The Foreign Service Journal, January 2013

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JANUARY 2013 33 There is a general consensus that this cannot continue, but no agreement on how to deal with the situation. The prudent working assumption must be that the overall federal budget will be reduced and that the international affairs budget (150 Account) will be reduced in parallel. In short, the foreign affairs agencies are faced with a transi- tion characterized by increasing missions and—at least poten- tially—decreasing personnel. We know from experience that this is a prescription for failure. In the transition following the implo- sion of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia (1989-1995), the foreign affairs agencies were reduced by 30 percent even as they staffed 20 new embassies and took on attendant new missions. State and USAID continued to operate with too few person- nel for the next two decades. Staffing shortages became a personnel crisis with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the subse- quent civilian surges in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2008 the American Academy of Diplomacy, supported by the Stimson Center and funded by the Cox Foundation, pub- lished A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future , calling for 3,500 additional positions in the State Department Foreign Service and 1,200 in USAID. In the final quarter of 2008, the Academy engaged in intense consultations with both election campaign staffs, relevant congressional committees, and the State Depart- ment transition team in support of these recommendations. The Foreign Service must have the smart power capabilities to succeed in the missions assigned by the president and Secretary of State. Now, more than ever, the United States needs to be fully engaged in all areas of the world.