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.

Washington Blade: Baldwin challenges Rice over State Dept. policies

This article was in the May 16 Washington Blade, D.C.'s GLBT newspaper.

Baldwin challenges Rice over State Dept. policies
Decries ‘inequities facing gays and lesbians’

By JOEY DIGUGLIELMO
May. 16, 2008

The only open lesbian in the U.S. House of Representatives is continuing a correspondence with the U.S. State Department in a quest — that’s been fruitless thus far — to secure policy changes to benefit the same-sex partners of gay foreign service officers.

U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) last week replied to an April 17 letter from Jeffrey Bergner, assistant secretary of Legislative Affairs for the State Department. Bergner’s letter was a reply to an earlier letter Baldwin sent in February. Baldwin addressed both her letters to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Baldwin’s initial letter addresses what she called “basic and common-sense policy changes” that would eliminate “inequities facing gays and lesbians at the State Department.”

Baldwin cited partners’ inability to qualify as “eligible family members” in the department’s eyes, which would qualify them for safety training and language classes, access to health services, medication in the event of an epidemic, financial assistance in the event of an evacuation and help obtaining visas and help with employment opportunities, all of which the department grants to those it deems “eligible family members.”

In her first letter, Baldwin said she was greatly concerned and cited Michael Guest, the openly gay former U.S. ambassador to Romania, who ended his 26-year career in the Foreign Service in December citing what he considered unfair treatment of gay diplomats and their partners.

In a Blade phone interview this week, Baldwin said the letters tie into her broader work as lead sponsor of a House bill that, if passed, would secure domestic partner benefits for federal employees (it hasn’t been voted out of committee).

“I’ve long been interested in the fight for equality not just for LGBT individuals but also for LGBT families,” Baldwin said. “In a number of federal agencies, there are actions that could be taken short of needing to pass legislation because, of course, we know what a long, laborious process that can be. The secretary has significant latitude to address the issues.”

Bergner’s reply to Baldwin’s first letter said the department hires “without regard to sexual orientation” and that same-sex and opposite-sex unmarried partners are treated the same.

Baldwin’s follow-up conveyed to Rice that Bergner’s response “was unsatisfactory” and points out several matters in the first letter that Bergner failed to address.

The State Department did not respond to a request seeking comment.

But how realistic are Baldwin’s requests considering Rice’s boss, President George Bush, has indicated a likelihood to veto pro-gay legislation during his administration?

Guest said Rice, when pressed, made one concession, pointing to a Feb. 13 Foreign Affairs Committee session in which Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who co-signed Baldwin’s letters with Reps. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), questioned Rice on the issue. Rice then made one training course available to same-sex partners.

“It can be effective for elected representatives to go to the secretary in the interest of safety, effectiveness, morale and workplace equity,” Guest, who’s now working on the still-forming Council for Global Equality, said.

“I hope in time the response will be better.”

Rice, who is unmarried, has declined to comment on her sexual orientation. Rice biographer and Washington Post correspondent Glenn Kessler discovered that Rice owns a house with another unmarried woman, filmmaker Randy Bean.

Though Guest said Rice had repeatedly declined to make allowances for gay State Department employees and their partners, the secretary has occasionally acknowledged gays and their partners, most notably during the swearing-in ceremony in October 2006 of openly gay Dr. Mark Dybul as U.S. Global AIDS coordinator.

Rice referred to Dybul’s partner, Jason Claire, and referenced Claire’s mother as Dybul’s “mother-in-law.”

Baldwin said she didn’t know if Democratic presidential hopefuls Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) or Barack Obama (D-Ill.) had been asked about provisions for gay employees and their partners in the State Department.

“We all know, of course that they’ve expressed strong support for same-sex couples,” Baldwin said, “and this is clearly a subset of those kinds of benefits.”

Staff in Baldwin’s office said letter exchanges are standard procedure for these kinds of requests. Elected officials typically find correspondence preferable to in-person meetings so there’s a paper trail.

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.

Memorial Day posts

You should check out the Memorial Day posts from Consul-At-Arms, from Diplopundit here and here, and from Skeptical Bureaucrat.

Memorial Day

Honoring those who served.

Veterans memorial, Cherokee Indian Reservation, North Carolina

Change What is Within your Power to Change

Dead Men Working has a piece about an interview in the Washington Times with Secretary Rice.

Change What is Within your Power to Change

In a recent interview with the Washington Times, the Secretary of State was asked about race. She spoke clearly and forcefully about the inequities African Americans have faced in America, and noted that "African Americans have loved and had faith in this country even when this country did not love and have faith in them."

