The Foreign Service Journal, May 2007

a call to patriotism,” he says. “I don’t believe we can just keep offer- ing more money.” And, he notes, it’s a call to patri- otism that the Foreign Service has answered many times before. As a result, he says he has every reason to believe FS personnel will meet the challenge yet again. He sees no crisis in the making. Far from it. In fact, Staples notes that the Foreign Service’s attrition rate for entry- level officers in 2006 was 2.3 per- cent, low by any standard, inside government or out. Meanwhile, applicants for the Foreign Service exam remain a large, highly accomplished group. Any hardship the shift to transformational diploma- cy is causing is worth it, Staples argues, because the new diplomacy will not only help ensure America’s safety in the face of an ongoing war on terror, but will also enrich Foreign Service members’ careers. “Rather than being worried about things like this, if I was a young officer starting out again, I’d jump at the chance to get out and run my own operation far from the embassy, with a lot of independence,” he says. Those already at work, particularly on the Iraq and Afghanistan Provincial Reconstruction Teams, are showing just how successful the Foreign Service can be. “The work is quite demanding but quite rewarding as well. It’s real nationbuilding,” says Staples. Notwithstanding the DG’s able cheerleading, many Foreign Service personnel view the whole notion of transformational diplomacy as flawed at its core — and not just because it’s hard to see it truly changing areas of the world long hostile to democracy. It also places Foreign Service members in harm’s way in situations where they cannot do the work of diplomacy. Looking at what is going on in Iraq, many ask, “How effective can our people be in a war zone?” “How much can an unarmed diplomat accomplish?” Consider the Iraq Provincial Reconstruction Teams, for instance. Their ramp-up was long delayed over a fight with the Defense Department over who would be responsible for their security. Although a compromise has been worked out, it is still reasonable to ask whether the risks are worth the gains. Kashkett and others argue that effective transforma- tional diplomacy will require a sub- stantial infusion of resources. “The Secretary has asked that we all become ‘first-class managers of pro- grams,’ yet we have few programs to manage in many parts of the world,” he says. “In the absence of substan- tial new initiatives designed to pro- mote reform and democratic change, we will be repositioning people in ‘transformational’ coun- tries without giving them the tools to effect real change.” Meanwhile, many in the Foreign Service note that they are still expected to carry out all of the core tasks of traditional diplomacy and embassy service. As Kashkett wrote in the April 2006 issue of this magazine: “We still need our political, economic and public diplomacy offi- cers to function as the eyes and ears of the U.S. govern- ment in those countries, meeting with a wide range of ‘insiders’ and doing expert reporting and analysis of vital developments there. We still need them to deliver Washington’s steady stream of démarches to host gov- ernments, argue the U.S. point of view, and transmit their replies. We still need them to negotiate a wide range of bilateral and multilateral issues, deal with prob- lems that arise in the bilateral relationship, and prepare the endless reports required by the department or by Congress (human rights, narcotics trafficking, terrorism, Mission Program Plans, etc.). We still need them to babysit the endless high-level visitors, including frequent congressional delegations.” Many in the Foreign Service disagree with those who suggest that an embassy’s role in managing bilater- al issues and cultivating relationships with the various ministries of government — and with opposition par- ties, labor unions and prominent journalists — is no longer so necessary in an era of rapid communications. Experienced diplomats believe those functions will remain the core of any U.S. mission’s activities over- seas. “An often-heard fear these days,” notes Kashkett, “is that the Foreign Service will have fewer and fewer George Kennan-style activist-diplomats — who become genuine experts in a region of the world and play a major role in the formulation of policy — and instead will be transformed into a civilian equivalent of the military rapid-reaction force.” F O C U S 26 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A Y 2 0 0 7 This isn’t the first time Foreign Service personnel have done their patriotic duty in a time of war, and it won’t be the last.