Finding Diplomats for Perilous Posts

7 September Washington Times - Finding Diplomats for Perilous Posts by Nicholas Kralev.

Quote:

---

The State Department has begun the first major overhaul of its assignment system in decades, making it more difficult for U.S. diplomats to avoid serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and other dangerous posts that the Bush administration views as crucial in the war on terrorism.

Senior department officials said that no jobs will be available for bidding by Foreign Service officers until all open positions in the critical posts have been filled. They also said that they would resort to "directed assignments" if the new scheme fails to achieve the desired results.

"We are going to start filling the toughest posts first," one senior official said. "We are still doing this on a voluntary basis, but, obviously, if we ever have to go to directed assignments, we will, because the bottom line is, you have to get your best, most talented people in the hardest and most important positions."

Another official said that the best way for Foreign Service officers to ensure they have another job when their current assignment ends will be to opt for Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan and other hardship posts in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia...

The Aug. 16 memo came 12 days after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report critical of the State Department's staffing practices.

"We found that State's assignment system did not effectively meet the staffing needs of hardship posts, and that State had difficulty filling positions there, particularly at the mid-levels," the authors of the document said in a letter to Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who requested the GAO report.

Mr. Lugar "feels the State Department still is not adequately staffed for stabilization and reconstruction efforts," said his spokesman, Andy Fisher.

"He has encouraged the administration to implement a section" of the Stabilization and Reconstruction bill that he co-sponsored with Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat and the committee's ranking member, which "would develop a 250-person active duty corps," Mr. Fisher said.

The State Department has had a hard time filling positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though it has offered various incentives for serving there, such as higher pay and benefits packages, better chances for promotion and guaranteeing officers one of their top five choices of an onward assignment.

Although most of those who volunteer for risky posts do so to serve their country, some of the officers are too junior for the positions they occupy, and others volunteer more for the benefits than the service, officials say. In addition, many sent to hardship posts arrive with minimum language, cultural and security training, which limits their effectiveness in the field.

During her last two visits to Baghdad in April, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was said to be disappointed by the quality of some of the officers at the embassy there.

Reaction to the new assignment system in the Foreign Service has been mixed. While officers understand the need to staff priority posts, "there is also widespread concern that long-standing assignment rules and practices are being hastily jettisoned," said the American Foreign Service Association, the diplomats' union...

---

Posted by SWC member Mark at his Zenpundit blog.

Quote:

---

... I wish to emphasize that I have great respect for FSO's. The risks that many of them face, sometimes operating in dangerous and fluid situations, are often unknown to the public and usually are forgotten by Congress. More of their unvarnished observations should make it up the food chain to key decision -makers than actually survive, in watered down form, armored by caveats into a state of meaninglessness. The State Department historically, for its many faults, does not receive the appropriations it actually needs to do it's job properly, invest in its personnel or carry out long-term strategic planning. Our career diplomatic personnel, particularly those who land difficult field assignments, need more support and fewer constraints from Washington.

That being said, our national security priorities must drive State Department policies, not the reverse. If you are in the Foreign Service and the idea of serving in Iraq is too much for you because of the danger or because you fundamentally disagree with the Bush administration's entire Mideast policy, then now is the time to look for another line of work. Presidents will come and go and policies will change, but any given president must be able to allocate diplomatic resources to critical foreign policy hot spots on an as-needed basis.

A more engaged diplomatic corps may mean less need to use the Marine Corps.

---

13 September Washington Times - Fairness Vital in Filling Envoy Posts, Chief Says by Nicholas Kralev.

Quote:

---

... The head of the U.S. Foreign Service has assured its members that the organization's new assignment system, designed to make serving in hardship posts more difficult to avoid, will be applied fairly across the board and will not favor diplomats with good connections to the State Department's top leadership.

In an interview with The Washington Times, which first reported the change last week, George M. Staples, the service's director-general, said it was high time discipline was enforced in the diplomatic corps in order to end the practice of scrambling to fill positions in dangerous places at the last minute.

"What organization in the world would not fill its highest-priority and most difficult posts first? These are times we haven't faced in the Foreign Service in a long time. There must be equity and fairness in the way we assign people and employ our personnel around the world," Mr. Staples said...