The interview received little attention.

So little, in fact, that Roland Martin, and African American author and journalist, publicly wondered why.

One reason may be that, race aside, the Secretary of State has not done a very good job advancing civil rights within the agency she heads. In fact, in certain aspects, things have taken a pronounced step backward under her tenure.

Despite the unquestionable obstacles the Secretary herself has faced and the many inequities (and worse) she honestly claims to have witnessed in her life, her legitimacy as a spokesperson for civil rights issues is tarnished by her own inaction in the areas most directly under her own ability to control.

Unless one defines civil rights solely in terms of the rights of African Americans, the State Department (with particular attention to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security) does not express the same love and faith towards Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans, Gay Americans, and others that the historic patriotism and contributions of those groups should merit.

[...]

If the Secretary of State is truly of the belief that faith in the patriotism of American citizens should not be dictated by race, then she would immeasurably help her own credibility if she also opposed the free exercise of bigotry by DS agents and others.

Madame Secretary,

With respect:

Jewish Americans do not, by sole virtue of their religion, have dual loyalties, even if many of them support (as does the president of the United States) the right of Israel to exist as a free and secure nation.

Muslim Americans are not, simply by definition, supporters of anti-American terrorism.

Gay Americans do not, by simple definition, have loose morals, nor are most openly Gay Americans more vulnerable to blackmail than anyone else.

Naturalized Americans, even from countries which may temporarily oppose our policies, do not necessarily support the politics of the countries they left behind. In fact, most left those countries, and came to America, precisely because they oppose them. And many first-generation immigrants, including many of the founding fathers and mothers of our country, have served America with honor and distinction.

The patriotism of individual American citizens cannot be deduced from their skin color, religion, ethnic background or sexual orientation, and when DS/PSS routinely confuses religion with Foreign Preference, or homosexuality with criminal sexual behavior, DS is doing so improperly.

And yes, we know that you can point to token examples of FSOs in each of those categories who are doing fine, for now. And we know that the Department's rules are EEO compliant. But tokens do not excuse the prejudicial treatment of even one other person. And when rules are broken, and nobody objects, the rules don't really matter.

If your exposure to inequity and injustice has taught you to hate inequity and injustice, then stop them in the place you have the most power to change things.

Digger comments:
I had seen the interview, and in particular, recognized that her quote could easily be applied to other minority groups. Gays and lesbians too continue to love and have faith in this country even though this country STILL does not love and have faith in us. We are STILL expected to ride at the back of the proverbial bus, and I recognize that other minorities are in similar positions. What has happened is not that the country has recognized that discrimination is wrong so much as it has replaced the socially acceptable targets of derision and discrimination. I hope soon though that our country will love and have faith in all of us, and in particular, recognize the greater patriotism is takes to serve a country that does not keep faith with you.

You can read DMW's entire piece here.

A Slur Against America's FSOs

I found this piece today on Fabius Maximus. Kudos to Naland for defending us, as he always does so well.

A slur against America’s Foreign Service Officers

I recommend reading this letter from John K. Naland, President of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) to the Editor of the Washington Post (esp. note the last sentance; bold emphasis added):

"Your May 2 news article “Expert on Terrorism To Direct Rebuilding” included a shameful slur against America’s career diplomats by Pentagon advisor Richard Perle. Discussing President Bush’s selection of Foreign Service Officer L. Paul Bremer to direct the rebuilding of Iraq, Perle characterizes Ambassador Bremer as being “aggressive by Foreign Service standards (but) I’ve seen hummingbirds that are aggressive by Foreign Service standards.”

It is unfortunate that Mr. Perle does not understand that our nation’s diplomats do indeed aggressively promote vital U.S. interests, often in harsh or dangerous places. As Secretary of State Colin Powell told a Senate committee on April 30, “I send young State Department officers out to the most difficult places in the world to serve their country, taking their families with them where there may not be any hospital care, there may not be any school for their kids, or where they’re separated from their families for a longer period of time than the average soldier gets separated from his family. And they go willingly because they’re happy to serve the American people.”

Indeed, I invite Mr. Perle to visit the Department of State this coming Friday, May 9, to witness the addition of six more names to the AFSA Memorial Plaques honoring American diplomats who have died in the line of duty while serving our nation abroad. Those plaques now contain 215 names. As a Pentagon advisor, Mr. Perle might be particularly interested in the fact that, in the last half century, more U.S. Ambassadors than generals and admirals have died in the line of duty."

