"Prime Candidates for Iraq"

[MattC86]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/...s_iraq_embassy

"WASHINGTON - Several hundred U.S. diplomats vented anger and frustration Wednesday about the State Department's decision to force foreign service officers to take jobs in Iraq, with some likening it to a "potential death sentence."

I see an argument to allow and call for more Military Officers and Enlisted to take many of these jobs AND it should be done on a 'seconding' format. A military officer or enlisted should be able to volunteer to fill one of these unfilled billets and be seconded to the DOS, meaning DOS pays the salary of the military personnel at the GS rate. This would no doubt be a substantial pay raise. This would not be a drain on the services since the target audience would be middle level officers and more senior enlisted which are not the critically short ranks. This could be scene as a b-billet as in the Marine Corps. IMHO. --T

Depending on what exactly what jobs you're suggesting military personnel take over, I strongly disagree, and here's why.

The problem with USAID in particular, and State political, economic, and agricultural experts in general, at least in terms of their track records in Africa and elsewhere, is that they are painfully inflexible. While NGOs have been quick to adapt to local conditions and modify their aid or assistance programs, USAID (again, in the past - not sure how they've been the last few years, but I've heard bad things) has a well-earned reputation from the days of Structural Adjustment Policies for being ideologically rigid and stubborn. The SAPs essentially said to recipient nations, "our way or we're hitting the highway with our money."

In order to be successful, economic development programs, particularly with respect to agriculture, must be tailor-made for local conditions; thus a combination of local cultural expertise and economic experience. While military personnel with experience in Iraq may be adaptable, flexible, and skilled, I doubt they will have the prerequisite skills that State really needs right now.

That said, after extolling the adaptability and flexibility of NGO aid or development organizations, I still don't think they're the answer unless we can subordinate them somehow to a unified command.

Matt

[Old Eagle]

at the temper tantrum at the FS town hall. It validates what many of the foreign service's detractors have claimed for decades -- that the FS is a group of effete snobs. While I don't hold that view myself, it's probably time for a purge in the FS, so only motivated foreign policy experts remain.

While I am still officially working on the precept that the FS needs to be expanded and made more robust, there may indeed be a place for culling the herd. Cut the FS back to about 10% of its current strength, let those volunteer for posts in places like Paris, London and Tokyo, under the supervision of politically appointed ambassadors. They could go to all the parties and write mindless reports on exchange rates and the number of remaining endangered animals. Then open up all of the remaining difficult posts (Oh! I might get a hangnail!) to "seconded" military folk. Might also help the officer retention challenge on the other thread. I would make a dandy ambassador in a small to medium-sized country (think Estonia).

The fact of the matter is that the FS is filled with tough, dedicated and talented professionals. They need to be singled out for advancement, while the wusses need to be eliminated. They must not be rewarded with cush jobs while the pros embrace the suck.

[Rob Thornton]

I have it on good authority by a buddy who was on a PRT that the $$s to be made are:

Over base pay for the FSO:

25% hazzardous duty
25% locality
Deployment bonus incentive ranging from 12-80K

I hear their cap is at 200K

We need to start pitching this to guys making the decision to leave the military - employing them by DoS will help shape the DoS culture to something that works within the policies proscribed by the elected officials vs. believeing that the elected folks should shape their policies around the views held by folks who don't want to deploy.

The suggestion that only those FSOs in agreement with policies in Iraq should have to go is bordering on treasonous IMHO - certainly its insubordiantion. We take the King's schilling - we often do things we may not agree with on a personal level - that is just the way it is.
Best, Rob

[goesh]

- if duty and committment is good enough for the troops in tents, it's good enough for State weenies in the green zone and I may well be speaking for a large segment of the tax paying Public here

[Norfolk]

I have it on good authority by a buddy who was on a PRT that the $$s to be made are:

Over base pay for the FSO:

25% hazzardous duty
25% locality
Deployment bonus incentive ranging from 12-80K

I hear their cap is at 200K

We need to start pitching this to guys making the decision to leave the military - employing them by DoS will help shape the DoS culture to something that works within the policies proscribed by the elected officials vs. believeing that the elected folks should shape their policies around the views held by folks who don't want to deploy.