His remarks came in response to concerns of U.S. diplomats -- expressed in messages to the Times and to their union, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) -- that those who have managed to avoid service in hardship posts will continue to do so because of whom they know.

"More than a few remain skeptical that the changes will affect those who have traditionally been the old system's biggest beneficiaries," AFSA said in a memorandum to its members. It cited what is known as "needs of the service" exceptions that spare certain diplomats from serving in perilous places in favor of important positions elsewhere.

Several Foreign Service officers pointed out that their colleagues who work as staff aides to the secretary of state and other senior officials have for years been rewarded with cozy onward assignments in developed countries.

"Everyone knows that being a staffer in Washington pays off -- not only with a nice job afterwards, but when it comes to promotion as well," one officer said...

---

Personally I believe that 2 things have to happen to make the Foreign Service more functional:

A. Establish a stringent criterion for political appointments and limit their numbers and options. I have personally seen too many political appointees in key posts (regardless of administration). There has to be a sense in the Foreign Service of service to the constitution and the foreign policy interests of the U.S. beyond rewarding a dentist for large monetary donations to his party's efforts with an Ambassadorship

B. Model the Foreign Service on the military PME. Create a Foreign Service academy/FS ROTC program that encompasses State, AID, USIA, and perhaps CIA and start growing FSOs versus selecting them through skewed exams and old boy networking. And at later stages merge the FSO PME with the military and other gov agencies ala NDU.

Otherwise, current reform efforts are more political and bandaid in their effects than true changes.

best

Tom

the hiring process has to change, I understand the testing is being modernized, however the process itself must change. The folks that are most adept for these posts are not allowed past initial screening. I believe this is due to flags thrown up on the bio section, showing that a person is either adventurous, or a risk taker. Currently both are no no's for overseas representation. A person who has a flawless bio is suspect in my opinion, as they are often so in the middle, as to be ineffective in any capacity besides accounting or record keeping.

Hi Tom,

I fully agree with your second point; it would improve the caliber of service.

Regarding your first: As far as I know the only political appointees in US missions overseas are ambassadors. On average, 70% are career FSOs. The remaining 30% are politicals; some of whom are superb while others live up to the stereotype of the political ambassador. While most career FSO ambassadors are excellent like Deane Hinton and Ed Corr, others are complete duds - like some generals we all know. Some of the outstanding politicals include Edwin O. Reischauer in Japan and John Kenneth Galbraith in India. In many cases, the best politicals have prior international experience as these examples did. I would certainly like to see all American ambassadors fully qualified in both language and region as well as in the countries to which they are assigned. Nevertheless, I doubt that presidents will give up ambassadorships as political rewards - again regardless of party :(

On that cheery note, hasta pronto

John

John T

You are correct that the poltical appointees are at the Ambassadorial level in overseas postings. I was thinking of those non-career mid to high level posts--and their action officers, executive assistants, etc--that are political and often drive life in the embassies down range.

As fo Ambassadors--well I have worked for 2 fantastic Ambassadors and one I will be kind and say was aggressively inept. All 3 were career FSOs; I have had to work around political appointees and very few can resist throwing their "credentials" at you as a means of expressing their self-importance and connections to power.

Best

Tom

Since 84, I have worked for some excellent career Ambassadors and political appointees. Ambassador to Zaire, Melissa Foelsch Wells definitely made use of her time and ran a tight ship. During civil wars on both sides of the Congo River, social and political upheaval, Ambassador Wells showed her true resolve and had the unfortunate pleasure of telling then President Mobutu he had fallen out of grace under the (first) Bush Administration, and to step down and permit democracy to ‘flourish’.

Pretty bold for anyone, yet alone a white female.

"If you would like to know what a man really is, the time to learn comes when he stands in danger or doubt." --- Lucretius

That said, there were however a few SFS Officers that often left Tom and I wondering what tomorrow would bring. Seat of the pants reporting has and still does cause not only confusion, but demoralizes the entire Embassy Staff.

