Shah Who?

This appointment has all the subtlety of Gov. Schwarzenegger's veto letters to the California Assembly, except that here the letters spell out: USAID Administrator = Undersecretary at USDA. And not even an Undersec with a budget and clout. Forget about the dreams of making the USAID administrator a cabinet-level official.

The reality is that Holbrooke, Clinton and others don't want a strong voice at USAID. They have ideas about what to do in the world and they want unfettered access to USAID's budget to accomplish it. An administrator with even a few cents of political capital and even a little experience in the agency they are going to be in charge of might actually have a few ideas of his/her own, and might question the wisdom being passed down by the best and brightest that Clinton and Holbrooke have running the show.

And has anyone (oh, maybe on the Hill?) asked why - if everyone from Eikenberry to that guy who quit his job in Afghanistan has been saying that the big problem in Afghanistan is corruption and incompetent government, and USAID is supposed to be the lead agency in addressing corruption and governance, we have an administrator who not only has zero experience in that issue, but comes from an organization that has consistently argued that development depends on making sure that everyone gets a malaria net, and has access to a hospital and a library, and all that uncomfortable talk about corruption and governance are just a distraction.

Oh, its going to be a dark, dark time in the Ronald Reagan Building.

that they just confirmed a Hindu-American (with a name like Rajiv, one can only guess) as the head of a newly revamped USAID?

We have two politically and militarily crucial aid assignments in the coming years in Muslim Afghanistan and Pakistan, and THIS is the guy you want to have as the face of our operations there?

It makes no difference in the U.S., but it's a WORLD of difference to those guys.

Didn't the Kerry-Lugar Act just give like hundreds of millions of dollars to USAID to establish field offices in Pakistan? I'm sure "Rajiv" will go over well with them and their already twisted theories of our real intentions there.

We're so screwed.

Has he been confirmed yet? Does he have to be?

Cuz if not then maybe there's still hope I turning a few Democratic Senators.

Interesting that Annie Lowrey’s sources think I might have been a candidate for the USAID Administrator job. For many reasons – among them Pakistan and Afghanistan, the rise of China, the risks of climate change for the world’s poor -- there may be no other job as challenging, substantively and politically, in the Administration right now. I am honored to perhaps have been a real candidate -- at some point on some list – maybe!

Let me add: History may well show that the nomination of Raj Shah was a bold and smart move on the part of the Administration. He’s an independent thinker with plenty of savvy and experience about moving good ideas to practical action, and understands well what development is all about. But his tremendous potential will not be realized without demonstrable support from the White House and the State Department to rebuild an effective USAID.

What Shah needs to succeed, including in collaborating with the Congress on fundamental reform of U.S. foreign assistance, is clarity on USAID’s independent mandate – including a medium-term budget that is secured against short-term diplomatic imperatives -- and clarity on his seniority as a Deputy in the State Department reporting directly to the Secretary of State.

Ultimately, of course, our top development official should have a seat in the President's Cabinet. And right now President Obama should send a strong signal about the importance he assigns to the development agenda by including the USAID Administrator in his National Security Council.

Rajiv Shah may be a brilliant guy, but Obama and Clinton forgot that they have to be careful of political and diplomatic sensitivities. Appointing yet another Indian to a post that interacts and deals with the Pakistanis is a foolish mistake, which they don't seem to care about. I am appalled at people appointed or hired for the many Pakistan/Afghanistan focused positions, and wonder where the administration's diplomatic logic or sense has been lost. Great start guys.... keep it up.... we need more trouble on the political front, just like we have on the military front!

CAN.THIS.AGENCY.BE.SAVED is spot-on. Shah's nomination confirms that the Obama administration does not consider development on par with the other two Ds: Defense and Diplomacy. It also affirms Clinton's increasing control over USAID and, more importantly, its budget. Already, development is increasingly politicised and, in the field, is subject to considerable input - if not control - from the State Department side. Seasoned USAID experts, both technical and administrative, are being sidelined to short-term politicos with neither the knowledge nor the saavy to understand long-term development issues.

Lowrey's article suggests Shah's experience managing budget and people. Let's not forget that he's been at USDA for less than 6 months. Will we really suggest that that counts? He's barely had enough time to find a house and a school for his kids. He has an MD but has never practiced medicine. Experience? Sorry - don't see it.

For USAID to return to its former position as the world's preeminent development agency, there are a lot of changes that need to take place OUTSIDE of USAID. It isn't that USAID is broken and can be repaired by a slick manager. USAID's problem is and has been the role of the State Dept and Congress in foreign assistance. USAID needs a leader with gravitas and political weight to take on those outside interests. Shah has neither. His nomination signals, in my mind, the end of USAID and the diminishment by the Obama administration of the importance of foreign assistance to America's security and national interests.