The Foreign Service Journal, March 2004

went something like this: “Did you see the promotion list?” “Yes, and did you see that ‘so-and- so’ made it into the Senior Foreign Service?” “I did. You know, I just don’t understand why the department wastes SFS positions on admin types.” My wife and I knew the “so-and- so” who was promoted, so we found the conversation quite funny. It was a perfect example of how our political and economic cone “colleagues” view management and consular officers. Just imagine what they must think of the lowly specialist. Another illustration: I was serving in Guangzhou, China, where the con- sular section processed all of the immi- grant visa applications. Several people on the embassy shuttle we rode to and fromwork each day bandied about the term “substantive officer” when talk- ing about themselves. After listening to this, one of the junior officers com- mented that if political and economic officers were to refer to themselves as “substantive officers,” then admin and consular types should refer to them- selves as “functional officers,” because they actually do something. The term “substantive officer” disappeared from the conversation after that suggestion. Kenneth R. Yeager Contracting/Executive Officer Regional Procurement Support Office Frankfurt CORRECTION: Due to a pro- duction error, a line was inadvertently dropped from George Gedda’s article, “Latin America: Back on the Radar Screen?” (January FSJ , p. 57). The full sentence should read as follows: “Honduras and El Salvador each dis- patched 360 troops to assist the U.S.- led coalition in Iraq, while Nicaragua sent 120.” (The article is posted on our Web site, www.afsa.org.) M A R C H 2 0 0 4 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 9 L E T T E R S ,