By PHK
The American Foreign Service Association recently released the results of its third annual survey of U.S. diplomats regarding their views on service in Iraq, Condoleezza Rice’s leadership of the State Department and quality of life issues of importance to Foreign Service employees. According to AFSA, “nearly 4,300 active-duty State Foreign Service members at virtually every overseas post and in every domestic bureau” responded. If I’ve got it right, this represents approximately 40 percent of the entire Foreign Service from the most junior through the senior ranks. A vast majority of them expressed deep unhappiness with various aspects of Rice’s management of the Department – or actually mismanagement is closer to it.
Last fall a spate of articles appeared in the U.S. media critical of America’s diplomats because not enough would “stand up to the plate” and volunteer for the ever increasing number of State Department positions dedicated to Iraq. At that time, almost all of the media stories foremost regurgitated the talking points probably generated by the public affairs bureaucracy that told Ms. Rice’s side of the story. In contrast, reporters and columnists gave very little space or credence to employee concerns.
More ignorance from the neocon camp
I note The Weekly Standard is at it again. Won’t be long, I’m afraid, before Michael Rubin’s January 21, 2008 screed against America’s diplomats wends its way into the media’s main stream. It’s clear that AEI’s-attack-Iran-now Rubin has no conception of the difference between diplomacy and perpetual warfare and, as I’ve written before with respect to Max Boot, neither Rubin nor Boot comprehend the difference between the tasks and approaches of diplomats and soldiers to secure a nation's interests abroad.
Rubin has now just demonstrated his failure to understand the difference between the American Foreign Service Association which represents the interests of active duty and retired US Foreign Service employees and its sophisticated and thoughtful FS Journal paid for by member dues, run by professionals and fire-walled from other AFSA activities and the State Department’s official mouth-piece, er magazine of which Rubin is rightfully critical.
I’m also not enamored with State Magazine – it was never a great publication but it has become increasingly trivialized over the years. What Rubin really needs to understand is that the magazine of which he is so critical is foremost an internal mouthpiece for political appointees who run the department – not rank and file professionals who work there.
Last fall’s anti-Foreign Service employee press resulted from a poorly handled Town Hall Meeting in October driven by unfair State Department personnel policies and threats of forced assignments to Iraq. The media climate was clearly influenced by concerted public affairs efforts on the part of those in charge of the State Department designed to make Condi and her political appointee cronies look good and the affected professionals look bad. Rubin’s latest misguided slam at the careerists is just another example – perhaps triggered by the results of the AFSA survey which are - not surprisingly - critical of Ms. Rice’s leadership of the faltering ship of State.
When AFSA attempted to rebut the media’s misguided coverage in defense of its active duty members who could not speak up and retain their careers – it was all too often ignored or derided.
As a result of October’s dust up at Foggy Bottom, US Foreign Service Officers came out looking like spoiled brats who refused to put their lives on the line by volunteering to serve in Iraq. The results of AFSA’s recent survey tell part, but not all, of the real story behind that story.
In fact, over 1,500 out of 11,000 State Department employees have already served in Iraq and all but a few slots – mostly on the Provincial Reconstruction Teams- had already been filled for the coming year before the Town Meeting that should not have been held. Instead, the media ignored this and concentrated its pens and computer keyboards on reporting the State Department’s slanted CYA talking points.
A few days after the State Department Town Hall Meeting and before most of the bad press erupted, the Department had already found – for the fifth year running - enough Foreign Service Officers to “volunteer” for a year in the Emerald City or the sauna known as the Iraqi desert to fill next year’s State Department live body count quota. The arm-twisting included substantial financial incentives (the most important), frequent R&Rs, career extensions beyond retirement age, and follow-on assignments of choice, but no one was force assigned.
Increasing, not decreasing State's Iraq Mission but not overall personnel
Condi’s decision to up, yet again, the number of FSOs required to serve on a mushrooming number of provincial reconstruction teams (PRTS) has not only increased individual security concerns but also placed additional burdens on an already over-stretched Foreign Service short at least 1,000 employees. An outside study by CSIS suggests that the shortage is really over 2,000. The Department has announced it plans to leave 10% of the positions empty elsewhere so that it can staff Iraq as its way of “solving” the staf shortage problem. This is a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul and, in my view, being done for the flimsiest of reasons.
I think concerns over personal security are valid. Foreign Service employees assigned to Iraq receive virtually no pre-departure training - so why shouldn’t they be concerned about their own personal security? It’s ludicrous for any sane individual to think otherwise.
Moreover, if the Department needed additional personnel to fill the now 250 positions dedicated to Iraq, then it should have hired the additional officers – not take them from posts where diplomats do what diplomats are supposed to do without wearing fatigues and being surrounded by Blackwater guards. Condi also needed to have made the personnel shortage case to Congress. She did not.
If you look at the AFSA survey data and the accompanying analysis, you’ll also discover other under-reported items that demand careful consideration. Some of these are endemic problems that pertain to Foreign Service life overseas that could, and should be dealt with by the Department far better than it does now. Others are issues that may have no satisfactory solution.
An aside: For anyone considering a Foreign Service career, this survey and particularly AFSA Vice President Kashkett’s accompanying article are a must read. The problems relating to every day life for spouses and family are real. These issues have been around for decades and potential employees need to take them to heart before signing on the dotted line. The pay comparability factor for all but the senior officers is also real – Foreign Service employees serving overseas are now required to take over a 20% cut in pay from a State-side assignment. Yet this is not the case for senior officers (those above the equivalent of GS-15) or employees working for other agencies also assigned abroad.
Also particularly significant in the AFSA survey for Americans concerned about the competency and direction of US foreign policy and the institutions which implement it – are the following:
• Many of the respondents – including nearly 400 employees who are currently serving in Iraq or have already done so – urge a downsizing of the US Mission for both practical and policy reasons in part, but not entirely, in reaction to “an escalating list of Provincial Reconstruction Teams and an expanding Embassy.” Please someone take this recommendation seriously: these people have experienced the situation firsthand and are as unbiased as anyone can be because they are exempt from reassignment there.
• The widespread resentment among respondents over a “perceived lack of even-handedness” in State’s assignment/promotion system with “preferential treatment given to certain senior officers, people in key staff positions and inside ‘favorites’ in certain bureaus.” This is endemic to the Department but it’s apparently worsened in recent years. It makes special mockery of Rice’s call for the Foreign Service to do its duty by volunteering for service in Iraq when “teachers’ pets” are regularly exempted.
• Finally, the survey did not ask whether respondents would accept forced – as opposed to voluntary assignments to Iraq – a question, in my view that should have also been asked. But it did indicate that the top two reasons why Foreign Service employees are not volunteering are separation from family (64%) and security concerns (61%). The survey also suggested that unless things change, 44% of the respondents said that they would consider leaving the Foreign Service sooner rather than waiting to complete their careers. In contrast, disagreement with administration policy with respect to Iraq service came in a distant third (48%). (Sorry AP and Reuters, your slant is wrong. The WaPo has this one right.)
The Foreign Service is a fascinating and unique career but it is not for everyone and Iraq is an anomalous situation. Regardless, the State Department needs to treat its employees far better and it also needs to listen to what those in the know say about the outsized, overblown diplomatic mission in Iraq.
Furthermore, I find it close to, if not in fact criminally negligent for this administration to send people on dangerous assignments for which they – unlike the military - are neither properly trained nor equipped. The US media needs to get this message as well.
It is crystal clear that there are serious problems at Foggy Bottom under Ms. Rice's tutelage. Something’s gotta give.