The Foreign Service Journal, May 2011

I have a friend who swims competitively. She can outswim most people in any pool, using any stroke. But she is terri- fied of deep ocean water, and never wades into the ocean beyond her waist. Years after we reopened our embassies in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is becoming evident to AFSA that not every- body is equally suited to serve in such posts. There are Foreign Servicemembers who thrive on the excitement and challenges of these assignments. There are also excellent FS members who cannot or should not serve in them. And then there are the less excellent colleagues who have rapidly reached a“Peter Principle” level as a result of war-zone service. At any post, having the wrong person in the wrong place can hamper efficiency. In Iraq,Afghanistan or Pakistan, it can compromise the safety of the individual or others, and cause lasting harm to psyches, families and careers. Some problems can arise early, while others (like Post-Traumatic Stress Dis- order or related issues) might not surface until years after the employee has moved on. Service in these posts symbolizes a high degree of com- mitment to the profession. AFSA had recommended to the Bureau of Human Resources that the department ask themil- itary to include the FS in their civilian medal of service pro- gram. Their initial negative response should be reconsidered. But service in such posts should not be used as a test of devo- tion, or as a required career stepping stone. Nor should it be rewarded in ways that hamper the careers of those who do not go. Unwillingness to serve in an unaccompanied or war- zone post should be respected as a sign of mature self-aware- ness, not as a lack of esprit de corps. It is time for the department to take further stock of these issues, and to separate war-zone service from career advance- ment and assessments of devotion to the Service. The de- partment should worry less about incentives, motivation, promotion preferences and identification of personnel to fill slots, and worrymore about the downside of encouraging (in some cases virtually forcing) employees to go where they are not prepared to go. This means, in part, publicizing more completely the dif- ficulties of life at these posts—moving beyond the brown-bag lunches tomore visible programs on B-Net and greater detail in bidding materials. It alsomeans improving the preparation given to employ- ees bound for war zones, as well as returnees and their fami- lies, and expanding that training to include all managers everywhere who might supervise or interact with such indi- viduals and their family members, whether on any onward assignment or inWashington. Inmany cases, the department has already developed good courses and programs, but these should be made better known and mandatory, and funded accordingly. Existing options include courses and videos for family members and couples, a course on working with returnees from Iraq and Afghanistan, and a course called “Leading in a High-Threat Post.” The Family Liaison Office maintains a blog called Foggy Bottom Rambles (http://foggybottom rambles.blogspot.com) th at discusses FS members’ experi- ences at unaccompanied posts. For its part, theOffice of Med- ical Services has substantially improved its ability to identify and help employees with PTSD and stress-related injuries. Families should not only be invited to some courses (as they already are in some cases), but spouses and partners should be required to attend as part of the employee’s prepa- ration. Ongoing support should be provided to familymem- bers left behind, including children. Because PTSD and other injuries can take a year or more to become manifest, State should also pay greater attention to returnees, providing knowledge, counseling and peer support wherever the em- ployee may be posted next. A PTSD self-assessment, already available, should be made mandatory for a number of years after service in such posts. Serious, transparent and verifiable procedures must be es- tablished to ensure that employees who seek help — or who simply acknowledge that they overestimated their tolerance for hardship and stress—will not face any career or security- clearance impediments as a result. More than a promise by management, this should include documentation of whole- person reviews and disciplinary consequences for sharing em- ployee medical information outside of MED. It should also include consequences for supervisors who ignore or discour- age requests for assistance. Ultimately, the success of our mission in these challenging countries depends on the qualifications and cohesiveness of our teams. Team members should be carefully selected and trained, and supported both during and after their war-zone service. M A Y 2 0 1 1 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 67 A F S A N E W S The Better Part of Valor V.P. VOICE: STATE BY DANIEL HIRSCH