The Foreign Service Journal, January 2008

W here to begin? I thought of being cute: “It was the best of times; it was theworst of times…,” but quick- ly dropped the idea because nothing qualified for the former. As I write in mid-November, all of AFSA’s energies are being directed to explaining to a confused public the ratio- nale behind the Foreign Service’s personnel assignment system. Although the story has a happy ending, for now, it’s worth retelling. For those few retirees who may have missed the brouhaha over directed assignments, I’ll boil it down: In order to staff Embassy Baghdad and the Provincial ReconstructionTeams— described by Secretary Rice as our most important diplomatic mission in the world—with some 250 of the Service’s best (to meetAmbassadorRyanCrocker’s request), the StateDepartment, relying on its traditional and tested systemof assigning officers basedon voluntary preference, came up short of the needed 252 by some 48 volunteers. Sec. Rice declared that unless a suffi- cient number of FSOs stepped forward by late November, the department would be forced to direct that number of assign- ments to Iraq, a management tool last resorted to during the VietnamWar nearly 40 years ago. Unfortunately, news of the Secretary’s decisionwas first seen on the front page of the Washington Post , causing a furor with- in the Service. In order to calm the waters, the director gener- al hosteda townmeeting. The gatheringbecame a testy exchange between the DG and the audience of some 300 FS employees about the necessity of directing assignments to what one — repeat, one—career officer injudiciously described as a “poten- tial death sentence.” Unknown to the participants, an Associated Press reporter was present and immediately filed a story highlighting the death sentence comment. The AP report flashed across the country, igniting a torrent of comment that generally put the Foreign Service in a bad light, especially when its voluntary assignment systemwas compared to the uniformed military whose mem- bers are routinely ordered into harm’s way. In the rush to comment on the Foreign Service assignment system, the media, with few exceptions, focused more on the sensational than on the factual. In the days following the town meeting, AFSA President John Naland and State VP Steve Kashkett faced a barrage of inquiries from the media, the pub- lic and AFSAmembers. The task before TeamAFSA, working nearly around the clock, was to educate an aroused public to the inherent equity and discipline of our assignment system as e-mails flew, phones lit up and TV and radio interviewers swooped down on them. Through it all, AFSA stood squarely behind both the State Department’s right toassign its employ- ees where they aremost needed and FS employees’ rights to express their pref- erences in this regard. An uncomfort- able straddle? Not at all. The record is clear: over the past 40 years, the Foreign Service assignment system has successfully and con- tinually staffedover 260diplomaticposts around the globe. Many of these, including Baghdad, are in highly dangerous environ- ments. Over 1,500 FS personnel have already voluntarily served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 200-plus volunteers had already stepped forward to fill next summer’s quota of 252. In the days immediately following the townmeeting, anoth- er 19 officers stepped forward, thus reducing the shortfall to just over 10 percent of the total needed. Pretty good numbers if you look at the system over- all: 90 percent of posi- tions filled. The current worldwide staffingnorm is only about 80 percent. Within two weeks, enough volunteers had stepped forward to fill all 48 Iraq positions. Therewould be no directed assignments after all! Much ado about nothing? Yes, but for the fact that the nos- trils of critics of the Foreign Servicewere (and I suspect still are) fully flaredby this unhappy episode. JohnNaland’s essay, “Telling Our Story,” lays out the arguments for rebutting these critics as cogently as I’ve seen. (See www.afsa.org/101707presupdate. cfm.) Perhaps tellingly, Karen DeYoung’s report on the cancella- tion of the directed assignments exercise in the Nov. 16 Washington Post , concludes: “While the controversy is expect- ed to subside for now, internal strains over personnel shortages and policy are likely to reappear as long as Iraq continues to be a dangerous diplomatic assignment and todrain resources from other posts.” Several members of TeamAFSA vented their frustration to me that retirees were not heard from in this “worst of times” for the Foreign Service. They said retirees could have provid- ed an invaluable perspective on the Service to local media out- lets across America. Some of us did speak up, but perhaps too few. Others even joined in the FS-bashing by echoing charges we were hearing in the media. Next time, fellow retirees, let’s do better at defending our own. V.P. VOICE: RETIREE BY ROBERT W. “BILL” FARRAND Defending Our Own J A NU A R Y 2 0 0 8 / F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L 63 A F S A N E W S Unfortunately, news of the Secretary’s decision was first seen on the front page of the Washington Post , causing a furor within the Service.