No need for diplo-draft...again

No surprise here. Enough of us have stepped up to the plate, as we always do.

No need for diplomatic draft for Baghdad embassy

WASHINGTON — The State Department said Tuesday that enough diplomats have volunteered for duty at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq next year to avoid having to draft potentially unwilling candidates to serve there.

A cable sent to all foreign service officers says 325 jobs in Baghdad and outlying provinces, along with 134 in Kabul, that come open next summer have been filled by qualified volunteers.

"I want to applaud our foreign service and civil service colleagues who have once again come forward to answer the call in Iraq and Afghanistan," Foreign Service Director General Harry Thomas said in the cable.

Officials familiar with the staffing process said that all positions were taken but that assignments for a handful of diplomatic security agents in Iraq were still pending.

Last year, the prospect of forced Iraq tours in what would have been the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam sparked an uproar when some objected to compulsory service in a war zone, with one likening it to a "potential death sentence."

In the end, volunteers filled the 48 vacant posts that had prompted preparations for the possible draft, but the department warned again in April that it might have to repeat the process of identifying candidates for forced Iraq duty unless enough diplomats stepped forward to meet the need for 2009.

The process, known as "directed assignment," means ordering diplomats _ who take an oath to be serve anywhere in the world _ to work in certain locations under threat of dismissal unless they have a compelling reason, such as a health condition, that would prevent them from going.

WP Op-Ed: Suited for Diplomacy?

Several of my fellow bloggers have been talking about Suited for Diplomacy?, an Op-Ed by James P. DeHart in Sunday's Washington Post. DeHart is a Foreign Service Officer heading to a PRT in Afghanistan.

DeHart says:
"Today, we're seeing not only transformational diplomacy but also the transformation of diplomacy. Foreign Service officers emerging from war zones are in many cases being promoted ahead of their peers. This is understandable, but as they rise up the chain and gain a bigger say in future personnel decisions, the practitioners of more "traditional" diplomacy may find themselves relegated to an even slower track.

WhirlView wondered why DeHart would have been at Georgetown before the assignment rather than in language training, and wondered if the answer to her question was...

"...contained in his observation that State Department assignments to war zones are fast tracks up the career ladder and that as war zone vets “rise up the chain and (presumably) gain a bigger say in future personnel decisions, the practitioners of more ‘traditional” diplomacy’” may find themselves second class citizens?

I’m not sure I buy that argument. At least until I see the statistics. I would love to see the numbers that demonstrate that Iraq and Afghanistan State Department veterans are, in fact, getting promoted faster than their peers. If someone can point or e-mail them to me – I’d be delighted. Since this is becoming an increasingly divisive issue in the Foreign Service - based from what I can tell primarily on corridor gossip – a systematic, fact-based, transparent study should be an imperative. But maybe I've just missed it.

I don't think tours in war zones should be a ticket to the fast track. I have already witnessed people who had trouble getting promoted narrowly avoid TICing out of service by doing a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. Yes, I think people who volunteer to serve there are entitled to the money and the choice of onward assignment. And yes, if they do a great job there, they should get promoted. But it shouldn't be a place for officers who are about to be forced from the service to go to reset their clock. That does a disservice to the service, one we will suffer from for generations.

I do agree with WhirlView though that we need a transparent study. I think the transparency of this year's prime candidate exercize is part of the reason there has been less wailing and gnashing of teeth over getting the "you are particularly well qualified" email. I also think identifying potential candidates earlier, so they can use the bid list to their advantage in terms of linking assignments, etc., is helping the process. (That, and telling us about it all BEFORE telling the press.)

DeHart also says:
"In recent years, the number of Foreign Service assignments categorized as "unaccompanied" -- that is, too dangerous for families -- has surged from 200 to 900. If the trend continues, new recruits may no longer view the Foreign Service as a career but as something to do for a few years before settling down to real life -- a bit like the Peace Corps, minus the peace. In a recent survey by the American Foreign Service Association, 44 percent of active Foreign Service officers said that "developments in the last few years" have made it less likely that they will remain in the Foreign Service for a full career.

Oh well. Maybe the State Department leadership will conclude that a new kind of diplomat is needed anyway, that a liberal arts degree isn't the best preparation for someone who has to learn to live with mortar fire. If so, will the diplomat of the future be just a little less cerebral and a little more likely to salute than to offer constructive dissent?"

Diplopundit envisions the following result:

"Let me put myself in the shoes of a candidate who joins the Service at 25 after Grad School. With three overseas assignment and possibly one hard language training, I could be out of the Service after 10 years with marketable skills. At 35, I could start a second career, get married and start a family. And I won't grow thin hair agonizing over tenure, promotion or directed assignments.

I bet this would also solve the problem of Foreign Service spouse employment! Either I don't get married until I am out of the Service or I get married during one of my tours. But either way, ten years would not severely jeopardize the career and retirement prospects of my trailing spouse or partner.

