"Prime Candidates for Iraq"

[TROUFION]

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

[Rob Thornton]

You got to love that image of somebody "venting" anger and frustration - it sounds so diplomatic

I read Monday that we'd scaled back our diplomatic mission in Azerbaijan because of unrest and it made me think. Given what these FSOs would likely be doing in Iraq - working at the Green Zone, or on a large FOB possibly going out to do some PRT work if they are of the caliber I've known a few to be (vs. trying to do it from inside the FOB - few of those out there too), they would probably be safer with service in Iraq or Afghanistan then in some of the other places we're at. It may just be my mindset, but if you are in a place where you are conscious of the danger, and have the tools around you to mitigate it, then you are better of then being in a place that offers a permissive environment to terrorists, narco-traffickers, kidnappers, organized crime, health risks, etc., but one in which you are ignorant of the dangers and blind to reality.

The world is a dangerous place, and I'm not sure its getting any better. So if you are an FSO and your objection is that DoS is handing out death sentences because its sending you to do your job in Iraq, I'd recommend you reconsider your line of work - maybe take a job with a beltway think tank, work from your house, start up an Internet business or something along those lines with lots of insulation from the dangers of the real world.

Also - these guys are not just getting their GS pay - they are getting that and then some. I'd recommend State start heavily recruiting at the military job fairs, and offering training and good $$$s for those who have served abroad to come in serve abroad again - we're pretty understanding types so we acknowledge that the word "foreign" in the job description means we'll serve where needed, not just where we'd like.

Best, Rob

[skiguy]

I'd recommend State start heavily recruiting at the military job fairs

and at AMU.

[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.

[Rob Thornton]

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.

I have learned a few things over the last few years that seem to apply on and off field:

1) The shortest distance between 2 points is not always a straight line
2) A direct head-on approach often gets bogged down or turned and results in allot of flash/bang, but no real change
3) Subversion from the inside is often a more subtle, economy of force way of doing things

The changes we need to occur are are across the broad spectrum of our Inter-Agency - the world changed some for us, and if we don't figure out and reflect how it changed we're putting ourselves at a disadvantage (you an also get it wrong - just changing is not enough - we've got to get it more right then wrong). When I see the arguments that were made public at the AFSA meeting, it seems to me they also have a culture that resists change - we had that long thread on adaptability where we discussed how change occurs in the military - DoS is having the same issues. I've know some incredible talented and sacrificing folks at DoS, but I've also known some duds who had the highest sense of over self importance I've ever seen. They'd probably say something similar about us. It'll be interesting to see how their adaptation to the things proceeds. We can only hope they get it more right then wrong.

Best, Rob

[Jedburgh]

An opinion piece by a retired FSO and CORDS vet in the Nov 07 FSJ:

Caution: Iraq is Not Vietnam

....Civilian Foreign Service personnel should never be used as “totems” — symbols of a decision by our government’s most senior political officials that every element of the U.S. government must be represented on the battlefield in order to signal our determination to do whatever it takes to win.

Foreign Service officers are not combat professionals, and no amount of training in combat skills, weaponry and self-protection will ever enable them to be more than hostages to luck in a combat environment. As such, they will also never be more than a burden on those military and security forces who have to protect them, and they are unlikely to be able to significantly assist in postwar reconstruction and the transition to democratic institutions in the countries where they serve.

Assigning Foreign Service professionals to such environments does not demonstrate commitment on the part of our government so much as a lack of sound judgment. Nor does it send a signal that this administration intends to win in Iraq and Afghanistan. It merely endangers lives — and not only those of Foreign Service personnel, but also those of the military and security forces who have to protect them.

[Brian Hanley]

I guess the argument could be made that with one of Blackwater's primary tasks being protection of foriegn service personnel that they are quite the diplomatic liability. Hmmm. Hadn't thought of it that way, but it certainly makes sense.

I did a quick stat that suggests life in Iraq is pretty close to as survivable as life in the USA for foriegn service.

3/2000 (approximately 2000) foriegn service workers over 5.5 years of war have died. That's about 28 per 100,000 per year.

