The Foreign Service Journal, April 2008

A P R I L 2 0 0 8 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 13 T he fallout from the recent debate about possible directed assignments to Iraq and other conflict zones is continuing and seri- ous. For the American public, and certainly Congress, the staffing de- bate plunged the Service into disre- pute not experienced since Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s “witch hunts” in the 1950s. This view is shared by many retired and active-duty colleagues who, since the onset of hostilities in Afghanistan and, more importantly, Iraq, have pri- vately criticized State’s political lead- ers and management officials for not putting the department on a “war footing” to respond to the inevitable and growing demands. AFSA has two responsibilities in such a climate. As the employees’ rep- resentative, it must protect the inter- ests of the Foreign Service, which extend far beyond the involuntary assignments controversy. And as a professional organization, it must inform and lead the Foreign Service in the national interest. Thus, AFSA should be more point- ed in disassociating itself from any sentiment indicating that the Foreign Service is disloyal to the administra- tion, or that its members are unwilling to serve in conflict areas or other high-risk situations. As part of that campaign, AFSA should also exercise leadership to educate Foreign Service personnel concerning their responsi- bility to serve anywhere, anytime. In the larger public debate about Foreign Service staffing, AFSA and its members should not neglect one of the major factors, if not the major one, contributing to the current problem: the hollowing out of the Service dur- ing the 1990s. As former Foreign Service Director General Edward “Skip” Gnehm has described very elo- quently on National Public Radio, the Foreign Service is still paying the price for those draconian reductions, which quickly led to extraordinary personnel and budget reductions, combined with accelerated time-in- class retirements throughout the 1990s and into the new century. The elimination of the U.S. Infor- mation Agency and associated deci- mation of public diplomacy capabili- ties, and the ongoing stripping-away of USAID expertise, have accelerated this march toward debilitation of the foreign affairs agencies. It is not enough to say that person- nel at all levels and in all specialties must rise to the challenges of the post-conflict situations and compen- sate for the under-resourcing of the Foreign Service. Bear in mind also that the concept, sponsored by the Defense Department, to create a sin- gle “National Security Officer” corps would subsume the Foreign Service as we know it. There is also a duty, as reflected in the statements of U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, for the Foreign Service to provide the right people, as well as sufficient numbers of them, to perform the tasks deemed necessary by our chiefs of mission, both in crisis and non-crisis areas. This is not a matter of politics, choice or opinion polls: the Foreign Service has a duty to respond. Planning for the Future To help recover from the public relations crisis, as well as deal with future assignment demands, AFSA should present a comprehensive agen- da, in concert with the Foreign Affairs Council and other organizations, to reorient State’s management and to obtain critical budgetary and other support within the Bush administra- tion and on Capitol Hill. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has pro- vided major rhetorical support for revitalizing the Foreign Service, but much more needs to be said and done by the department’s top leaders. I don’t hear a lot of speaking out to opinionmakers and the American public. It is time for AFSA to mount a concerted effort to correct past defi- Needed: A Foreign Service Agenda B Y A LPHONSE F. L A P ORTA S PEAKING O UT AFSA should pursue a comprehensive agenda to reorient State’s management and to obtain critical budgetary and other support.