I wonder if the State Department leadership has a table top exercise for this scenario.

I wonder that too.

DMW: Why We Don't Soldier Up

Dead Men Working has a comment on the Washington Times editorial that Consul-at-Arms commented on. DMW says:

The Foreign Service is not the military. And comparisons to the military are ill-informed.

It is unfortunate that our leadership has not stepped up to clarify that fact.

It is appalling when the second largest newspaper in our nation's capitol is incapable of telling the difference.

DMW explains in the piece why such comparisons are ill-informed. You can read his entire piece here.

A Few Good Men (and women)

Consul-at-Arms has an excellent response to an offensive and biased editorial from the Washington Times. The people in the Foreign Service deserve better.

Washington Times Editorial: A few (hundred) good men (and women)

Monday, June 2, 2008

The Foreign Service has not seen great numbers of officers forced to a war zone since the Vietnam war. But the prospect of such "directed assignments" looms today for Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is, too few Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) have volunteered for these challenging and dangerous positions. An estimated 300 vacancies remain for 2009 - and someone needs to fill them. "Soldier up." Or hit the private sector.

CAA responds:
The really funny thing here is that throwaway phrase "300 vacancies remain" that the writer puts out there without explaining that there are 300 vacancies every year, because they are one-year assignments, and also that they just now beginning to identify candidates to fill them. The jobs aren't even available to be bid upon, so it's hardly as if no one's stepped forward.

Every single position the Foreign Service has fielded in Iraq since 2003 has been filled by a volunteer. Given the small size of the Foreign Service, re-filling those 300 plus jobs each and every year with qualified officers is itself a non-trivial problem, but so far we've been able to pull it off.

[...]

Recall that the striped-pants folks partially revolted in November when the prospect of forced tours first emerged. Service in Iraq is "a potential death sentence," one veteran FSO famously complained to Harry K. Thomas Jr., executive secretary of the Department of State and head of the Foreign Service. "Any other embassy in the world would be closed by now."

CAA responds:
And before the CPA was replaced by the first re-opened U.S. embassy in Baghdad, way back in 2004 and while I was still in uniform serving in Iraq, I made the exact same evaluation as another officer reportedly did last year, that at any other U.S. embassy in a security environment like Baghdad's, they'd be evacuating staff and preparing to close up the whole place. Of course, the national mission in Iraq takes precedence over that, but the point remains perfectly valid.

You can read CAA's entire post here.

AFSA responds to Washington Times cartoon

Below is an AFSA letter that appears in the June 3 Washington Times.

The Washington Times
Letters to the Editor
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Page A-18

Sufficient Volunteers

Your Monday editorial cartoon showing a group of U.S. Foreign Service members holding signs saying "Heck no, we don't want to go" [to serve in the war on terror] does not reflect reality.

First, by representing the Foreign Service as being made up only of white males, the cartoon's conception of our nation's career diplomats appears to be stuck in the year 1950.

Second, the cartoon also misrepresents recent historical fact. All Foreign Service members currently serving in Iraq are volunteers. All Foreign Service members who will rotate to Iraq this summer are volunteers. All Foreign Service members who have served in Iraq since 2003 have been volunteers.

No Foreign Service member has ever had to be ordered to serve in Iraq. The same is true for our diplomats serving in Afghanistan and the dozen other locations designated by the Department of Defense as being combat zones.

The State Department is in the process of selecting Foreign Service volunteers to rotate to Iraq in summer 2009. I am confident that, once again, sufficient volunteers will step forward. I will be one of them.

John K. Naland
President
American Foreign Service Association

TWIST: About those "qualifications"...

The Way I See Things apparently also received a recruitment email. TWIST has some comments on being "particularly well qualified."

I'm Not Really as Qualified as I Claimed I Was

[...]

Let's start with the big news: the Department has once again launched the bidding season with a call for volunteers for Iraq. This time they've been a bit more forthcoming, and have sent letters to prospective "volunteers" informing them what jobs they'll be asked to volunteer for. Perhaps finding it out this way, rather than via the Washington Post is the reason that reaction to the letters has been much more muted than it was last year. Perhaps. I'm skeptical myself. My informal survey of the lucky volunteers thus far has revealed a surprising number of people who have already done hardship tours. (Actually, it's not surprising at all---one of the "criteria" for the positions is that you have served in an NEA post in the past. Most NEA posts are hardships.) So building upon this observation, I speculate that there is less wailing and gnashing of teeth this year because these are people who were under no illusion that they could spend their entire careers in posts without hardship or danger.

[A brief aside: it's not actually an illusion that one can spend his or her entire career without serving in a hardship or danger post, despite what our human resources bureau keeps telling us. In fact, since returning to Washington, I've been presented with no small number of role models who not only survive the foreign service without doing their "fair share," but who actually thrive. Click here and here for just two examples.]

