Foreign Policy Zero; Management Zero - Recipe for Rebellion in the Ranks

By PHK

The State Department has rarely been strong on management and under Condi Rice, as Glenn Kessler's article in The Washington Post suggests, it is particularly weak. Included are some of the most incompetent or corrupt political appointees currently in Washington. Garnish them with a foreign policy that has been rejected by as much as 70 percent of the American public. So why should people be surprised that more than 300 of America's Foreign Service Officers posted in Washington recently objected to State's new forced assignments to Iraq policy, a story which broke first in the Washington Post, the weekend before the officers themselves were so advised.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. The US government did not hire, and should not be hiring, diplomats to run around with shoulder holsters dodging IEDs on sandy roads to nowhere. That's why, after all, we have a military.

If that's what a few FSOs revel in doing - then, for heavens sakes let them - or perhaps they might consider a career change because that - in the end - is not what a Foreign Service career is all about. They might, for instance, be far happier with a "The Uncle Sam Wants You" recruiting poster kind of career. Or maybe they should look into CIA high risk special operations and sign on for that never ending hunt for Osama Bin Laden. That should carry them well on the way to retirement - as long as high ranking White House officials don't blow their cover.

If they get over the thrill of playing shoot-em-up at the OK corral or riding over the dunes in a Humvee accomplishing who knows what, then they might consider a job as a civilian - but not until then. Because when that year in Iraq is over, it will be back to a normal, wear a dark suit to the office, bureaucratic 8 am - 9 or 10 pm kind of job in which the war-induced addictive adrenalin highs as described so eloquently by former New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges in his book War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning will not exist.

Meanwhile, I fail to understand how the American mainstream media has been so taken in by the administration's one-sided version of a story which paints Foreign Service Officers as slackers and 'fraidy cats and singles out as shining examples of a country gone mad a few individuals who either agree with the US government's Iraq policy and are willing to put their lives on the line for it - or, think that signing up for and speaking out in favor of Iraq duty will help further their careers. Or are so financially strapped, that the bonuses - or bribes - are worth the personal risk. Or, are in the wrong profession to begin with because they are really seeking the roller-coaster psychological war zone thrill of it all.

If the goal is career advancement, however, then sounds to me as if mid-level and junior officers at least should think twice. As David Jones, a former career State Department officer and US Embassy Ottawa political counselor, wrote in a Halloween oped for the Embassy Magazine, a Canadian foreign affairs weekly, "as far as Iraq is concerned, all of the "boy scouts" who believed in the mission are gone, as have all of the 'careerists' who viewed Iraq as a ticket to promotion. As for the rest, the bribes are not large enough. Reinforcing this reality was the report from one of the summer promotion panels some individuals who had just returned from Iraq had been "low ranked" - that is put on the career track for dismissal - on the basis that riding around in a Humvee for a year wasn't qualification for promotion."

I'm not sure whether it is two-faced, simple ignorance, or laziness for most MSM reporters and columnists to ignore the basic facts that diplomats are not soldiers, they do not carry guns, their pre-departure training for Iraq is criminally negligent, the Foreign Service is minuscule in comparison with the oversized, overblown military establishment, 68% of Foreign Service members are serving overseas (why more people were not at the Town Meeting at State - which Condi, Negroponte, Fore and Krongard also missed for probably far less compelling reasons) as compared with the military where only about 20% do, that the vast majority of the Foreign Service serve in hardship assignments, and that the whole Iraq fiasco has stretched State Department resources well beyond the breaking-point.

Another new twist, that is according to Condi's great management "team:" FSOs should now be expected to serve two tours at hardship posts - except, you can bet, Condi's pets. But as far as I know this is nothing new. I don't know about others, but I certainly served at two hardship posts as well as twice at a non-hardship post when and where various brands of Middle Eastern and home-grown terrorists were taking potshots at American and British diplomats as well as officials, journalists and business people in the middle of the capital city's downtown.

Meanwhile, as I understand it, coverage of the Iraq war is so dangerous that US media increasingly rely on Iraqi employees to cover the carnage rather than assigning American correspondents themselves as happened at other times in other wars.

That certainly says volumes about this pot calling the kettle black.

Comments

[Cycledoc]

You are right management is not one of State's strong suits. Consider that every change in Assistant Secretary for Management leads to a disorienting reorganization--the scenario usually is described as what a mess I've inherited, you are lucky that I've come aboard. Aside for the short period of Powell tenure the organization has suffered from neglect and has been "doing more with less" for 20 years, it's no wonder the troops are tiring.

The "1000" person embassy is mainly staffed by other agencies and State's role in Iraq given the travel and security restriction is seems mainly to provide cover, and act as the concierge to facilitate the other agencies functioning. Surely there is a better way?

[PHK]

Cycledoc: Surely must be - suggestions are most welcome.

[zenpundit]

How many FSO's have been killed or injured in Iraq since the occupation began ?

FSO's are not military personnel, CIA or Federal police agents, but they are officers of the United States, which entails certain obligations. The job is not risk-free and most FSO's serve their hardship posts with distinction and courage.

In my lifetime we have had embassies blown up, burned to the ground and siezed or attacked by state-sponsored terrorists. Ambassadors and diplomats have been assassinated. Few of these events occurred in bona fide war zones.

Iraq is not the last crisis of the 21st century where diplomats will face risks to their physical safety. Disagreeing with policy is not an "out" here to avoid Iraq postings for diplomats any more than it is for soldiers.

[PHK]

Mark: From my perspective nothing is risk free and that includes walking across a street. What I think you do not understand is that if the USG is going to send anyone into a war zone that 1) there should be some good reason for them to be there and I don't think that is happening with the foreign service in Iraq (best reason I've heard is that some FSOs on the PRTs are connecting some Iraqi academics with the Sabre Foundation which supplies books); and 2) the USG employees need to have the training, qualifications and skills to do what they are sent to do. This is clearly not happening with FSOs being sent to Iraq (whereas, for the most part, FSOs did get training before going to Vietnam.) Furthermore, CORDS Vietnam and the robust USAID Mission there had the specialized kinds of nation-building skills on the payroll - but the destruction of USAID in the 1990s eliminated most of them and USAID has become a shell of a contracting agency.

Frankly, I wish people who don't know what diplomacy is and what it can do - and what it isn't and can't do - would take it upon themselves to learn before trotting out "they're officers and should unthinkingly do whatever and go whereever they're told" - regardless of how well they are prepared or what their skills are. Reminds me of the ill-considered Soviet invasion of Finland during the Winter War. It's not fun to freeze in a war zone particularly if it's an invasion of choice and you're not equipped for sub-zero weather.