Qaddafi regime were implicated in the attack.

The families of the UTA 772 victims, like those of several other Qaddafi attacks, were engaged in litigation against Qaddafi before the State Department made a deal to settle all claims for $1.5 billion. The State Department transferred responsibility for doling out the money to a foreign claims settlement commission run by the Treasury Department in 2008, and dozens of victims are still waiting for their payments.

The victims are entitled to specific awards - such as $10 million if a family member died and $3 million if a family member suffered a severe injury - but their advocates always suspected that the $1.5 billion wasn't enough to cover the awards promised. They also said the State Department underestimated the number of victims of Qaddafi's crimes.

"The issue is how to make sure the awards are paid in full, the way the State Department and the Bush administration intended," said Newberger. "What we want is either the president, the secretary of state, or the Congress to use a very small portion of the frozen Qaddafi assets to be applied to make sure there is no shortfall.  Otherwise, these American victims of Qaddafi's terrorism will get much less than was recommended."

Six members of Congress today asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to do just that, in a letter obtained exclusively by The Cable.

"We are concerned that the amount of money not yet distributed from the $1.5 billion Libya Claims Program...may be insufficient to fairly compensate some victims," said the letter, spearheaded by Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico's representative in Congress.

Other signers of the letter were Robert Hurt (R-VA), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Michael Grimm (R-NY), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), and Jean Schmidt (R-OH). They want the State Department to confirm that there will be a shortfall, explain what they plan to do about it, and detail any legal obstacles to using the frozen Qaddafi funds.

The victims and their advocates became especially worried when several victims received a letter on Aug. 25 from the Treasury Department stating that some victims would only be given 20 percent of the money they were promised.

"Treasury is prepared to make an initial payment of $1,000. Treasury is further prepared to make a partial, pro-rata distribution totaling 20% of the unpaid balance that remains on your award," stated the letter, also obtained by The Cable.

Newberger said that paying pro-rata portions is a clear indication that the Treasury is aware there is not enough money in the fund to pay the victims. But he also acknowledged that the administration may not be able to peel off Qaddafi funds for the victims without some backing from Capitol Hill.

"The president probably only has limited legal authority for transferring some of this money," he said. "To make his authority stronger under U.S. law, he really needs Congress to pass a law. If the Congress does that, the president is in a much safer and stronger legal position."

In fact, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Johnny Isaakson (R-GA) were able to add an amendment to Sen. John Kerry's bill to authorize the Libya war that directed the administration to use the frozen funds to pay victims. But now that the war is mostly over, that bill has little chance of reaching the Senate floor, much less Obama's desk.

For the administration, it's a no-win situation. If it tries to take the money from the frozen funds, it risks upsetting the Libyan National Transitional Council, which thinks it should decide how to spend Qaddafi's money. If it doesn't act, it could appear to be abandoning the victims of Libya terrorism in the United States.

"They've been very careful not to take a position on this," Newberger said.

The State and Treasury Departments did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.

The victims involved in this effort include those who were part of several Qaddafi-inspired attacks in addition to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie and the bombing of UTA flight 772. They include:

• The 1972 Lod Airport attack in Tel Aviv, where 16 Americans were killed, all from Puerto Rico
• The 1983 car bombing in London, which killed one American and injured several others
• The 1984 and 1985 kidnappings and killings of Peter Kilburn and Alec Collett in London
• The 1985 hijacking of Egypt Air flight 648, where two Americans were killed
• The 1986 hijacking of Pan Am flight 73, where 3 Americans were killed and dozens wounded
• The 1987 detention of one American on the yacht Carin II

The ongoing war of words between the Obama administration and the Bashar al-Assad regime is quickly descending into a nasty exchange of personal insults and invectives between officials that have borne grudges against each other for years.

Both the U.S. and the Syrian governments have recently taken cheap shots at each other's officials. For instance, the Syrian national television station has called U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford a "dog" and said he must have been "shitting his pants with diarrhea" when he heard the fireworks that were being set off in a downtown square.

This week, the State Department unloaded on Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem. On Tuesday, after the Treasury Department announced new sanctions on three Syrian officials, the State Department sent around some additional quotes to reporters about Muallem, to be attributed as coming from a "senior administration official."

"Walid Muallem has played a key role in trying to insulate the regime from the implications of its own brutality. By devoting himself to strenuously trying to hide Syrian government culpability in the murder and torture of Syrian citizens, Muallem bears some responsibility for the crimes committee. He has intervened with counterparts to try to prevent the U.N. Security Council from taking action," the senior administration official said.

Then came the kicker: "Muallem remains an unapologetic, shameless tool and mouthpiece of Bashar al-Assad," the senior administration said.

At Wednesday's State Department briefing, reporters pressed spokeswoman Victoria Nuland on whether she would repeat these insults on the record, and whether she thought it was constructive to publicly demean the Syrian foreign minister.