Anyway, back to Iraq volunteers...while the reaction has been muted, there has been some. The one or two people I've heard of who are not at hardship posts and have been deemed "qualified" have responded with the plaintive cry that they are not, in fact, qualified for the assignment! This was a consistent theme last year, and one that I've been thinking about a lot. Yes, I suppose that people who already have Arabic and area experience are qualified for these jobs. On the other hand, how many of our colleagues stood up in A-100 when handed a flag and declared, "oh no, I can't go to [fill in the blank]! I'm not qualified!" Better yet, how many people, when they joined the foreign service and were told they would have to be worldwide available, responded, "well, okay, but I'm really only qualified to serve in Canada, because that's the only place I've visited and I only speak English"?

[...]

I suspect that the very same people loudly declaring that they should not be sent to Iraq because they are not qualified, would not have the same concerns if the Department suddenly decided to direct them to Europe or Australia.

One could argue that Iraq is a special case. It is a war zone, and, thus, requires more experience than an Embassy in Western Europe. As someone who received one of those "you're qualified, so you're volunteered" letters though, let me assure you that I have no special training in war fighting (or surviving). If Iraq is a special case, nothing in my career as a generalist, including my service in NEA, has especially prepared me for it. I have no background in Iraq and/or its politics. I imagine I'll learn. I am a generalist, afterall, and am supposed to be able to do my job anywhere in the world.

It was really annoying last year to hear some of my colleagues scream and moan and insist that they shouldn't go for any number of reasons. To me that sounded like, "not me, take so and so instead." If the policy of sending so many people to Iraq, including against their will, is bad, it's bad; there's no need for foreign service officers to throw each other to the wolves to limit the personal impact of that bad policy. Some of the outcry last year left a very bad taste in my mouth as I watched at least one A-100 classmate loudly and publicly proclaim that her life was so much more precious than everyone else's and, as a result, it was absurd that the Department would even consider sending her. In the end, they didn't. She has now moved on to complaining about other things, like the inconvenience of flights to her next (non-Iraqi) post.

You can read the entire post here.

Avuncular American: You've Been Volunteered

Avuncular American posted a piece today on the email M received yesterday.

AA writes:
The above is not a draft notice, but these days few people outside the US military receive such explicit hints that it would behoove them to consider spending time in body armor in Baghdad. In the Army, as my father used to say, it was "We need three volunteers: you, you, and you." The State Department, diplomatically of course, "considers you particularly well qualified." The result is the same. Our diplomat-blogger contents herself with reproducing the Friday morning email. Like the good career professional that she is, she provides no editorial comment. But you can bet that there is much soul-searching going on in the "M" household this weekend.

In the fall of 2007, much was made of the State Department's difficulties in filling its personnel slots at the US Embassy in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, though after the initial flurry of publicity, in fact no one was actually "directed" (or, in non-State speak, forced) to go to Iraq. But "asking you to seriously consider volunteering," while not literally forcing, has a different meaning when you're an individual employee having to deal with the juggernaut of Washington's personnel establishment. The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA, the professional association which advocates for American diplomats with their employers at the State Department, USAID, as well as the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture) has monitored this issue, and its monthly magazine, the Foreign Service Journal, has documented the nuanced meanings of "volunteering."

Consider the typical case of an officer with school age children, who has to follow increasingly restrictive rules that narrow choices down to places like Iraq (Green Zone or PRT?) and Afghanistan (Kabul or a Provincial Reconstruction Team?). One such officer outlined his dwindling options, and illustrated how in the end, his "voluntary" assignment to Afghanistan was simply a choice of lesser evils. And it's not just Iraq and Afghanistan. According to AFSA, "two thirds of the Foreign Service is deployed overseas at all times and 70 percent of them are at hardship posts (meaning locations with difficult living conditions due to terrorist threats, violent crime, harsh climate, or other factors)." Like the military, many Foreign Service families are separated during entire tours of duty.

[...]

Digger comments:
I think I have said before that we weren't surprised that M got the email. We both served in Jerusalem (from which she was pressured two years ago to go to Baghdad after doing two straight hardship tours of 25% or greater). She has a 2/2 in Arabic, is a political-coned officer with political experience.

AA is certainly correct that there has been much soul-searching in our household this weekend. I feel like we have run the emotional gamut, and have considered a variety of choices, from M volunteering for the jobs listed in the hopes of coming back to DC, to volunteering for a PRT in the hopes of linking both of us to an interesting post afterward, to going then quitting afterward, to making them direct her. And honestly, we still don't know what we are going to do. The extra money would be nice, but nobody goes into government service to get rich, and like AA said, we certainly wouldn't get rich resigning in protest. For us, there is the added issue of what we would have to deal with if, god forbid, she got hurt or killed. I could be denied access to her hospital room or the right to make medical decisions should she be unable. I would not automatically inherit "her half" of our house, and if I did, I'd have to pay inheritance taxes. I could be denied the right to bury her in the plots we have already purchased together.

