The Foreign Service Journal, June 2004

J U N E 2 0 0 4 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 7 The DG on Iraq Service To suggest, as Peter Rice has done in his March letter to the edi- tor, that employees who have served in Iraq might not receive equal treatment in assignments or for promotion “considering the dis- dain of some (perhaps many) FSOs toward President Bush and the Iraq War” is unfair and unwarranted. The independence of selection boards, governed by precepts nego- tiated with the American Foreign Service Association, is a fundamen- tal element of the Foreign Service system. Those precepts are clear and stress that creditable perfor- mance under unusually difficult or dangerous service is a particularly relevant criterion for promotion. The department, mindful of the special challenges involved, also has made a point of counseling and assisting employees serving in Iraq with their onward assignments. The department’s employees, moreover, do not seem to share the apprehensions of the retired officer who wrote the letter. Their response to the call to service in Iraq has been remarkable. So far, more than 200 persons have filed more than 1,000 bids on approxi- mately 140 positions. These men and women will build on the out- standing work done by their prede- cessors and enjoy the respect and recognition of all of us at home and abroad. W. Robert Pearson Director General of the Foreign Service Washington, D.C. Our Foreign Service & Iraq I have two points to make about Peter Rice’s March letter, “Disin- centives for Iraq Service?” First, he has spent too much time listening to the critics of the Foreign Service: those who falsely claim that the Foreign Service disdains issuing visas, that the Foreign Service disdains ser- vice at hardship posts, and that the Foreign Service disdains those who do both of the above. I don’t know whose Foreign Service Mr. Rice is writing about, but it isn’t ours. Our Foreign Service has logged more than 1,000 bids for the fewer than 200 positions posted for the new Baghdad embassy. Not bad for a group of employees Mr. Rice claims disdains serving there and elsewhere in a world increasingly difficult and dangerous. Secondly, Rice seems to think the Foreign Service is based on incen- tives and bonuses. He seems to think that we need an incentive to serve at a hardship post, some sort of assur- ance that there is a bonus in our future, whether that is a promotion or an assignment to what some Hill staffers call “cushy” posts like Paris or Canberra. That’s not our Foreign Service. Here the desire to “serve the country” still burns brightly and the condition of being worldwide available is accepted and understood. What Rice ignores is the powerful incentive of an opportunity “to do something important for our coun- try,” as Hume Horan wrote in the same issue. Finally, I want to disabuse Rice and other critics of the notion that there is no meaningful work to be done in Canberra, Berlin, Rome, Brussels or Paris. If there were not, then why are our missions in these allied capitals so large? The answer is inescapable: important diplomacy is being conducted there. Promotions are based on perfor- mance. Promotion decisions are made by our Foreign Service peers. It is insulting to suggest that they will not give equal consideration to our colleagues who have served in Iraq or Kabul. So, whose Foreign Service did Mr. Rice serve in, anyway? Louise K. Crane Acting President American Foreign Service Association Washington, D.C. L ETTERS