Nuland's answer was yes on both accounts.

"He has played a key role in trying to insulate the Assad regime from the implications of its own brutality by devoting himself strenuously to trying to hide the Assad regime's capability and the murder and torture of Syrian citizens. Muallem bears personal responsibility as well for the crimes committed. He's intervened with counterparts to try to prevent the U.N. Security Council from taking action," she said.

"You know, we saw people in the Qaddafi circle demonstrate a clear understanding of right and wrong when the tide began to turn there. They chose to defect. That has not yet happened with senior members of the Bashar Assad regime. Muallem remains unapologetic. He remains as a shameless tool and a mouthpiece of Assad and his regime."

And Nuland had more Muallem bashing quotes in her briefing book:

"Not done. Not done. More Muallem," she said. "He has also served as one of the key links between Damascus and Tehran, and he's strengthened Assad's reliance on Iranian equipment and advice in his relentless crackdown on the Syrian people."

Muallem is one of the key interlocutors between the Obama administration and the Assad regime, and the public sniping doesn't bode well for future contact. It could also be awkward when Muallem comes to New York next week for the U.N. General Assembly, but apparently the State Department no longer cares about playing nice.

Some reports have suggested that the personal nature of the insults is based on long-standing grudges between some members of the Obama administration and the Syrian officials. This Associated Press article links the new rhetoric to Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, who survived an assassination attempt, presumably planned by Syria, when he was ambassador to Lebanon during the George W. Bush administration.

"The Assad regime is probably at the top of the suspect list," in terms of who tried to kill Feltman, said Andrew Tabler, fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of a new book about the U.S.-Syria relationship, In the Lion's Den, although Tabler doesn't think the war of words is based solely on personal grudges.

"Engagement is over, we are now essentially in a policy of confrontation. It's certainly a sign of the incredibly bad state of relations between the two countries," he said. "And it is getting nasty."

Yesterday, The Cable brought you an exclusive interview with Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, who said that Israel's agreements with the Palestinian Authority (PA) could be at risk if it goes forward with a vote for unilateral statehood at the United Nations next month.

Today, the State Department responded and urged the Israeli government to honor its agreements with the PA, at least for the time being.

"Yesterday the Israeli ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, said in an interview that all bilateral agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority could become null and void if they establish something called the government of Palestine," The Cable asked State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland at today's briefing. "And he suggested that U.S. agreements, bilateral agreements with the Palestinian Authority, could also become null and void, because they are not made with something called the government of Palestine. Was he accurate?"

"I think the interview was with you, if I'm not wrong there, Mr. Rogin," Nuland quipped, calling out your humble Cable guy for seeking to advance his own story.

Actually, Oren never used the words "null and void," but did say that, "We have a lot of agreements with the Palestinian Authority, we have no agreements with a ‘Government of Palestine," and that Israeli-PA and U.S.-PA agreements could be at risk if the Palestinian leadership moves forward with a U.N. statehood vote.

Nuland's response was, "We take seriously the prior commitments by all sides and we expect the parties to do the same. We will continue to urge both the Palestinians and the Israelis to honor their commitments fully."

Other press corps members tried to press Nuland on how the United States would manage its dealings with the PA if it is recognized as the government of a Palestinian state, but she wouldn't bite.

"We believe that prior commitments need to be respected by both sides and we're making that point," she said. "I'm not going to get into all kinds of hypotheticals and all kinds of crazy scenarios."

Some reporters at the briefing argued that since the PA seems determined to move forward at the United Nations, it's not such a "crazy scenario," but Nuland, eager not to get out ahead of the U.S. diplomacy on the issue, wouldn't budge.

"I'm not prepared to speak about contingency planning one way or the other," she said. "I am simply giving the view of the U.S. administration, which is that we take seriously the prior commitments made by all sides, and we expect them to continue to be met by and honored by all sides."

In the gaggle that follows the briefing each day, a State Department official was asked if the administration was doing everything it could to convince other countries not to support the PA's effort.

"Absolutely," the State Department official said, adding that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has raised the issue in several meetings with world leaders, including Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

The State Department is denying any knowledge or connection to the meetings this month between senior Qaddafi officials and former State Department official David Welch.

Al Jazeera reported today that files found in Muammar al-Qaddafi's intelligence bureau after the fall of the regime show that Abubakr Alzleitny and Mohammed Ahmed Ismail, two top Qaddafi officials, met with David Welch, former assistant secretary of state under George W Bush, on Aug. 2, 2011, in Cairo. Welch was the man who brokered the deal to restore diplomatic relations between the United States and Libya in 2008.

"During that meeting Welch advised Gaddafi's team on how to win the propaganda war, suggesting several ‘confidence-building measures', according to the documents," Al Jazeera reported, noting that the meeting was held at the Four Seasons hotel, only blocks from the U.S. embassy.

