The Foreign Service Journal, September 2019

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | SEPTEMBER 2019 29 tional damage. But perhaps most important, a migrant worker from Bangladesh who makes $300 a month is healthier and safer and has a better future for this accomplishment. No other diplomatic service in the world can touch so many people, in so many places. When we evacuate or close posts, this is the type of “preventive diplomacy” that gets eliminated. We weren’t always so averse to risk. In 2003 the Nogal social club in Bogotá was bombed by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. It was three blocks from the ambassador’s residence. Thirty-six people died, and hundreds were wounded. Tragically, a children’s recital had just finished. Two embassy personnel had just finished a meeting and departed the prem- ises. Within hours after the attack, American personnel were on the scene to assess the situation. U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire- arms experts arrived fromWashington in two days and scraped evidence off neighboring buildings. No one in Washington discussed evacuating or ordered any departure; but as ambas- sador, I offered anyone the option to curtail. Two people out of a 1,000-person embassy took me up on it. Instead of pressing me to send more people home, then-Management Under Secretary Grant Green asked me why I had allowed people to curtail, say- ing they should remain in Bogotá “and do their duty.” The repercussions of withdrawing overseas are subtle and gradual. A review process to justify our overseas presence was instituted in the Obama administration; it was useful but not sufficient. We need an honest conversation within the State Department, with Congress and with the Central Intelligence Agency and DOD about the implications of our presence over- seas. We can’t prevent conflicts, export our products, protect our citizens or improve human rights if we aren’t there. In the May 2015 Foreign Service Journal , James Bullock, writing after his temporary assignment to Tunisia, made the point eloquently that “staying safe” cannot be our highest priority. Our highest priority must be to advance the interests of the United States with a knowledgeable, aggressive and consistent presence overseas. n