The Foreign Service Journal, September 2007

The Case for Mid-Level Entry In my brief (untenured) tenure as an FSO, I have been impressed with AFSA’s forthright advocacy on issues pertaining to the independence and well-being of the Foreign Service. However, Ambassador J. Anthony Holmes’ reiteration of AFSA’s stiff opposition to a mid-level entry pro- gram (President’s Views, April) strikes me as short-sighted and detrimental to sound recruiting. I will not deny that my discomfort with this position stems partly from my own experience. While I under- stood when I entered the Service that I would have to pay my dues as a “junior” officer, it is, of course, some- what galling to me that my decade of work experience — including six years in the reconstruction field with the United Nations — and my rather expensive master’s degree are all but meaningless as I begin my new career as a U.S. diplomat. Needless to say, I am not alone in harboring a sense of frustration about spending four years or so as a JO (or “entry-level officer,” as the career development officer team prefers). For example, the average FSO in my A-100 class has 10 years of work experience. Many of my A-100 peers have impressive experiences under their belts in the military and inter- national organizations, as well as in private-sector settings, where they honed many of the skills necessary for diplomacy. I believe that many of the “older” entrants to the Foreign Service have no objection to spending a couple of years or so on “probation.” Similarly, many of us are probably more than happy to serve in consular and other sections outside our cone for extend- ed periods of time. But I suspect that the State Department would be better served by introducing a system that permitted experienced profes- sionals to join the Foreign Service at “mid-level” positions. First, such a shift in policy would provide the department with a wider pool from which to select mid-level officers for important management and operational positions. Second, it would significantly increase the de- partment’s ability to attract recruits with 10 or more years of relevant ex- perience. Many talented majors and captains retiring from the Army, for example, are reluctant to consider a career in the Foreign Service because of the requirement to start as a junior officer. Certainly a depressingly large number of the more talented classmates from my master’s program were unwilling to consider the Foreign Service because of this requirement. I applaud AFSA’s longstanding efforts to maintain merit-based re- cruitment processes and to stand guard against any politicization of the Foreign Service. However, I strongly believe that opposition to a properly conceived mid-level entry program is counterproductive and undermines the department’s ability to attract experienced professionals, not least those with qualifications in the fields central to “transformational diplo- macy.” Ludovic Hood FSO Arlington, Va. Rereading Roman History I would normally let Ambassador Thomas Boyatt’s June letter, respond- ing to Foreign Service Journal Editor Steve Honley’s March review of the book Imperium: A Novel of Ancient Rome , go by without comment. How- ever, I found it not just devoid of sub- stantive merit but gratuitously offen- sive, as well. Where to begin? We all know that “European” has been a cuss word ever since Donald Rumsfeld told us so, and that “literati” is even more laughable than “intellectuals.” But do we need European literati to bash a president whose support among plain folk back home is plummeting daily? With respect to ancient history, I do not understand why Romans whose lands had suffered devastation a few generations earlier would for that reason be inured to attacks by Mediterranean pirates. Were Ameri- cans less moved by 9/11, or should they have been, because their great- grandfathers had experienced Pearl Harbor? Such highly dubious and strained propositions make one suspect that the multiple horns currently goring Bush’s ox might also have pierced those standing too close by. Leaving history and erudition aside, Boyatt’s imperious swipe at the New York Times for having published a poten- tially controversial op-ed piece is silly enough. But he unwittingly pays Mr. Honley a richly deserved compliment by lumping the Journal in with the Times with regard to journalistic quality and editorial policy — by which I mean management, not view- point. S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 7 L ETTERS