Checkout this brief article, especially the last few paragraphs regarding the suicide bombers (brothers). I would venture to say, that if Kinshasa’s or Kigali’s Ambassador closed the embassy each time something blew up or a spurt of automatic fire was heard, we would have been open for business one weekday a month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/wo...=1&oref=slogin
U.S. Consulate Closes in Morocco Over Security Concerns
By IAN FISHER

Quote:

---

CASABLANCA, Morocco, April 15 — The United States Consulate here said Sunday that it would close until further notice, a day after two brothers carried out puzzling suicide attacks near the consulate amid a spate of bombings in Morocco and Algeria.

---

I have worked for numerous ambassadors over the years, both career and political. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Career guys usually understand the lay of the land better, but remain too beholden to the bureaucracy in Washington (Mother, may I?)

The politicos may or may not have a clue, but their connections can have big payoffs. One of my ambassadors called Madeline Albright at home at 0600 DC time in order to prevent a major fox pass (that's diplo-speak for F-U). Another worked a highly classified political mission for the president. Only someone of stature could accomplish that. Plus, if the deal went south or was compromised, he was expendable.

Yet there are diplomatic giants who manage to struggle through the system -- Nick Burns, Chris Hill, Ryan Crocker all come to mind. Unfortunately, they seem to be few and far between.

The answer, I believe, is to strenghthen the recruitment and PDE (professional diplomatic education) mentioned earlier. Those of you who have worked the diplomatic or intelligence lanes know that one of the greatest frustrations of working with senior FSOs is lack of management/leadership training. It would also help to have geographically targeted FSOs like Army FAOs. Maybe not only one geo area/officer, but let's say no more than 2. That way, it's easier to keep up on regional developments, languages, etc.

Staffing crisis at U.S. foreign service - 6 June, LATIMES.

Quote:

---

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have overstretched the U.S. foreign service, damaging its staffers' morale and threatening its performance around the world, a coalition of advocates for diplomats charged Tuesday.

The Foreign Affairs Council, a group of 11 nonprofit organizations, said in a report that the State Department would need to hire 1,100 foreign service officers simply to restore the capabilities it had when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took her post at the beginning of 2005.

"The foreign service is at the front end of a personnel crisis, and if something isn't done … we're going to have a very, very serious situation a year or so from now," said Thomas Boyatt, a retired U.S. ambassador and the council's president, at a news conference ...

---

Quote:

---

"Widespread anecdotal evidence suggests worsening morale" under Miss Rice, yesterday's report said. "This decline is exacerbated by the fact that, unlike colleagues at some sister agencies, all of State's junior and mid-level officers take an immediate cut in base pay of 18.6 percent upon departing Washington for an overseas assignment."

---

This is from the ebird as taken from the Wash Times. I would call this one a red herring. FSOs pay goes up when they go overseas with COLA, Post Differential, and Hazard Pay. I was married to one; she lost pay by coming to DC.

That aside, the Foreign Service desperately needs a central creed that is imbued through an echeloned educational and development system. Until that happens, this phenomenon will continue.

Tom

If DOD is a an example

You do get paid more in DC.
I came from Europe with a very high COLA
The higher BAH in DC More than makes up the difference

MASON,

I don't know where you were in Europe but in the case of FSOs in embassies like the Congo, the COLA, post differential of 35% of base pay, and danger pay dwarfs local DC adjustments. In fact the trend within State and AID has been for youngsters to go to such places to get started on the right foot, matched with senior folks who retire from such posts and have their retirement pay calculated on that higher pay scale.

Tom

PS

I would also point out that the irony of junior officers who belong to the Foreign Service complaining about overseas assignments.

18% seems like an over dramatization.

At core it is fundamentally a leadership problem. The mid-level career officers seem to be attempting to weather through their appointed masters tenures hoping for future missions and or guidance more to their taste. The internal battles in agencies and organizations are more signifigant on a personal level for careerists than the percieved temporary external situations they are tasked with undertaking. As a result the junior officers see and bare the consequences of the friction seemingly with out coherant purpose and with less invested look elswhere.

It is the FOREIGN Service

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MASON

18% seems like an over dramatization.

At core it is fundamentally a leadership problem. The mid-level career officers seem to be attempting to weather through their appointed masters tenures hoping for future missions and or guidance more to their taste. The internal battles in agencies and organizations are more signifigant on a personal level for careerists than the percieved temporary external situations they are tasked with undertaking. As a result the junior officers see and bare the consequences of the friction seemingly with out coherant purpose and with less invested look elswhere.

