The Foreign Service Journal, June 2014

44 JUNE 2014 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL STATE VP VOICE | BY MATTHEW ASADA AFSA NEWS Views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the AFSA State VP. Contact: asadam@state.gov | (202) 647-8160 | @matthewasada (Twitter) Post-Benghazi Security I am concerned. Not so much by the world, and the events of Sept. 11—2001 and 2012— but by our institutional response to them. President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Today I worry about how the State Department’s fear of another Benghazi is impacting the Foreign Service. I recently attended two events featuring Cameron Munter, our former ambas- sador to Pakistan, and Gerry Feierstein, our former ambassador to Yemen (April 7 Open Forum, on bnet: 1.usa. gov/1n40K0U; and AFSA’s March 25 event: bit.ly/AFSA Mar25). Both presentations are worth viewing as we think about this question: Does our collective response to Benghazi threaten to make the Service less knowledgeable about the world, less effective on the ground and, ultimately, less influential with the host country and the United States government itself? Earlier this spring I visited colleagues serving in Kabul and Islamabad. It had been three years since I last vis- ited, and several more since I served there. I wanted to see current conditions and hear from members about the effect of the security environ- ment on their professional and personal lives. Front Office Leader- ship. In both posts I found an employee workforce that was appreciative of the front office’s efforts to educate employees on the current threat environment, accom- modate their travel and movement requests, and ensure the mission was suffi- ciently resourced to manage the security programs. Employees and supervi- sors found the Regional Security Office’s section- specific outreach briefings especially useful in helping to develop, evaluate and priori- tize their own travel requests. A New Normal? At the same time, several employ- ees expressed concern about the increasing “militariza- tion” of our diplomatic pres- ence, reflected in everything from the language used to describe travel (Is this mission-critical? or mission essential?) and the equip- ment used to do it (armored vehicles with Blue Force Trackers) to the Tactical Operations Center monitor- ing of employee movements. Several senior officers wondered about the long- term effect on the Service of a generation of officers and specialists who have grown up knowing nothing other than this “new security normal.” Chief-of-Mission Author- ity. I left both countries thinking more about the question of chief-of-mission authority. One of the effects of Benghazi seems to be increased departmental reach into what were previ- ously COM decisions. For instance, travel requests that previously could be approved in the field now require approval fromWashington’s 7th floor. The “value added” of this “non-tariff” travel barrier should be examined and better communicated to those on the ground. Housing. Kabul and Islamabad are the depart- ment’s two largest overseas building projects. They include new embassy office buildings, annexes and resi- dential housing. While there is universal support for residential hous- ing in Kabul, not everyone is convinced of the wisdom of on-compound housing in Islamabad. Does it make sense from an operational and policy standpoint, as Cameron Munter asks, to introduce a “membrane” of concrete and barbed wire between the diplomats and the popula- tions they are sent overseas to engage? The policy of transition- ing to off-compound group housing and, ultimately, on- compound housing in Islam- abad is worth discussing. The security concerns may indeed outweigh professional concerns, but we need to have such a discussion—and we need to have it with AFSA, the employees’ representa- tive, at the table. Training. Since Benghazi, AFSA has focused on pro- tecting the employee’s ability to engage and advocated for the language and security awareness training to safely do so (see the December 2013 FSJ ). The administra- tion and Congress have rightly improved the “hard” security of our diplomatic facilities overseas. However, more needs to be done on “soft” security (i.e., engage- ment and training). This year, for the first time, the State Depart- ment authorized posts to language-designate positions for personal security reasons. Efforts are also under way to provide more Foreign Service employees with language training, especially specialists, in accordance with Benghazi Accountability Review Board recommenda- tion #15. AFSA is excited about the additional training capacity and possibilities offered by a new Foreign Affairs Security Training Center site in Ft. Pickett, Va. The proposed eligibility expansion and curriculum revision of the department’s signature counterterrorism course (FACT–OT-611) and the development of a new course focused on “doing diplomacy in tough places” are more steps in the right direction. Together we will need to work through these tough questions. I look forward to engaging with you in the discussion. Next Month: Bidding and 360s