To date the Washington Post has not published this letter. Hat tip for this to a comment posted at Abu Muqawama.

In Praise of Our Ambassador to Zimbabwe

I heard about this story, covered by The Plank, a blog at The New Republic, last week when I was at work. I am impressed, and I think this is indicative of the courage of the folks who serve in the Foreign Service.

In Praise of James McGee

You probably haven't heard of James McGee. He's our Ambassador in Harare, Zimbabwe. He's also a black man, which frustrates the sick worldview of Robert Mugabe. Here's an excerpt from a news story earlier this week that made me smile:

The diplomats involved in the incident at a roadblock on the edge of the capital, Harare, had just completed a tour of hospitals and an alleged torture camp when police demanded they prove they had official permission to visit the sites.

At one point, a police officer threatened to beat one of Mr. McGee’s senior aides. The officer got into his car and lurched toward Mr. McGee after he had demanded the officer’s name. The car made contact with Mr. McGee’s shins, but he was not injured.

Mr. McGee climbed onto the hood of the car while his aide snatched the keys from the ignition, then the diplomats used their mobile phone cameras to take photographs of the officer.

Mr. McGee insisted the convoy be allowed through and the 11 vehicles passed through after about an hour.

The men and women of the foreign service put themselves through great sacrifice, but rarely do we hear of stories like this in which an actual Ambassador would put his own life on the line to send a message to a totalitarian, murderous regime: America is watching you.

Abu Muqawama was also impressed. He called McGee's actions "Moral Courage" and remarked on the TNR post: Indeed. There's a pretty standard line offered by foreign service officers recounting the number of ambassadors killed in the line of duty vs. the number of general officers. (Charlie can't remember the former, but the latter is something approximating "zero since WWII.") Not all ambassadors spend their time at cocktail parties, and not all of America's influence comes from the barrel of a gun (but check out Jamie's novel suggestion for an Africom mission at the end of his post).

More coverage of the letter

Baldwin challenges Rice over State Dept. policies

The only open lesbian in the U.S. House of Representatives is continuing a correspondence with the U.S. State Department in a quest - that's been fruitless thus far - to secure policy changes to benefit the same-sex partners of gay foreign service officers.

U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) last week replied to an April 17 letter from Jeffrey Bergner, assistant secretary of Legislative Affairs for the State Department. Bergner's letter was a reply to an earlier letter Baldwin sent in February. Baldwin addressed both her letters to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Baldwin's initial letter addresses what she called "basic and common-sensepolicy changes" that would eliminate "inequities facing gays and lesbians atthe State Department." See Baldwin challenges Rice over State Dept. policies

Hardship Posts

Diplopundit had a good piece yesterday on a piece I saw in FS Voice (see page 9) in the Foreign Service Journal the other day called "Thanks for Your Service...Now, Here's Your Pay Cut," about a family who got their hardship pay reduced in Beijing, because, among other things, their air quality had improved (!). This of course was after the FS spouse had lost the hearing in one ear because of a "mystery virus" that the medical care system there couldn't diagnose and treat properly and after her husband had developed respiratory problems.

[...] before FS critics jump up and down on this, and accuse FS folks of “whining,” again, I’d like to highlight a couple of significant health consequences of this specific hardship assignment for the Gormans:

“In October, my previously healthy husband developed severe breathing troubles. A lifelong runner, he began wheezing as he climbed the stairs; at night, it sounded like he was drowning in his sleep. He was initially diagnosed with reactive airway disease and then a severe sinus infection. After an inhaler, steroid and some four to five courses of antibiotics, his condition improved. But only after a trip to Hong Kong, where the air is cleaner, did his symptoms subside.

“[…] I caught a mysterious virus that caused me to go deaf in one ear. The doctors in Beijing weren’t equipped to handle the emergency, so I was medevaced to Hong Kong. There, doctors tried to restore my hearing, though warned that the odds were against me, given how much time had elapsed. Back home in the States, or at a post that was more medically advanced, I would have been able to get treatment at the ER within hours, improving my odds. Here, not so. I’m now permanently deaf in one ear. Then again, as a colleague pointed out, “I suppose that’s one of the reasons you get hardship pay over there.”

We pick hardship assignments (at least, I think most of us do) not to toughen our kids or to test if our spouses and partners love us enough to put up with the highs and lows of life overseas. We pick hardship assignments fully expecting, well, hardships, and the additional compensation of 5-35 percent over basic compensation to make up for those hardships. Why? Because like you and your neighbors, we are regular people with mortgage and bills to pay, kids to send to college, and retirements to plan for life after the Service. Perhaps the independently wealthy would not be too concerned with things like these, but there are not a whole lot of them in this Foreign Service.