I still don't know what we will do.

You can read AA's entire piece here.

The Email

Here is the "recruitment" email M received:

Dear M:

As you may have seen in the Director General’s May 27, 2008 ALDAC “Announcing the 2009 Iraq/Afghanistan Cycle (State 056058)” and in the Secretary’s personal message to the field (link below), the Department has begun recruiting for summer 2009 openings in Iraq. I am writing to inform you that the Department considers you among those particularly well qualified for the key positions listed below and is asking you to seriously consider volunteering for an opportunity to tackle our nation’s top foreign policy priority.

POL Officer FS-03
POL Officer FS-03 (AD 2/2)
POL Officer FS-03 (AD 2/2)

You are considered well qualified because your record of achievement indicates that you have the skills and experience, as defined by Embassy Baghdad, to be successful in these positions. Information about the Embassy’s criteria as well as the position descriptions for these and other jobs in Iraq can be found on the following website:

http://hrweb.hr.state.gov/prd/hrweb/dg/assignment_iraq/

HR/CDA and others will soon be contacting you to discuss further your interest in these positions.

The Director General is confident that with your help, and that of others who step forward, we will staff Iraq with volunteers as we have in the past. As noted in the cable, however, the Director General will assess at an appropriate time how best to complete the cycle. If positions remain unfilled, you would be among the pool of qualified individuals potentially subject to identification for one of these positions. In the interest of fairness and transparency, this is something we wanted to communicate to you at the earliest possible point in the assignments process. Again, our goal is 100% volunteers.

I will give you a call next week (June 2-6) to discuss more in depth what this might mean for you, but please feel free to contact me sooner if you wish. In the meantime, I urge you to take another look at the ALDAC referenced in paragraph one for details on the Iraq-Afghanistan cycle and the overall timeline for 2009 assignments. If you will be in Washington, I also urge you to attend the upcoming Iraq brown bag event on June 3 and to watch for the upcoming Iraq/Afghanistan Open House as well as other events, including DVCs with selected posts. We will be announcing details about these events soon.

I look forward to working with you as you consider stepping forward for one of these critical assignments.

Regards,

Your Career Development Officer

Link to the Secretary’s message:
(http://bnet.state.gov/viewClip.asp?clip_id=1148),

The Dreaded Email

"You have cordially been invited/recruited to serve in Iraq." Or something to that effect. M got hers this morning.

Not sure yet what our plans are. Like most spouses I imagine, I would rather it had been me.

Round Two (more like four or six) of the Diplo-draft

I found this article by AP writer Matthew Lee today in the Huffington Post. I was not at work yesterday, but M told me she saw the cable yesterday saying they were identifying people they plan to "recruit" to serve in Iraq and that those folks would be notified probably by Thursday. We full expect her to be one of the "particularly well qualified" people who get "recruited." Good thing I am in the service, since as an MOH I wouldn't even be allowed to attend the support group for the spouses of those sent on unaccompanied tours, much less receive the separate maintenance allowance they give to those spouses (even if they are newly wed. M and I have been together for nine years, and were married in our church 6 years ago). It would be nice if the "nation's gratitude" the Secretary refers to extended to roughly 700 people in the service who have "Members of Household" instead of "Eligible Family Members."

Diplomats eyed for possible forced service in Iraq

By Matthew Lee

WASHINGTON — The State Department has begun to identify diplomats who could be forced to serve in Iraq next year unless enough volunteers come forward to fill about 300 positions, The Associated Press has learned.

A department-wide notice issued Tuesday says officials have looked through the files of all foreign service officers who will be applying or "bidding" for new jobs in 2009 and compiled a roster of candidates who are "particularly well-qualified" to work at the American Embassy in Baghdad and in outlying provinces.

Those on the list will be notified of their status this week and urged to volunteer, according to the internal notice, which was also sent by cable to all U.S. diplomatic missions abroad. If positions remain unfilled after the summer, they will become the core of a group of "prime candidates" who may be forced to go to Iraq, it says.

The announcements, accompanied by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's personal appeal for volunteers, were obtained by the AP.

"I am asking that you consider joining this highly motivated team of professionals as we look for volunteers for positions opening in 2009," Rice said. She recorded a video of the message, which also deals with jobs coming open next year in Afghanistan, that is to be shown on the State Department's internal television network.

"Our brave volunteers are doing a tough, but necessary, job far away from family and friends," she said. "Employees and families deserve the nation's gratitude. I can assure you that they have mine, and I encourage you to join our teams in Baghdad and Kabul."

The notices say the department hopes and expects that the call will be answered. But if not, they say the department will start selecting "prime candidates" for compulsory Iraq duty.

A similar move late last year for 48 vacant jobs in Iraq caused an uproar when some foreign service officers objected to forced tours in a war zone in what would have been the largest diplomatic call-up since the Vietnam War.

