The Foreign Service Journal, February 2005

F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 5 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 5 Is the moon always full in Washington? You would think so if you read some of the recent press commentary criti- cizing the Foreign Service and the State Department. The impending change of leadership at State has, like a dinner of bad shell- fish, produced a remarkable secretion of bile, which some pundits have insisted on serving us in their columns. For example, The New Republic ’s Lawrence Kaplan, in his recent col- umn, “Condi Should Tame Foggy Bottom,” writes: “Rice, after all, would be well within her rights to ‘clean out’ the State Department. … There is no reason [the Foreign Service] should not function more like the military establishment, whose professional ethos depends on the principle of strict subordination to political con- trol — disagreements may exist, but once the president arrives at a deci- sion, the matter has been settled. Needless to say, no such ethos ani- mates the ranks of the diplomatic corps ” (my emphasis). In The New York Times , David Gergen says: “Presidents of the past would also sympathize with Mr. Bush’s desire to quell rebellious voices at the State Department and the Central Intelli- gence Agency. For more than half a century White Houses have resound- ed with complaints about the striped- pants set at Foggy Bottom and rene- gades at Langley. Foreign Service officers are particularly out of step with the incumbent president: a rising star in the Foreign Service confided a week ago that on a scale of 0-to-10, colleagues in the Service would give a 9.5 grade to Colin Powell and a grade of 2.0 to the Bush administration. Bringing the Foreign Service on board will be one of the toughest challenges facing Secretary Rice.” In the Boston Globe , Anne E. Kornblutt says: “But Bush had a second, and per- haps more important goal in mind with the selection of Rice, the advisers said: bringing to heel the rebellious voices within the Foreign Service establishment, especially among sec- ond- and third-tier appointees who actually implement policy.” AFSA will have none of this. “Let no cheap shot go unanswered” remains our policy, although lately the cheap shots have been coming fast and furi- ous. We will continue to stand up and fight. We will continue to honor our best (including the dissenters) and will continue making the case, by all means possible, that the Foreign Service is a cadre of qualified professionals who serve the president, the secretaries of our agencies and the American people. Far from being “out of step,” “rebel- lious,” or “the striped-pants set,” we loyally serve our country in very diffi- cult and dangerous places, including Iraq, where our colleagues have recent- ly given their lives. Our men and women need no lessons in patriotismor courage from those urging we should be “tamed” or “brought to heel.” On issues of policy, honest men and women can (and should) dis- agree. Discipline and loyalty remain, however, our core values, and no one questions who calls the shots on America’s foreign policy. But there remain those who, aside from any question of policy, dislike the Foreign Service simply for what we are and what we do: think for ourselves, advise, raise questions, and suggest courses of action. There is little one can do to change closed minds, how- ever, and our service and sacrifices must always speak for themselves. In the meantime — for those who do not care about our devotion to service — as the old saying goes, “The dogs bark and the caravan moves on.” n P RESIDENT ’ S V IEWS The Silly Season B Y J OHN L IMBERT John Limbert is the president of the American Foreign Service Association. “Let no cheap shot go unanswered” remains AFSA’s policy, although lately the cheap shots have been coming fast and furious.