We knock on wood, and we keep fingers crossed because we realized that picking a hardship assignment is always a roll of a dice. Dr. John Kellogg says that “health is wealth is a trite maxim, the truth of which everyone (only) appreciates best after having suffered a disease.” After contracting various illnesses and collecting worldwide available parasites, I think we all certainly learn to appreciate the "health is wealth" maxim but we also often bet that we’d come out at least even, with all our loved ones’ appendages and parts still working, as we survive another hardship assignment. Would anyone of us willingly go to a place if we know that we’re going to get permanent deafness in exchange for it? How much does an ear cost, that is, if you still have it but it's no longer functional? I don't think there is a "numerical weight" for this, most especially for the unemployed trailing partner.

You can read Diplopundit's entire piece here

The Memorial Wall

U.S. Diplomacy blog has a nice piece about the service earlier this month honoring honoring those who have lost their lives in the service of the country as part of Foreign Service. I have copied the post here, but you should go to her site for the embedded video of Deputy Secretary Negroponte's speech at the event. You can see the video here.

Earlier this month the American Foreign Service Association held its annual ceremony honoring the Foreign Servicemen and women who lost their lives in the line of duty. Their names are eched into memorial plaques on the wall near the entrance to the State Depatment.

This year sadly saw two more names etched onto the memorial wall: Steven Thomas Stefani, IV and John Michael Granville. “Tom” Stefani, a U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service employee, on voluntary assignment with the Foreign Agricultural Service in Afghanistan, was serving as an agricultural adviser on a Provincial Reconstruction Team when he was killed in an explosion on October 4th, 2007 in Ghazni Province.

While serving as a Democracy and Governance Officer with USAID in Sudan, John Michael Granville was killed in Khartoum on January 1st, 2008, along with his Sudanese driver, Abdelrahman Abbas Rahama, when their vehicle came under fire.

At the ceremony Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte read some of the remarks of one of Mr. Granville’s Cameroonian friends made at his funeral:

“One of John’s Cameroonian friends said this at John’s funeral, and I quote: “John did not stand from a distance to watch us. He was one of us. He spoke our language, ate our food, observed and practiced our traditions, respected our ways, and worked with us, even when he disagreed with us. He always placed himself in the shoes of the people he worked and lived with. He tried to see the world through our eyes, through their personal experiences.”

President Bush sent along some kind words:

“I send greetings to those gathered for Foreign Affairs Day at the Department of State. Those who serve in the Foreign Service and the Civil Service and as Foreign Service nationals are performing their duties during a defining moment in our country’s history. Through hard work and determination they advance America’s founding ideals. As emissaries to the world, these fine individuals bring pride to our nation and help extend hope around the world…”

Secretary Gates Still Stumping for State

In a speech given last Monday at the Brookings Institute, Secretary of Defense Gates showed he is still committed to strengthing the State Department and the nation's "soft power."

But even a reformed and transformed military establishment is not sufficient to protect our national security and advance our interests. America’s civilian instruments of national power, in particular the State Department, have suffered from chronic underfunding for decades, and were virtually gutted in the 1990s.

The U.S. Agency for International Development twenty years ago was an independent agency with some 15,000 employees and deployed experts all over the world. It now has about 3,000 people and is basically a contracting agency. USIA was an independent agency that conducted strategic communication on a global scale before it was folded into the State Department. Today, the entire Foreign Service –6,600 men and women – would not be enough to crew one air carrier strike group. The total foreign affairs budget is less than the DoD spends on health care.

In recent years, we have made progress towards rebuilding and modernizing tools of diplomacy and American influence abroad. The foreign affairs budget has about doubled since 2001, though it remains a tiny fraction of what we spend on defense. Secretary Rice has initiated a program of transformational diplomacy, moving people from where they made sense during the Cold War to where they make sense now. Increasing numbers of Foreign Service officers now serve with the armed forces, both on the front lines in provincial reconstruction teams and in military headquarters where their expertise and insight has been invaluable. This year’s budget request includes funding for more than 1,000 additional Foreign Service officers, as well as a reserve corps of civilians that can deploy on short notice. But the State Department must be strengthened even further – in money, people, and bureaucratic clout – to truly fulfill its responsibilities as the lead agency in American foreign policy.