That furor over so-called "directed assignments" in October and November petered out when enough volunteers eventually stepped up, but not before it made national headlines and sparked harsh criticism from commentators. As a result, the department decided to begin the process of staffing Iraq earlier with a "targeted recruitment effort."

As part of that effort, State Department Director General Harry Thomas said in Tuesday's announcement that his office is now determining which diplomats are "particularly well-qualified to staff key positions in Iraq" that will come open in the summer of 2009.

"We will inform those individuals in the coming days that they are part of a pool of the best qualified potential bidders who will be the primary, but not exclusive, focus of recruitment efforts for Iraq," he said.

"In addition, should (I) determine that identification procedures need to be used ... to staff unfilled positions, these individuals will also comprise the primary pool for identification," Thomas said.

The notices did not say how many diplomats were on the "particularly well qualified" list or exactly when the department would decide if it has to move to directed assignments, which means ordering diplomats to work in certain locations under threat of dismissal unless they have a compelling reason, such as a health condition, not to go.

Since the U.S. reopened its embassies in Baghdad and Kabul, positions there have been filled entirely with volunteers who serve one-year tours and are offered numerous incentives including significant pay boosts, extra vacation time and choice of their next post. But there are serious concerns that the pool of diplomats to draw on is dwindling.

More than 20 percent of the nearly 7,000-strong foreign service have already worked in either Iraq or Afghanistan and a growing number have done tours in both.

And some diplomats have privately expressed unease about volunteering for Iraq amid uncertainty over how the administration following President Bush will deal with Iraq, and how that might affect security there or change Washington's focus on the country.

At least three foreign service personnel _ two diplomatic security agents and one political officer _ have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.

New Diplomats: Split families

CNN's Zain Verjee talks to Anne Aguilera, who left her family behind to serve in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq.

CNN Interview of FSO Anne Aguilera & Family

You can read Anne's blog here.

Can Someone Explain...

Can anyone explain to me why the Department, after all of the uproar over announcing the possibility of directed assignments first in the media, STILL seems to think it is better to tell the media before it tells us?? This came out yesterday...I was at work yesterday and there was no cable or email about this.

State Dept. Seeks Workers for Hot Spots

By MATTHEW LEE -
WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department has begun looking for diplomats willing to take hundreds of unfilled positions at embassies and consulates in 15 dangerous countries after finding enough volunteers to avoid forcing some to go to Iraq.

Having averted an employee revolt over the prospect of ordered tours of duty in Iraq, the department is now seeking foreign service officers for more than 500 jobs at 21 diplomatic missions in those countries, which include Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said Monday.

The selection process for the non-Iraq hardship posts, all of which are also of limited one-year duration and covered by restrictions banning or limiting the presence of family members, starts this week and should be completed by January, Foreign Service Director General Harry Thomas said. "Afghanistan and Pakistan will be first and then we will move to the other unaccompanied posts over the next several weeks," he said. The other nations in that category are Algeria, Bosnia, Burundi, Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Liberia, Palau, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sudan and Yemen.

Thomas said he was "pretty confident" that volunteers would be found for all the jobs but stressed that if there were not enough, the department would force diplomats to fill them under threat of dismissal in the same so-called "directed assignments" system that ignited controversy over the Iraq positions.

"We reserve the right to direct assign at any time," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

Thomas' comments followed the State Department's formal announcement that volunteers had come forward to take all 48 vacant positions at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and outlying provinces that will open next summer and that it would not have to force anyone to go to Iraq.

"We are pleased to announce that all of the Iraq jobs have been filled by volunteers," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters, adding that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would be sending a worldwide cable congratulating the foreign service and those who answered the call.

McCormack said Rice had assured herself that all the volunteers were qualified and "that we met the bar that we had set for ourselves." "We, in no way, lowered the standards in order to get these volunteers," he said. "We're quite pleased that the Foreign Service and the State Department has stepped up to this challenge."

The prospect of the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam had caused an uproar among the 11,500-member Foreign Service. At a contentious town hall meeting late last month, the strength of their opposition came into public view as some diplomats protested the forced assignments, citing safety and security concerns.

Three foreign service personnel - two diplomatic security agents and one political officer - have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.

The complaints were a deep embarrassment to the department and led Rice and her deputy, John Negroponte, to remind diplomats of their duty to serve their government anywhere they are needed.

More than 1,500 diplomats have volunteered to work in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Still, the resistance to forced assignments generated bitter criticism of the diplomatic corps; some Internet commentators accused the foreign service of cowardice and treason.

At the Oct. 31 town hall meeting, hundreds of diplomats applauded when one likened a forced tour in Iraq to a "potential death sentence." Some at the session questioned the ethics of ordering unarmed civilians into a war zone and expressed concerns about a lack of training and medical care for those who have served.