---

You got it. The talent pool in the FSO field is enormous; it is not mentored and nurtured in a system that will further develop that talent.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

MASON,

I don't know where you were in Europe but in the case of FSOs in embassies like the Congo, the COLA, post differential of 35% of base pay, and danger pay dwarfs local DC adjustments. In fact the trend within State and AID has been for youngsters to go to such places to get started on the right foot, matched with senior folks who retire from such posts and have their retirement pay calculated on that higher pay scale.

Tom

PS

I would also point out that the irony of junior officers who belong to the Foreign Service complaining about overeas assignments.

---

Quote:

---

The council said Rice has required diplomats to carry out a more aggressive mission of "transformational diplomacy" to prod other countries to adhere to democratic principles.

But at the same time, envoys have had to cope with wartime strains, inadequate language and skills training and more overtime work.

In addition, about 750 have been required to take one-year stints in sometimes dangerous postings where they are not allowed to bring their families, the group said.

---

Geez Tom, overtime in agressive missions of transformational diplomacy - is that like being shot at while 'John jah jah' barks commands from his machine-gun nest 1,000 miles away in his cozy villa ?!

Is that what we were doing in the Army for even less money ?

For the uninitiated herein, I might add that our 'shop' originally manned with 19 (13-DAO and 6-SAO), was reduced to 2 in four days :rolleyes:

They all mysteriously came to post with 3/3/3 language skills and 250 bucks a month, but never managed to read a friggin newspaper, nor go outside the embassy walls.

A one-year tour without your family ? You mean like the 350,000 troops all over creation ? What, they don't miss their loved ones ?

Sorry, I have no sympathy for this...whatsoever :mad:

What a load of malarkey !

I see very little temporary in the specific but globally distributed situations in front of us.

I have been reading about FDR and a swiss general Guisan. In the years prior to US involvement FDR made it a goal to reform the DOD officer corps. To face there likly soon to be enemies.

Guisan had to weed out more than 15 % of his officer corps who he suspected of german sympathy and an additional number who wanted to defend swiss cities rather than persue his plan of a national dedoubt and long term protracted harassment of would be german ocupiers.

The internal component of conflict was and may still be an under recognised issue which is always difficult.

I am not in the Dept of State but What I see is:

A component of leadership not fully commited to the task at hand.

Subordinates see this and say to themselves why should I.

If a person does not believe whole heartedly in what they are ordered to undertake they will drag their feet even harder if they believe they will take a pay cut for it.

It is mostly Drama and Stan seems correct in his disgust but unless it gets corrected, Good luck getting that or any other organization to do anything well with this situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MASON

I am not in the Dept of State but What I see is:

It is mostly Drama and Stan seems correct in his disgust but unless it gets corrected, Good luck getting that or any other organization to do anything well with this situation.

---

Hi Mason !
Regretfully, my true disgust comes from nearly 14 years of working 'under' the pathetic supervision of State Personnel. To say that commands were barked at Tom and I is a terrible understatement.

A threat of a cut in pay may have actually worked for some.

I am however aware of diplomats 'smoothing' reports of violence and uprisings in the faint-and-absurd hope of getting their dependents back (right into the frying pan).

I would only later learn that said individuals didn't really want their dependents back, but the costs of supporting them in the DC area was a strain.

How does one justify risking the family in exchange for higher COLA while in a battle zone ?

Don't mind me, my opinions are in no way biased...nor will they ever be :wry:

The LA Times could spin me and others up this easily.
And their primary goal is to sell the paper.

Would people buy the paper if the Title was "Foreign service personel has concern for staffing and pay issues"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MASON

The LA Times could spin me and others up this easily.
And their primary goal is to sell the paper.

Would people buy the paper if the Title was "Foreign service personel has concern for staffing and pay issues"?

---

Mason, I think the Washington Post beat you to it !

Just a couple of weeks ago was a similar souped-up Sierra story from Iraq about being in huts with sandbags, airconditioning and mortar fire :wry:

Quote:

---

If DOD is a an example

You do get paid more in DC.
I came from Europe with a very high COLA
The higher BAH in DC More than makes up the difference

---

Military get BAH in the states, but civilian employees of the government do not earn housing allowances in the United States. Federal civilian employees earn housing allowances and cost-of-living adjustments when stationed overseas, so they nearly always earn more overseas, though, like the military, its a benefits package, not just base salary. I've never heard anyone at State or DoD complain about getting by pay cut by moving overseas. It's usually the opposite.

