The Foreign Service Journal, February 2005

diplomat, you’re a “softie” (who might even talk and listen to foreigners), so you need to hide the “diplomacy” word; it’s better to be a soldier; State doesn’t know how to train leaders, and needs to take the Army’s linear approach so we can be more like them; and, the Foreign Service, with tin cup in hand, is the military’s “junior part- ner” in the war on terrorism. Ultimately, the military rhetoric and analogies degrade our profession. We are diplomats, not “lieutenants.” If I wanted to be a lieutenant, I would have joined the armed forces. Our primary job is to prevent war, not implement it. Is there something wrong with that? It’s definitely less expensive for U.S. taxpayers. Overseas, we primarily work in embassies and consulates, almost always understaffed, sometimes in very dangerous places and civil war zones. However, we do not work on the battlefield “front lines.” We may have the same ultimate goal, U.S. national security, and can work together in many areas, but we do have a different mission than the Department of Defense. Let’s not hide who we are and what we do just to placate particular members of Congress and the media. If the Con- gress does not want to fund diplomacy nor see its value, it can deal with the consequences of those actions. Then we’ll all be on the same sinking ship. Ralph Falzone FSO ConGen Milan v So Obviously Kind and Human I was working in the Operations Center during Secretary Powell’s historic and extremely stressful F O C U S 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 57 Our primary job is to prevent war, not implement it. Is there something wrong with that?