The Foreign Service Journal, February 2006

Baghdad, Paris and Incentives Having served briefly in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I read Steve Kashkett’s remarks in the November 2005 AFSA News (“A Painful Family Quarrel”) with interest. For the record, I have not been promoted lately and am currently serving in an assignment that was not even on my bid list — I went largely for the T- shirts. Kashkett appears to be taking a toned-down version of the approach that Louise Crane took when she held the State VP position. I find myself somewhere in the middle of this debate. Kashkett is right that brief service in war zones should not be a means to rehabilitate an otherwise faltering career, but wrong to argue that service in places like Iraq and Afghanistan should be treated no differently than Paris or London. To begin with, these “super-hard- ship” postings are different because the places tend to be understaffed and most people there are in stretch assignments working around the clock. Like it or not, people there will simply be doing more than their peers in more routine assignments, and it will show. The nature of the work will also generally look better to a promo- tion panel. It is difficult to dress up the delivery of a demarche, however important, so it will read as well as helping form local councils or setting up a ministry. Service in Iraq and Afghanistan is also different because of the simple hardships, the most important of which is the inherent danger that has led to three of our members being killed. Iraq isn’t the only place in the world where one can get killed, of course, but is among the most likely. And the situ- ation will probably get worse before it gets better. I can’t imagine rational people being willing to take these kinds of risks knowing that the rewards are no different than if they had stayed in Paris. As for bidding, ever try making a case for a job from Khandahar with nothing more than a Hotmail account and a Thuraya phone as tools? Remote bidders do need some help, maybe even some preferential treat- ment, to be competitive with the well- connected folks on the 6th and 7th floors. Where I would personally like to see AFSA spend its effort is in part- nering with the administration to try to help the State Department as an institution adapt to this new environ- ment, rather than just nipping at man- agement’s heels along the way. Yes, it was good to lay down markers that three months in Baghdad shouldn’t lead to a promotion and a cushy fol- low-on assignment, but now what? How do we fill the 700 unaccompa- nied jobs that Kashkett wrote about in his October column? How do we step up to the plate to fill the new Iraqi provincial reconstruction teams, or other Iraq assignments, most of which have no bidders? And most impor- tantly, how do we sustain all this over time, especially given that the well of people willing to go is fast drying up? A few ideas come to mind to help facilitate our meeting the challenge. Tacking on a super-hardship assign- ment at the end of an overseas tour in a way that allows family to stay in place would make such tours more palatable for some, as would allowing families to reside in nearby friendly countries. Also, going back to six- month tours as the norm (with incen- tives to remain for 12 months), while less operationally effective, is far more sustainable over time. Until recently, it was the standard for peacekeeping missions, even for entire military units. Finally, giving quotas to bureaus would change the current environment, where officers are often punished for volunteering, to one in which management breathes a sigh of relief that its levy has been filled. This is the kind of dialogue I would like AFSA to have with management: a productive, helpful dialogue about how we step up to this ever-expanding plate. Keith W. Mines FSO Embassy Ottawa Don’t Diss DS The diatribe against the Bureau of Diplomatic Security by retired FSO Stephen Muller (Letters, December 2005) contains numerous errors that propriety insists be corrected. Pay issues aside, Muller’s description of a Diplomatic Security Service agent as merely “sitting outside a hotel room” does a grievous disservice to our ded- icated corps of agents. They are there to protect the life of the Secretary of State and safeguard the area from unauthorized visitors, crime and ter- L ETTERS 6 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 6