The minutes of the meeting also include Welch's purported advice that Qaddafi should feed the Obama administration damaging intelligence on the rebels by laundering it through allied governments and that Qaddafi should take advantage of the "double standard" in U.S. policy toward Libya and Syria.

"The Syrians were never your friends and you would lose nothing from exploiting the situation there in order to embarrass the West," Welch reportedly told Qaddafi's officials. Welch, who now works for Bechtel, did not return requests for comment. But Nuland confirmed that the trip occurred.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at today's briefing that Welch was acting on his own. "David Welch, a former assistant secretary, is now a private citizen. This was a private trip. He was not carrying any message from the U.S. government," she said.

Al Jazeera also found a memo of a conversation between an intermediary for Qaddafi's son Saif Al-Islam and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (R-OH). The memo included a request from Kucinich to Saif asking for dirt on the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC), such as evidence of corruption or links to al Qaeda.

"Al Jazeera found a document written by a Libyan bureaucrat to other Libyan bureaucrats," Kucinich said in a statement e-mailed to The Cable. "All it proves is that the Libyans were reading the Washington Post, and read there about my efforts to stop the war. I can't help what the Libyans put in their files."

Kucinich chief of staff Vic Edgerton would not confirm or deny that Kucinich did in fact have a conversation with a Qaddafi official.

"My opposition to the war in Libya, even before it formally started, was public and well known," Kucinich said. "My questions about the legitimacy of the war, who the opposition was, and what NATO was doing, were also well known and consistent with my official duties. Any implication I was doing anything other than trying to bring an end to an unauthorized war is fiction," Kucinich said.

The Political-Military (PM) bureau at the State Department has a host of new leaders this week, including a new principal deputy, another new deputy, and two new senior advisors.

Andrew Shapiro is the assistant secretary for PM and reports up to Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher. Shapiro and Tauscher aren't going anywhere, but below them there are a lot of new faces. Thomas Kelly replaces Kurt Amend as principal deputy assistant secretary for PM. Amend retired from the State Department and will now join the private sector after 22 years in the Foreign Service, though after only about a year as the No. 2 official at PM.

Kelly's most recent post was as consul general at the U.S. embassy in Sao Paolo, Brazil, where he worked directly for Ambassador Tom Shannon. Kelly's return to Washington is something a reunion for him and Shannon, because Shannon is filling in as acting undersecretary of state for political affairs while the State Department awaits the confirmation of President Barack Obama's nominee, Wendy Sherman.  

Before Brazil, Kelly served as deputy chief of mission for three years (2004-2007) in Vilnius, Lithuania, under current State Department Executive Secretary Steve Mull, and then in Buenos Aires, Argentina, under current Ambassador to Mexico Tony Wayne. His job will be to run the bureau when Shapiro is on the road and manage the counter piracy, political advisors, and congressional and public affairs offices.

Amend was actually dual-hatted as principal deputy assistant secretary and as the official in charge of PM's negotiations and agreements team, so Shapiro brought on Tom Daughton as a senior advisor to handle the latter part of Amend's portfolio. Daughton's most recent positions were as deputy chief of mission in Lebanon and Algeria.

His main responsibilities are to handle security negotiations for status of forces agreements, such as the negotiations to reposition U.S. forces in Japan that Amend handled, and issues related to navigation and overflight rights for U.S. forces abroad. Importantly, this includes the  Northern Distribution Network, which speed goods from Russia and Central Asia to U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Daughton reports up to Kelly.

Maj. General Walter Givhan has also joined the PM bureau as a deputy assistant secretary, replacing Maj. Gen. Tom Masiello, who was a brigadier general when he joined PM but who just was awarded his second star and has now returned to the Pentagon as the director of special programs in the office of the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.

Givhan is now the highest ranking military officer at the State Department, and his appointment is meant to cement the presence of a high-ranking active duty officer in PM, a State Department official told The Cable. Before Masiello, an active-duty military general hadn't served in a high ranking PM position since the 1980s, although retired officers have played roles, including former assistant secretary Mark Kimmitt, who retired as a brigadier general before coming to State.

The State Department official also said that Deputy Secretary Bill Burns' father was an active duty military officer and a deputy assistant secretary in the PM bureau, and that Burns recommended returning a high-ranking active-duty military man to the management tier of the PM bureau.

Givhan has responsibility for overseeing policy and plans, global peacekeeping issues, DOD force posture issues, and weapons removal and abatements. He is currently State's point person in the effort to secure the thousands of MANPADS currently floating around Libya. Givhan also is in charge of the international security operations office, a 24/7 military action support team.

Last but not least, Shapiro has hired Max Bergmann as a senior advisor in the PM front office. Bergmann was most recently working with the Ploughshares Fund and the Center for American Progress, where he blogged a lot about New START on CAP's Think Progress site. He's also the editor of an American soccer blog called "Association Football."