... do get locality pay which differs depending on location within CONUS.

Foreign Service folks routinely refer to their time back at Foggy Bottom as their "economic hardship" tour.

Loss of gov't sponsored quarters means loss of rental income from having to evict the folks that they've had in their house back in the rear, so the mortgage is a hit. Loss of gov't purchased private schools for some. Housekeepers, babysitters, staff, etc. cost more than $50 and two chickens a month. All that on top of loss of any overseas differential, etc. A few clicks of windage on locality pay doesn't make a dent.

... understand that - just pointing out that there is such an animal.

I know Embassies have cultural sections as part of public affairs and these do cultural exchanges and such, but anyone heard of a cultural section that would primarily be involved in anthropological or sociological research and reporting? In my experience, the Embassy people I come across are quite estranged from local people and are much less informed than Peace Corps, USAID, USAID contractors, etc. I know they get briefings and training on local culture, but this would be Embassy funded research on the cultural components of specific issues. Could be political or economic issues, but from a cultural perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beelzebubalicious

I know Embassies have cultural sections as part of public affairs and these do cultural exchanges and such, but anyone heard of a cultural section that would primarily be involved in anthropological or sociological research and reporting? In my experience, the Embassy people I come across are quite estranged from local people and are much less informed than Peace Corps, USAID, USAID contractors, etc. I know they get briefings and training on local culture, but this would be Embassy funded research on the cultural components of specific issues. Could be political or economic issues, but from a cultural perspective.

---

Good question and no answer that you would hope for; I have been in or around 6 different embassies and the DoD head as Defense Attache in 2. Very few show any interest in what you suggest. I did a long cable out of Zaire on the alternate economy using a couple of sources who just kept a running diary for a week on how they got buy. Only one FSO showed interest in it and he was in the political section, not economics. Stan and I gave the econ a officer a crash course on Zairian information management when rumors and reports of dreams suggested all US 100 dollar bills were bad.

Worst sensing of social environment by a senior FSO? Here are some candidates:

A Dept Assistant Secretary of State who came into Zaire on a push democracy tour ands asked me how I was going to reform the Zairian Armed Forces

The Deputy Chief of Mission in Zaire who routinely quoted his cook at country team meetings

The Chief of Mission/Charge in Zaire who dismissed the Rwandan refugee crisis in 1994 as something that would blow over in 2 weeks

An FSO in Rwanda who at a local American community meeting in March of 1994 dismissed concerns over military style drilling by the Interahamwe as boy scout activity

An Ambassador in Zaire who dismissed the RPA led and organized invasion in 97 as the establishment of a local security zone

These are just a few.....

Tom

Quote:

---

...anyone heard of a cultural section that would primarily be involved in anthropological or sociological research and reporting?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Good question and no answer that you would hope for; I have been in or around 6 different embassies and the DoD head as Defense Attache in 2. Very few show any interest in what you suggest.

---

If you search marct's posts, he has said some interesting things (and as been involved in academic debates, and written some interesting articles) about norms of professional conduct in the anthropological community. Even if government agencies increased their demand for this, it seems to me (from what marct has said) that it might be difficult to find willing suppliers of the relevant expertise.

ps to Tom-- Your book on Rwanda sounds extremely interesting and I plan to buy it and read it soon.

it's a wonder that we get anything right! And I'm sure we can find plenty of military geniusesto help out, too.:cool:

On that cheery note --

JohnT

I was blessed in my 3 embassy postings to have engaged political and econ officers who really tried to grasp the cultural underpinnings of what was going on. It was essential that they do that because in all 3 cases, the populations involved were doing things that ran against the "conventional wisdom" of Washington. One of the countries had both AID and Peace Corps programs. Talking with those folks was extremely enlightening because they interfaced with different populations than the rest of us did. I am proud to say that I got out a lot, especially to neighborhood bars, in order to judge the mood of the "street" -- and to drink. (Not necessarily in that order).