The debate, often in nasty exchanges, has surfaced on the State Department's official blog. Last week, the Web log posted a critical message from a career diplomat in Iraq who accused opponents of directed assignments of being spoiled elitists and suggested they are "wimps and weenies." More than 200 people, including some who identify themselves as foreign service or military officers, had entered the fray on the Dipnote blog as of Monday, making it one of the most popular posts the two-month-old venture has published.

Ex-Hostage Says, Don't Fault the Brave Foreign Service

Remember the hostages held in Iran? They were Foreign Service Officers. Just like those of us serving today. The letter below is from one of them, and is worth reading.

November 15, 2007
Letter
Ex-Hostage Says, Don't Fault the Brave Foreign Service

To the Editor:

As a retired Foreign Service officer and a former hostage in Iran, I regret the growing media cynicism portraying the Foreign Service as a bunch of sheep unwilling to rise to the challenge of assignments to Baghdad.

This is nonsense. More than 2,000 Foreign Service personnel have volunteered for service in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past five years. I've met many of them on their return.

While frustrated by the security limitations that make it both difficult and dangerous for them to exercise traditional diplomatic functions beyond the Green Zone, they courageously volunteer to serve as unarmed civilians, as is their calling.

Baghdad has a lower vacancy rate than any other American embassy in the world. Criticize the government policies that obligate service in one of America's largest embassies in unprecedented danger these days, but not the hundreds of still deeply committed Foreign Service officers who are ready to serve there.

Bruce Laingen

Bethesda, Md., Nov. 12, 2007
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

One the One Hand, I'm Happy...

I just heard that the department has gotten volunteers for all 48 of the unfilled positions in Iraq (which is awesome), meaning no one will be directed to Iraq. Once again, my collegues have shown that no matter what you read in the media, we DO step up to the plate and do our part, even when it is hard, even when it is unpopular, and even when it strains the rest of the service.

My concern is that I heard the announcement over DC's NBC affiliate Channel 4. I verified that that no internal announcement has gone out. The station said the announcement is scheduled to be made tomorrow.

The announcement is also already in the Washington Post online:

US Drops Plan to Force Diplomats to Iraq

Is this the department's new communication method with us?

Addressing Comments about the Diplo-draft

The Foreign Service has been taking a beating in the media over the whole directed-assignments issue. Much of what has been reported in the media has focused on inaccuracies and a few comments taken out of comments. The worst of them have questioned our courage, committment and patriotism. And as someone who joined the service after, and in no small part because of, 9-11, I resent it.

Here, according to AFSA, our employee association, are some of the facts, with my own comments in italics:

-- more than 2,000 FS members have volunteered for service in Iraq/Afghanistan over the past five years;

-- no one has had to be directed to serve in either war zone thus far;

-- this exercise is about a potential shortfall in volunteers for a relatively small number of positions in Iraq for summer 2008 (and I might add, these are NEW positions. The existing positions were all filled with volunteers);

-- well over 80 percent of the FS-designated positions in Iraq for summer 2008 have already been filled, eight months in advance;

-- Embassy Baghdad has a lower vacancy rate than almost any other U.S. embassy in the world (94% as opposed to 79% for the rest of the world, even as the Service is down by 20%...we are 11,500 strong and need an additional 2,094 officers to fill all of our positions and allow for a training float similar to that of the military);

-- most people in the Foreign Service spend the majority of their careers in
increasingly difficult and dangerous hardship posts (M and I volunteered for Jerusalem during the second intifada, and M served in Azerbaijan before that);

-- unlike the military, our members are courageously volunteering to serve as unarmed civilians in a combat zone;

-- our assignment system has always worked on a voluntary basis because FS
members take seriously their commitment to worldwide service;

-- when the Foreign Service is compared unfavorably with the military, we have attempted to note that the Foreign Service is less than one-half of one percent of the size of the U.S. military in personnel and budget (there are more army musicians than foreign service officers), and that we are stretched thin all over the world at the other 260 embassies and consulates that we staff , most of which are hardship posts. (And we ARE all over the world. More than 60% of the Foreign Service is "forward deployed," compared with about 20% of the military. So unlike the military, we don't automatically get sent back to the states or a European post after an overseas tour.)

I had two primary complaints about the directed assignments: that they had been almost exclusively targetting those who had already served in the region, leaving untouched those who had served in lesser hardship posts, and that they announced in the media before telling us. The second still annoys me, but the first that have corrected, with many of the "prime candidates" having never served in the Middle East. That is as it should be. We are supposed to be generalists. We are supposed to be able to work where ever the Department sends us...I would have no "regional experience" if they decided to send me to Mexico, but I would go.

And if they order me to Iraq, I will go. In a few years, depending on the health of some family members (the reason I don't volunteer now), I will probably volunteer. I think it is hypocritical for those outside either the Foreign Service or the military to question my patriotism. I have already put my life at risk to serve my country in a dangerous place. No doubt I will again.

