The Foreign Service Journal, May 2019

44 MAY 2019 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL As I’ve come to reflect on the matter in the light of my own 25 years in the Foreign Service, Ambassador Fischer may have understated the point: the constant interplay with the culture and politics of a new country; the inevitable collisions with its idiosyncrasies and inanities; the daily interactions, official and personal, with the language, people and institutions; not to mention the intensive relationships with embassy or office col- leagues, colorful and colorless and everything in between, the composition and configuration of which changes at least once every year—these things and more give us a huge leg up on most academics. Most, not all. The ones who spend their whole lives study- ing one country or issue have us beat, at least as far as that one country or issue goes. For my part, I can’t say I know more about Japan for having a formal master’s degree in the subject than I do about, say, Malaysia or Brazil, to take two concrete examples frommy own Foreign Service experience. I spent three fasci- nating years posted in each of those countries, living, eating, working, reading all I could, watching TV and listening to the music, traveling from time to time and speaking with people in meetings, on streets, in restaurants and stores almost every day. Sometimes we give ourselves too little credit. The Importance of Hierarchy At the same time, I agree with Fischer’s view of the Foreign Service as a kind of cousin to the military, if a puny-sized one. For starters, we often work side by side with our uniformed colleagues on different but overlapping parts of the same mis- sion: the pursuit and defense of U.S. national interests. And disciplined self-restraint is an integral part of a diplomat’s daily life and work, too. One political ambassador I worked for came to admire that quality of Foreign Service culture most of all. You can’t just say what you really think at any given moment, no matter how right you think you are. For one, who cares what you think, and who should? And what good would it do? Or rather, imagine the possible harm! (“Foreign Minister X really is a horse’s ass. You know it, I know it, and the whole damn country knows it!”) Beyond that, as one who once vaguely believed that freedom and the absence of rules were roughly coequal, I’ve even gained an unexpected appreciation for the importance and utility of hierarchy: of understanding where responsibility lies, where decisions are made and from where actions can flow. After all, diplomats are also actors, not just observers, in the political drama. We consciously seek to shape the reality of the world, not just describe it. This fact gives us a level of responsibility that academics generally do not have, and that makes our work more—in the literal sense—consequential, at least potentially. Hierarchical order and even bureaucratic structures are meant tomaintain the discipline and clarity of information that orderly decisions and (hopefully) rational actions require. That said, I also have to admit that, like many others, I’ve found the rigid hierarchy and labyrinthine bureaucracy of the State Department down- right mind-boggling at times. As I findmyself telling some of the younger or less experienced officers who have sought my career counsel, you take the good with the bad and try tomake the best of both. A Note of Caution When I asked Ambassador Fischer about the potential pitfalls of the career, I remember him sounding one note of caution in par- ticular. He warned that some Foreign Service officers fall into the trap of mistaking their official position with themselves, confusing the office with an intrinsic component of their individual identity, believing they have rather thanmerely hold power or influence. This confusion causes them to become arrogant, to think that it is really about them, to believe that foreign government officials or journalists or other luminaries seek them out for their magnetic personality or penetrating insight or movie-star good looks rather than because they happen to represent the United States of America as Foreign Service officers. Dance the dance as best you can, he said, but never forget the reason why you’re on the floor to begin with. I’ve thought of Fischer’s caution every time I’ve chanced upon an officer stumbling smugly into that seductive trap. At the same time, I’ve seen less of this problem than I might have anticipated, and I’ve even noted a certain erring on the other side of the confidence divide. Some colleagues have seemed to me not assertive enough at times—reluctant to request a meeting with a given senior official, to speak more forcefully to their knowl- edge on a sensitive point or to rebut some foolish provocateur’s unfounded allegation with appropriate gusto. In response, I’ve found myself reminding my colleagues and myself that it really is not about us, and therefore we ought not to let our personal insecurities get in the way of our commitment to pursuit of the national interest. Avoiding haughtiness is well and good, no argument there; but as far as I’m concerned, undue diffidence can be as pernicious as misguided arrogance. Funny how the mind works—I now recall Ambassador Fischer saying about himself in passing way back then, and in connection with I forget what: “I can come across as brash,” he said, hesitating a moment before continuing, “probably because I am brash.”