According to CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_19.pdf (scroll down to death rates by age and sex) the 35-44 year old age group has a 400 deaths per 100,000 rate from all causes. If you look at table 18, you see that 56 deaths per 100,000 are to be expected from all causes of injury. (Using the lower age adjusted figure rounded down to be conservative.)

That indicates that foriegn service personnel are probably significantly safer in Iraq than at home.

[goesh]

yeh - I thought mortaring the green zone had become less a fad than previously. I think they should have to sleep wearing those goofy looking, bare helments, painted OD

[Surferbeetle]

The FSO Team that I worked with in Iraq was outside the wire everyday, spoke the language, had practical suggestions, and were able to implement some solid ideas. My assessment was a thumbs up.

[jcustis]

This is definitely a dead-thread resurrection, but I just finished reading an advance copy for review purposes of Ghost: Confessions of a Counterterrorism Agent, and in the heyday of state-sponsored terrorism, diplomats had many occupational hazards abroad.

As I read details of hit-team assasination attempts, snatches off of the streets of Beirut, etc., I routinely asked myself the rhetorical question: Have the dips forgotten their history?

[Jedburgh]

MSNBC, 29 May 08: A Special Appeal from Secretary Rice

....the Human Resources bureau at the State Department has been reviewing a list of diplomats that are up for assignments in 2009 to find those who are "particularly well-qualified" to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the coming months, those individuals will be contacted "to encourage them to volunteer," the official said.

There are an estimated 300 slots for Iraq that need to be filled for 2009. State Department officials say they are hopeful that enough volunteers will surface to avoid these so-called "directed assignments."....

[sandbag]

I have some experience with State in this regard. The ones I've met either:

1) are strictly academics, who want to work only in diplomacy-related, office-type stuff, or

2) want desperately to be Agency guys, but filled out the wrong application. There truly is no greater Hell than having a 23-year-old Georgetown grad with a goatee and earring teach a senior NCO or officer a soldier's trade.

That said, there are exceptional State guys, and I've found most of their senior field people to be great problem solvers and quite competent. It's the younger ones that scare me. I can only assume they have the same problems we have with our younger folks. It still doesn't explain the "what-do-you-mean-I-might-actually-have-to-go-overseas?" mentality I sometimes bump into on the Beltway. I see it in my own Army, so it does not surprise me to encounter it in other Government agencies, I guess.

If I'm wrong, someone please tell me. It seems the problem is not only the agency's (State) operations, it's the people who are employed by State. Do they have the experience but aren't volunteering for foreign service? That's kind of what I'm getting from reading much of this.


Not to be snarky, but if you got hired as a FSO, where do you expect to work? From home?
It just appears half, or perhaps more, of the problem is that the people who are needed most just aren't volunterring to go.

Like I said, if I'm wrong or completely misunderstanding this, tell me.

[Jedburgh]

Foreign Service Journal, Jun 08: Who is the Total Candidate? FSO Hiring Today

....To gain a comprehensive picture of the changes being implemented, the Journal spoke with officials in the Bureau of Human Resources, the Office of Recruitment, Examination and Employment, and the Board of Examiners. We also followed online discussions among the two exam Yahoo Groups, corresponding directly with more than a dozen FSO candidates — nine of whom have taken both the old and the new tests....

....In part because the new hiring process is being initiated during a time when the demand for people to serve in Iraq is putting a strain on the whole personnel system, some FSOs have assumed that the changes were being made to fill Iraq jobs. But there does not appear to be a direct connection: all incoming FS personnel agree to worldwide availability, which is nothing new. That said, staffing demands for Iraq, and to some extent Afghanistan, do dictate that many officers joining today will need to serve there.

More generally, the number of unaccompanied postings has risen dramatically, from about 200 a few years ago to over 900 positions today (generalist and specialist positions combined). Incoming FSOs should probably expect to serve in an unaccompanied post at some point in their careers, and directed assignments to war zone posts are not out of the question. State may now need many more so-called “expeditionary” diplomats, but HR tells the Journal that the examiners do not select on that basis.....