It's sometimes hard to figure out what drives Washington, however. I remember a tasker to the embassy in Belgrade to report on the status of mouflons in the mountains in the final days running up to the Kosovo war. Hmmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Eagle

I was blessed in my 3 embassy postings to have engaged political and econ officers who really tried to grasp the cultural underpinnings of what was going on. It was essential that they do that because in all 3 cases, the populations involved were doing things that ran against the "conventional wisdom" of Washington. One of the countries had both AID and Peace Corps programs. Talking with those folks was extremely enlightening because they interfaced with different populations than the rest of us did. I am proud to say that I got out a lot, especially to neighborhood bars, in order to judge the mood of the "street" -- and to drink. (Not necessarily in that order).

It's sometimes hard to figure out what drives Washington, however. I remember a tasker to the embassy in Belgrade to report on the status of mouflons in the mountains in the final days running up to the Kosovo war. Hmmm.

---

Agree wholeheartedly with your first para, been there and one that as they say. As an aside, there are places where it is REALLY hard to find Bourbon...

On the second, I'm inclined to blame human fallibility and ego, not in that order. One gets to a position in DC (or, too frequently, just a Position...) and is suddenly anointed with superior knowledge and capabilities and need pay no attention to the folks who know the terrain. We spend millions of dollars annually training FAOs and then the Generals ignore them. It is obvious to me that the same thing applies to the political appointees at Foggy Bottom with respect to the FSOs out in the world.

The terrible thing about that is that the nation is paying a penalty as we speak for years of that foolishness...:mad:

I've traveled and lived abroad a good portion of my life and have been around Embassies and have certainly known quite a few people who have worked for the US Embassy. Many of the people I know are in it for the travel and lifestyle (benefits).

I have considered entering the foreign service, but I am held back for many of the reasons stated in this thread. I also have an adverse reaction to bureaucracy and starting with the application process, the whole business seems to be an exercise in bureaucracy. The process seems to reward those who persevere and prove adept at negotiating bureaucracy.

Regarding Anthropology, I have a Masters Degree in Applied Anthropology (hence my interest in the subject I posted) and while it's generally true that Anthropologists are hesitant and careful about how their research and information is used, the applied field is full of people like myself that are more interested in finding useful applications for Anthropology. I really see nothing wrong with helping the foreign service better understand the cultures they operate in and how to utilize this information to support diplomatic efforts. To those who say that the information can also be used for "other" purposes that the Anthropologist might not agree with, that's true of anything anyone does and cannot really be controlled. Is it better to go out in the world and try to better understand and improve it or sit up you ivory tower and pontificate? Plus, what are we really talking about here? structured tools for understanding people better or WMDs....

If you want to be an FSO, then go for it. You can be extremely effective if you have the desire to get out and get the people to people contact you need. In small embassies, bureaucracy is at a minimum because there isn't enough staff to afford the luxury. Everyone has to pull together. Avoid the big posts and you will have a lot of flexibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Eagle

If you want to be an FSO, then go for it. You can be extremely effective if you have the desire to get out and get the people to people contact you need. In small embassies, bureaucracy is at a minimum because there isn't enough staff to afford the luxury. Everyone has to pull together. Avoid the big posts and you will have a lot of flexibility.

---

Bubba,

I would second that recommendation. Forgive my earlier post in that I was not trying discourage anyone seeking a career in this field. I encourage all who want to learn and expereince the world. Where I was very fortunate was in Rwanda where I had 2 Ambassadors who were switched on, a USAID Mission Director equally adept, the Chief of Staff of USAID (the entire agency) with us for months at a time, aroving Ambassador who served as regional envoy, and a political officer who was an activist. All of these gentlemen were not the type who simply stayed in an office.

The real issue is leadership in the individual mission; in the case of Rwanda we had real leaders. In my case in Zaire with Stan, we did not. In Stan's case with the Ambassador who was there before I arrived, that Ambassador was a leader.

In the case of Rwanda, Ambassador Rawson was very qualified as a Rwandan cultural specialist; he was a missionary child and spent time among the Hutu in Burundi. He had 2 tours on the ground as an FSO. Ambassador Gribbin had 2 tours in Rwanda, had run the Rwandan desk in State, and had been a Peace Corps volunteer. He too firmly grasped the culture.
Neither were inclined to put up with or listen to reporting officers who did not get out and work their sources at whatever level.