Make no mistake. I may have concerns about the way some personnel issues are handled, but I am proud to be in the Service and I am proud of my service to the country.

The Onion Weighs in on the Diplo-draft

Iraqi Diplomat Draft?

A Letter from AFSA

This is an email sent out by our "union," which eloquently states many of the concerns both I and many of my collegues have voiced. The bolding is mine.


AFSANET: Implications of Directed Assignments: October 30, 2007

This is an update from AFSA President John Naland:

On October 26, 2007, the Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources, Ambassador Harry K. Thomas, Jr., announced to the news media (and later to employees via an ALDAC cable) that the well has finally run dry of State Department Foreign Service volunteers to serve in the war zone in Iraq. He announced that, if volunteers
could not be found for 48 remaining positions by November 12, then directed assignments would begin.

AFSA regrets this fateful turn of events. From 2003 through 2007, over 2,000 career Foreign Service members volunteered to serve in Iraq. Now, with the Foreign Service facing a fifth rotation into Iraq, the addition of 80 new positions to fill next summer at the giant U.S. mission in Baghdad and the expanding Provincial Reconstruction Teams around the country has pushed the strain on our ranks to the breaking point.

While there are many Foreign Service members who have not (yet) served in Iraq, only a small fraction possesses the regional, language, or other expertise that Ambassador Ryan Crocker says that he needs. And many members in that reduced group are now at, or have recently returned from, some other hardship assignment.

With 68 percent of the Foreign Service already “forward deployed” in 189 foreign countries (compared to 21 percent of the uniformed military stationed abroad), the Foreign Service has no bench strength with which to surge more personnel into Iraq. The State Department’s own September 2007 staffing data show a 1,015 position operational staffing deficit in the Foreign Service, plus an additional 1,079 position deficit in training and related needs. This 2,094 position deficit is documented in a blue-ribbon report released on October 15 by the Center for Strategic & International Studies

Yet, despite this huge deficit between the State Department’s mission and the resources available to carry out that mission, the Administration is seeking to add just 254 new positions in its still-pending FY-08 budget request. The prospects are uncertain for Congressional funding of even that inadequate request. That comes on top of Congressional refusal to fund 100 positions in FY-07 and 221 additional positions in FY-06 to narrow worldwide staffing gaps.

All of these factors have combined to deplete the well of potential Foreign Service volunteers for Iraq. Nevertheless, AFSA repeats its call for any Foreign Service member who has been considering a tour in Iraq to volunteer now. We also repeat our call for Foreign Service retirees with Middle East experience, particularly those with Arabic-language skills, to consider serving in Iraq. For both groups, the financial and other benefits are substantial. Obviously, there are also substantial physical and emotional risks.

At the same time, AFSA stands by our position that directed assignments of unarmed Foreign Service members into the war zone in Iraq would be detrimental to the individual, to the post, and to the Foreign Service as a whole.

This position has been questioned by some who point to the Foreign Service record during the Vietnam War. However, most Foreign Service veterans of that conflict with which AFSA has consulted draw sharp distinctions between Vietnam and Iraq. Without minimizing the courage
and sacrifices of their colleagues and themselves 40 years ago, they report that Saigon (except during the 1968 Tet Offensive) was rarely as dangerous as Baghdad has been and that the Viet Cong rarely targeted CORDS (Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support) personnel in the way that PRT members in Iraq are being targeted. They also note that the State Department today gives Iraq-bound Foreign Service members only around two weeks of pre-deployment training compared to the four to six month comprehensive training regimen provided to Vietnam-bound diplomats.

All this serves to underscore the remarkable dedication of Foreign Service volunteers in Iraq since 2003. The same is certainly true for Foreign Service volunteers in Afghanistan.

Thus, while AFSA acknowledges that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has legal authority to order Foreign Service members to Iraq, we continue to urge the State Department to find ways to staff a right-sized Embassy Baghdad with volunteers. Those ways, as AFSA has long suggested, could include substantially increasing the Involuntary Separate Maintenance Allowance, creating special incentives for those willing to serve two-year tours in Iraq, and actively recruiting Foreign Service retirees willing to serve in Iraq.

The announcement of directed assignments to the war zone in Iraq is a further blow to Foreign Service morale that is already depressed by a widely shared conclusion that the Administration in recent years has paid inadequate attention to securing the resources that diplomats need to
advance America’s vital interests worldwide.

In the online opinion survey of active duty State Department Foreign Service members being conducted by AFSA State Vice President Steve Kashkett (it began in mid-October and will run for one more week after which AFSA will report full results), only 15 percent of the over 3,700 respondents to date say that they believe that the Administration is doing a good job of securing resources for the Department. Only 12 percent believe that the Administration is doing a good job of convincing Congress to correct the overseas pay disparity. Only 20 percent believe that the Administration is doing a good job of defending the Foreign Service. This lack of support arguably weakens the State Department’s moral authority to order unarmed diplomats to serve in
the war zone in Iraq.