The suggestion that only those FSOs in agreement with policies in Iraq should have to go is bordering on treasonous IMHO - certainly its insubordiantion. We take the King's schilling - we often do things we may not agree with on a personal level - that is just the way it is.
Best, Rob

Rob, this sounds so, so subversive...of the way things are handled at State: I like it. Radically transform the Department from the inside, by infiltrating military professionals into its ranks.

Wouldn't that come as a shock to sensibilities in certain quarters. The conduct of US Foreign Policy would certainly undergo some changes in due time.

Although competition for the Paris postings (at the wives' behest) might lead to the employment of a little more aggression towards such an end than some Foreign Service types are accustomed to.

[John T. Fishel]

The Foreign Service is on a different pay scale than the Civil Service although pay is roughly comparable (as it is with military pay - key word is "roughly"). GS 15 is roughly equivalent to FSO 1 to O6. Big differentials in locality pay, overseas pay, hazardous duty pay, etc. as Rob pointed out.

The Foreign Service, like military officers, is commissioned service with the USG, unlike the Civil Service. As a result, the SECSTATE as always had the authority to direct assignments just like the military. It has been a long time since any Secretary exercised that authority until now.

That said, there are many members of the Foreign Service who are willing to go anywhere their country needs them. Witness the high success rate in getting volunteers for both Iraq and Afghanistan as well as for PRTs. Clearly, there are plenty of wimps as well but we shouldn't tar the whole bunch with that brush.

Regarding USAID: My experience with them has generally been positive in spite of rules that in previous times appeared to preclude cooperating with the military. Still, we in Southcom, were able to work with reluctant AID guys in many places - in El Salvador we had an SF CPT assigned to the AID mission in 87 and 88 with a lot of success. But Matt, as far as SAP goes, the problem is not in AID but rather in USG policy which AID, like State, is charged with executing. BTW, structural adjustment is/was not all bad. It worked well in some countries and badly in others. I should say I am not a fan and haven't been one for over 40 years but the real question is why it works or doesn't work. Where it works, as in Chile, what made it successful? Why doesn't it work elsewhere? Subject for much research that needs to be undertaken without ideological bias IMHO.

Cheers

JohnT

[TROUFION]

mATTc86-- I dont disagree with you that professional area expert FSO's should be filling these jobs, but the point is most are unwilling. Those that have volunteered have done well in most cases. But they are too few. The idea of 'seconding' military folks (along with sending them to schools like the Naval Postgrad, Civilian University or the FS Institute for training) would be a cover our behinds right now move. Bottom line there are not enough FSO ready to roll. There are military professionals willing to take their place and they are ready to learn as well as execute.

BTW on a monetary front 'seconding' would require the paying of base military pay augmented by the equivalent GS pay and bonuses, with the cap still hitting 200k.

-T

[skiguy]

TROUFION, I agree with what you are saying on one hand, but disagree that it should only be military or prior military personnel. There are civilians out there who are going to school for one reason and that's to do this type of work. It pisses me off, not only that they went public with their crying, but that there are so many working for DoS now who are unwilling to do their job. It would piss me off more if they wouldn't hire me or let me go because I "only" have a BA and no experience whatsoever in foreign service. Train me! I want to go. I want to serve my country. It's the reason I am going to school.
If I ever get a job at State or somewhere else, I'll volunteer the first time they ask.

I regret 2 things in my life: that I started school so late (but I'm doing it now) and that I didn't reenlist when I had the chance. Of the many reasons I regret the latter, one is because I could have gotten foreign service experience and would have a better chance of getting a job. I guess I'll just have to work that much harder.