So as Old Eagle said, go for it.

Best

Tom

In my travels..met many fine and dedicated foreign service officers. Most were doing rather routine jobs with the normal perks most officers have when posted outside the United States.

But, Iraq and Afghanistan are different situations, in deed.

The "politicalization" of so many tiers of our government have often shadowed the "ground truth". The truth of the situation is the only way decision can be made to resolve the issue. By hiding the fabric of the truth in empty words, say for example.." we are making progress.." is like the story of the Emporer Wore No Clothes fairy tale..or.. one will believe what he/she wants to believe.

Case in point: While in SE Afghanistan in 2003, a dedicated (and about to retire in 2 more years) FSO was in our compound representing Dept of State. His mission was to gauge the "local politics" of issues and challenges representing the political dimension of that particular time in Afghanistan.

It was obvious the governor of this particular province was corrupt. Other issues were so apparent of a political nature, it seemed like "progress" was going backwards.

I commented one evening..."why don't you tell Kabul ("The Embassy") the ground truth about what is really happening..?" His reply.."I have two kids in college.."

His comment represents a wider challenge for those who want to progress up the diplomatic ladder, yet somehow wish to minimize the "bad news" or the "ground truth".

The new Secretary of State must assure those who are now serving and those who may serve, the opinions of the "good, bad and ugly" are welcome as long as the report is truthful, substantiated and documented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by negotiator6

In my travels..met many fine and dedicated foreign service officers. Most were doing rather routine jobs with the normal perks most officers have when posted outside the United States.

<...snip...>

The new Secretary of State must assure those who are now serving and those who may serve, the opinions of the "good, bad and ugly" are welcome as long as the report is truthful, substantiated and documented.

---

What I believe is going on is a substantial revolt within the FSO against the need to serve in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and let's face it, places like Khazakhstan and Dacca, Bangladesh.

But that's where future history is being made, and Rice was wise enough to push for this. The FSA report of several months ago was simple pushback against the policy of putting senior people in Ulan Bator when they are used to getting Helsinki.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by section9

What I believe is going on is a substantial revolt within the FSO against the need to serve in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and let's face it, places like Khazakhstan and Dacca, Bangladesh.

---

Serving at the embassy in Astana, Kazakhstan (although I still much prefer Almaty over Astana) is in no way comparable to Dhaka, Bangladesh - let alone to Afghanistan or Iraq. You can enjoy yourself to the point of getting in serious trouble in Kazakhstan.

In any case, State has made significant changes in their hiring process, and is actively looking for people able and willing to serve in the hot zones. However, as with so many other agencies, as well as our beloved military, systemic lasting change comes only slowly and with great pain. That's the nature of any lumbering bureaucracy.


http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/3...khwingslo8.jpg

CSIS, 15 Oct 07: The Embassy of the Future

Quote:

---

The truest test of the value to our nation of the U.S. diplomatic presence abroad is whether the people we ask to represent us effectively promote American values and interests.

Diplomacy is a vital tool of national security. The aim of this report is to make the diplomatic pursuit of U.S. interests abroad even more effective than it is today. Our diplomats and those who support them must have the right tools and capacity to do their work. This is an urgent national priority. Transnational threats, including terrorism, put U.S. citizens and national interests at risk. Potential competitor nations are emerging on the global stage. Anti-Americanism can have lethal consequences for our nation and its citizens. Operating in a higher threat environment is part of today’s diplomatic job. Traditional diplomacy—where government and social elites interact in highly formal channels—is being transformed. U.S. diplomats will still need to influence foreign governments, but increasingly they will work directly with diverse parts of other nations’ societies. The Embassy of the Future Commission envisions an embassy presence in which U.S. officials reach out broadly, engage societies comprehensively, and build relationships with key audiences effectively.

This project is called the “Embassy of the Future,” but “embassy” is meant in a broad sense, of which embassy buildings are only one dimension. The commission underscores that the U.S. presence and our diplomacy are about our people—Foreign Service, Civil Service, Foreign Service nationals and other locally employed staff—and their capacity to carry out their mission.....

---

Complete 88 page paper at the link.