There is strong support in the ranks of the military for building up this civilian capacity. In fact, it was at a Brookings event last year that Admiral Mike Mullen, as Chief of Naval Operations, told Carlos Pascual [Pass Kwall] that he’d be willing to give part of the Navy’s budget to the State Department – a small part, mind you – provided it was spent properly.

What is encouraging is that a consensus appears to be forming at long last among people of varying ideologies and of both political parties that we need to strengthen America’s nonmilitary instruments of national power. There is also a sense that we should take a hard look at the underlying bureaucratic structure of the U.S. national security apparatus inherited from the Cold War era.

Three weeks ago, I testified with Secretary Rice before the House Armed Services Committee. The subject of the hearing was interagency cooperation between State and Defense, with a particular focus on helping other countries build capable security forces. I was advised before the hearing to expect, at most, a couple of questions on these subjects, before the questions all turned to Iraq, or base closures, or the fate of a particular weapons system.

But in fact, for the better part of three hours, the questions and discussion focused on the topic of how our U.S. government civilians and military perform and cooperate together. Members of the committee, both Republicans and Democrats, were interested, they believed change was needed, and they wanted to know what they could do to help.

Stories by Diplopundit: Tandem Couples

Diplopundit has another short piece of fiction called Tandem Couple. Being half of an "unofficial tandem," I found it particularly wrenching and am amazed at how well Diplopundit conveys such emotion in such a short space. You can read the piece here.

So You Want to Be A Diplomat...

U.S. Diplomacy had this piece today on joining the Foreign Service.

Interested in Becoming a Diplomat?

The Washington Post’s job section ran a story this Sunday on tips for getting a job with the US Foreign Service. The author dispelled a few common myths about the FS. Here is an excerpt:

"Myth: The Foreign Service — the nation’s diplomatic corps — is made up exclusively of State Department staff.

Fact: The biggest branch of the Foreign Service indeed consists of State Department staff, said Marianne Myles, director of the State Department’s Office of Recruitment, Examination and Employment. But the Foreign Service also has branches with employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of Agriculture and Commerce.

Myth: You must have previous overseas experience to become a Foreign Service officer with the State Department. These workers advance U.S. interests abroad and manage embassies.

Fact: The State Department’s screening process for Foreign Service officers has long included a knowledge test called the Foreign Service Officer Test and a day-long Foreign Service Oral Assessment. But a third hurdle was recently added, Myles said: an in-depth review of professional, academic and extracurricular credentials.

This process considers all aspects of applicants’ backgrounds without requiring specific skills or types of experience, such as languages or overseas experience. Why? “Because someone with a totally different skill set can still make a successful diplomat,” Myles said. “The world is a complicated place; State needs multifaceted individuals with a wide range of skill sets.”
The process favors “generalists who are adaptable enough to go wide and deep,” and who represent all walks of life — including recent graduates and stay-at-home parents returning to work, Myles said.

Other agencies have their own processes.

Myth: All federal international jobs are filled by current feds — never by outsiders.

Fact: Federal recruiters say that outsiders regularly fill mid-level jobs as well as contract positions that may lead to permanent overseas work. In addition, outsiders fill recruitment programs for young professionals, including the Presidential Management Fellows Program, which places recent grads in two-year government assignments.

“A [fellow] may conduct a temporary duty assignment overseas at USAID as part of their training plans,” said Tom Davis, chief of outreach and marketing in USAID’s human resources office. “If they finish their fellowship satisfactorily, we will hire them into a permanent job.”

Myth: You must be a language virtuoso to work overseas.

Fact: Foreign language fluency is a plus but not a necessity. English is spoken in many countries, and many jobs provide language training, said James Ham, the country director for Cameroon. With 12 years of experience working in 11 French-speaking countries, Ham’s career has not been slowed by his accented French, despite his admitted tendency to elicit the response, “Votre Francais est tres American, monsieur.”"

Sold on a career in the foreign service? Click here to register for the exam.

More Coverage of the Letter

The Miami Herald is also covering the new letter to the Secretary from Representatives Baldwin, Ros-Lehtinen, Berman and Ackerman. You can read that article here.

A Copy of the Letter

Here is a copy of the latest letter from Representatives Ros-Lehtinen, Baldwin, Berman, and Ackerman:

Dear Madam Secretary:

We write to express our disappointment with Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Jeffrey T. Bergner's April 17th letter written in response to our February 21st letter urging you to act through your leadership as Secretary to eliminate inequities facing gays and lesbians at the State Department.

