The Foreign Service Journal, April 2007

V.P. VOICE: STATE BY STEVE KASHKETT If Only ... I f only we could hire into the Foreign Service just those peo- ple who are willing to go where they are told without com- plaining about their personal preferences, our transition to an “expeditionary” assignment systemwould be so much easi- er. This old-fashioned practice of allowing them to “bid” and have a say in their overseas postings is nothing but an antiquat- ed vestige of the Ivy League old-boy network of the pre-1960s Foreign Service, which used to treat diplomats as specially pam- pered civil servants. All theywant todo anyway is read the news- papers at their desks inParis, have long lunches and go to black-tie cocktail receptions every evening. Diplomats shouldbenodifferent fromsoldiers and, of course, soldiers followorders unques- tioningly. If only we could hire into the Foreign Service just those people who donot have families, wewouldhave so much less to worry about. We would not have to deal with transportation expenses for familymembers, withcon- cerns about unavailability of decent schools, or with elderly par- ents who always seem to be getting sick. We would not have to struggle with disgruntled spouses who whine about the demise of their own careers and complain about job opportunities at overseas posts. We would not have to cope with slackers who avoid war-zone assignments because they don’t want to be sep- arated fromtheir families. Theremust beaway to limit theForeign Service topeoplewithno spouses, partners or kids—in the inter- est of national security. If only we could hire into the Foreign Service just those peo- plewhowant towork in the ThirdWorld, we could reallymove smartly toward a future of pure transformational diplomacy. Honestly, why do we need all these people who specialize in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc.? There is nothing trans- formational goingon in thoseparts of theworld, andwe canman- age our relationshipwith those governments bywatching the Fox Newsworld report, reading the international sectionof the Wall Street Journal and keeping in e-mail contact with the leaders of those countries. In the electronic age, whoneeds career “experts” on Europe living at taxpayers’ expense in London, Brussels and Berlin—don’t we have think-tankswith that expertise anyway? If only we could hire into the Foreign Service just those people who understand that their opinions about U.S. foreign policy (if they have any) should remain private, we couldman- age things so much more smoothly. Don’t they understand that it is the elected leaders in theWhite House who decide policy and that it is not their job to tell their leaders what is actually going on overseas, but to carry out what these leaders have alreadydecided? We need toweedout those self-important, arrogant rank-and-file diplomatswho are laboringunder the illusion that their input onpolicy is somehowneededor useful. Howimpudent of themto think that they knowbetter than our elected leaders just because theyhave livedand worked in foreign countries! They are bureaucrats, not policymakers. If only we could hire into the Foreign Service just those people who belong toandpersonallyembrace theviewsof thepresident’spolit- ical party, we coulddoamuchbetter job sellingour government’s position throughpublic diplomacy campaigns all over theworld. Howcanwe seriously expect ForeignService officerswhobelong to the “other” party to do a credible job selling the administra- tion’s foreign policy to audiences overseas? Those who harbor disagreementswith the president’s party have a tendency to raise a lot of questions andexpress dissentingopinions, sometimes even inpublic. We needmore loyalty anddiscipline in the ranks, and the only realistic way to ensure that is to make the proper party affiliationa requirement formembers of the ForeignServicewho want to serve abroad. Hey, it works well for political-appointee ambassadors! Think this column is unnecessarily overblown andhyperbol- ic? I have heard every one of these ideas expressedby non-career appointees (and even some of our own FS members) over the past 18 months. The future of a broad-based, family-friendly ForeignService inwhichdiplomats play ameaningful role in the formulationof foreignpolicyandare free toengage inopendebate, and even constructive dissent, about thewisdomof various pos- sible courses of action— that is what hangs in the balance. If only we could hire into the Foreign Service just those people who understand that their opinions about U.S. foreign policy should remain private, we could manage things so much more smoothly. A P R I L 2 0 0 7 / F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L 61 A F S A N E W S