The Foreign Service Journal, May 2011

and the authority of the central gov- ernment. Disputes over land owner- ship were common in Afghanistan because the legal code was a compli- cated overlay of statutes and practices from the time of the monarchy, the So- viet-backed government, the Taliban and the current government. If the statutes didn’t address an issue, the court was supposed to reach a decision consistent with sharia, Islamic religious law. The government had established a special court to resolve land disputes, but it was barely functional. The rule-of-law officer at the em- bassy, a representative from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refu- gees and I met with the chief judge of the Land Court to explain the situation and seek his advice. He suggested that since the local authorities would not allow the matter to proceed, the Haz- aras should come directly to his court. My Foreign Service assignment ended shortly after that, so I don’t know whether the matter was resolved. Ren- dering assistance to foreign nationals in a dispute with their own government, as opposed to helping American citi- zens abroad, was not typical work for most FSOs. However, in Afghanistan it was routine. Not-So-Ancient History In March 1972, I was a young Army officer reporting to my new unit after a year in Vietnam. The message to me and many other junior officers was clear: “Lose the firebasementality. For- get Vietnam and counterinsurgency. Learn how to fight outnumbered and win on the plains of Europe.” We did, but the bitterness of the post-Vietnam years and the desire never to return to such a conflict rele- gated years of experience with coun- terinsurgency warfare to the dustbin. A generation later, the Army had to painfully relearn the lessons of that ear- lier conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, as The Fourth Star: Four Generals and the Epic Struggle for the Future of the United States Army , a 2009 book by Gregg Jaffe and David Cloud (re- viewed in the February 2010 Foreign Service Journal ), recounts. Those of us in the Foreign Service must also not forget what we have learned from past challenges. For in- stance, Career Diplomacy reminds us that the State Department conducted a substantial training program for FSOs headed to Vietnam, but had to scram- ble to put together something for those headed to Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, hundreds of Foreign Service members served in those countries be- fore any training was even in place. Over the past two decades the State Department has gained a good deal of experience in conflict, post-conflict and transition situations. These lessons must be retained and passed on to other FSOs. Some of this is already under way. The Office of the Coordinator for Re- construction and Stabilization leads a corps of specialists drawn from across the U.S. government (most from out- side State) who can quickly deploy to countries experiencing or recovering from conflicts. There are plans for S/CRS to transition into a Bureau for Conflict and Stabilization Operations, which would further institutionalize a capability to bring civilian skills to un- stable areas. Such developments are most wel- come. But in the process, we must not lose focus on the primary responsibili- ties of diplomats, which have not changed. Foreign Service officers must explain the situation in a country or re- gion to Washington policymakers and suggest actions to advance our national interests — and explain U.S. goals to the host government and individual members of the society. They must also seek support for U.S. policies, deal with the media and public, and protect Americans abroad, among many other responsibilities. (Kopp and Gillespie examine these tasks in more detail, as does AFSA’s book, Inside a U.S. Embassy .) Revamping the Assignment System The primary strength individual Foreign Service generalists bring to the conduct of their duties is expertise in a country, region or multilateral institu- tion, including language ability. The sheer number and breadth of technical and transnational issues also require FSOs to acquire knowledge in an ex- panding number of functional areas. The State Department might there- fore be well served by formalizing a sys- tem in which FSOs move between assignments in one or two regions, or between one region and a functional field, for the majority of their careers. This approach would enhance geo- graphic and subject-matter expertise on, for example, multilateral affairs, sci- entific and environmental matters, eco- 14 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A Y 2 0 1 1 S P E A K I N G O U T Even in conflict zones, the basic tasks Foreign Service personnel perform remain unchanged.