In the survey, a striking 45 percent say that “developments in the last few years have made me less likely to remain in the Foreign Service for a full career.” That last statistic is higher among entry level employees. AFSA has a request pending for updated Foreign Service attrition statistics.

The poll also shows that 68 percent of respondents oppose directed assignments to Iraq. And that snapshot of survey results was taken before directed assignments changed from being a future possibility to an immediate probability. In the last few days, AFSA has received an
avalanche of e-mails from members, many expressing hurt and disbelief that they and their families learned about this life-and-death announcement last weekend via the news media instead of directly from their employer.

In the days ahead, AFSA will continue to speak out on behalf of the Foreign Service on the issue of directed assignments to Iraq. In doing so, we will be guided by our responsibilities as the voice of the Foreign Service. We will also be guided by our new survey results showing that two thirds of respondents want AFSA to be more vocal and assertive, even at the cost of more friction with Management (one percent of respondents want us to be less vocal and assertive).

To conclude, AFSA salutes the over 2,000 career Foreign Service members who have volunteered since 2003 to serve in the war zone in Iraq. We encourage any Foreign Service member who has been considering a tour in Iraq to volunteer now. We also continue to strongly urge the State Department to find ways to staff a right-sized Embassy Baghdad with volunteers.

Still Don't Know...

...if I have dodged the bullet. The emails that were to be sent around identifying the "prime candidates" for the Iraq positions today didn't go out. Supposedly we will hear tomorrow.

Seems like most folks are pretty upset about the way we were "notified." The cable telling us about all this went out after close of business Friday and AFTER the press conference. That is really no way to treat people who are serving the country, people you are asking to put themselves in harms way, unarmed in a war zone.

Iraq Bound?

If you read the Washington Post online today, you know that the department has decided to "direct" people to Iraq. We all knew this was coming...they just weren't able to get enough "volunteers" even with the incentive packages and arm twisting.

It is more likely that M will get forced than that I will, though I am not happy with either prospect. She got Arabic training and I got Hebrew, so she has the coveted "regional and language experience." Basically meaning that the Department is first sending people who have already volunteered to serve in the Middle East. Sort of makes me wish we had pushed for going to Europe. Silly us, we wanted to serve where the country needed us.

The article is below, in full. Do note however that saying that directed assignments have happened before because an entire class of junior officers was directed to Vietnam is a bit disengenuous. Junior officers are always directed on their first two tours. It is after those tours that officers have the expectation of not being forced into a job.

I suspect this will put a big damper on recruiting, and I know a LOT of folks who said they would quit if it came to this.

U.S. State Department enforces postings to Iraq

By Sue Pleming
Reuters
Friday, October 26, 2007; 8:14 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facing staff shortages in Iraq, the U.S. State Department announced on Friday that diplomats would have no choice but to accept one-year postings in the hostile environment or face losing their jobs.

In what is likely to be an unpopular move with staff, State Department human resources director Harry Thomas said about 250 "prime candidates" for vacant Iraqi posts would be notified on Monday of the decision.

He said they would have 10 working days to respond to the demand that they go to Iraq in summer, 2008, and only those with valid reasons such as a medical problem, would be exempt.

Until now postings to Iraq have been on a voluntary basis and often hard to fill.

"We have all taken an oath to serve our country and so if someone decides they do not want to go, then we would then consider appropriate actions," Thomas said in a conference call with reporters.

"We have many options, including dismissal from the foreign service," added Thomas, who returned on Thursday from a visit to Iraq where he assessed staffing needs for next year.

Iraq assignments will be handed out from November 12 until the U.S. Thanksgiving Holiday on November 22 but Thomas said he hoped that enough diplomats would step forward voluntarily.

Privately, many U.S. diplomats say they fear being posted to Iraq because of the risks of working in a war zone. In addition, it is an "unaccompanied" posting, meaning children and a spouse cannot accompany the diplomat because of the dangers involved.

Thomas said the State Department had made "directed" assignments before, such as in 1969 when an entire junior foreign officer class was sent to Vietnam and again in the 1970s and 1980s for some difficult African postings.

"This is not unique," he said. "Foreign service officers have always volunteered for their country."

Currently there are about 200 U.S. diplomats in Iraq who serve on a one-year basis and the staffing need would rise to about 250 for next summer, he said.

Thomas said about 1,200 State Department employees have already served in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and those postings have so far been on a volunteer basis.

He said there was an attractive financial package for those serving in Iraq as well as five recreational breaks during the year-long posting.

He did not believe the move would discourage people from joining the foreign service.

"After Google and Disney, we are the most popular place for people to work," Thomas said, referring to a recent survey that ranked the State Department in the top five places to work in America.