Mr. Bergner's response was unsatisfactory. He cites a limited range of actions that embassies may currently take in support of unmarried partners of Foreign Service Officers (FSOs). We are acutely aware of the limitations facing gay and lesbian Foreign Services Officers and their partners; the central motivation for our initial letter was to request that you consider providing comparable benefits, protections, and services to those enjoyed by family members of married FSOs. And while we were pleased to learn that your Director General has, at last, opened the Security Overseas Seminar to all family members, we would appreciate an explanation of why other partner-related security issues (i.e. health services and evacuation assistance) cannot currently be made available under the same rationale.

Given that Mr. Bergner's letter does not address many of the points raised in our initial letter, we write again to urge that you take the initiative in addressing the following policy areas:

. Inclusion in travel orders for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs

. Access to training, including language classes, for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs

. Emergency evacuation and medevac from post when necessary for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs

. Access to post health units for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs

. Visa support for same-sex domestic partners accompanying FSOs to overseas postings, and for same-sex foreign-born domestic partners accompanying FSOs to postings in Washington or elsewhere in the U.S.

. Preferential status for employment at post comparable to that enjoyed by Eligible Family Members (EFMs) for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs

As we already stated, many of these changes might be efficiently addressed through the inclusion of same-sex domestic partners under the definition of an EFM in the Foreign Service Standardized Regulation 040(m). None of the changes above are contrary to the letter or spirit of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Madame Secretary, we again look to your personal leadership on this issue, in the interest of mission effectiveness, workplace equity, and fairness for those who sacrifice so much for our country. We would be pleased to work with you and look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,
Tammy Baldwin
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Howard Berman
Gary Ackerman

Another Letter to the Secretary

BlogCabin, the blog of the Log Cabin Republicans, had this piece today. It sounds as if a new letter has been sent to the Secretary (a previous letter was sent in February, and last month the Department sent a very non-responsive response). I'll try to get a copy of the new letter.

House Foreign Affairs Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Republican

CONTACT: Sam Stratman, (202) 226-7875, May 7, 2008
Alex Cruz, (202) 225-8200

For IMMEDIATE Release

Ros-Lehtinen Again Urges Fair Treatment

for Gay and Lesbian Employees of U.S. Department of State

(WASHINGTON) - Following up on a request to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earlier this year to eliminate inequities facing gays and lesbians serving in the Department, U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) today reiterated the need for action in a letter co-signed by four senior House members.

In February, Ros-Lehtinen questioned Rice during a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and urged the Department of State to provide domestic partners with comparable benefits, protections, and services as those enjoyed by family members of married foreign service officers.

“We ask much of our foreign service officers who operate under sometimes difficult and dangerous circumstances, and yet we treat some as second class citizens,” said Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Republican on the Committee.

“Providing the kind of services to domestic partners that are already enjoyed by families of married couples is consistent with our cherished value of equality under the law,” she added.

Among the benefits already enjoyed by families of married couples are emergency medical and security evacuation when required, access to training, including language classes, and access to embassy health units.

In the letter to Rice, Ros-Lehtinen and others suggest that most of the policy changes can be addressed by inclusion of same-sex domestic partners under the rules for defining an eligible family member. In addition to Ros-Lehtinen, the letter, which was prompted by unresponsive answers to earlier inquiries, was signed by U.S. Reps. Howard Berman (D-CA), Chairman of the Committee, Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Gary Ackerman (D-NY).

“Fair treatment for domestic partners also has the added benefit of improving an otherwise stressful workplace environment and boosting morale among the dedicated men and women who are on the front lines of protecting our interests overseas,” Ros-Lehtinen added.

No, seriously...

From the "your tax dollars at work" file...Avuncular American mentioned today a $5 billion (yes, that was a "b") tourism plan the Pentagon has come up with for the International Zone in Baghdad, including a golf resort.

AA rightly comments:

And if $5 billion isn’t excessive for a little R&R on the Tigris, why is it so difficult to provide decent (i.e., without sewage backups) housing for soldiers returning to their barracks Stateside? It took an outraged father of a soldier back from a combat zone, armed with a digital camera and a YouTube account, to shame the Army into action.

The idea behind this is to create a "zone of influence" around our Embassy compound and such.

Here's a better idea. Maybe we could use that money to create safe housing for the folks serving in Baghdad. (Yes, I know that is DOD money, not Department of State money, but we seem to be all mushed up together these days anyway.). And I can tell you that I would certainly rather, when my time comes to serve in Baghdad, have a safe place to sleep rather than a golf course.

Seriously.