The Foreign Service Journal, October 2003

Fine Fiction I finished reading the summer fic- tion issue (July-August) last night and want to congratulate you on your selections and the authors on the qual- ity of their stories. I enjoyed and was impressed by all of them. This issue is a treat and inspiration to the many writers the Foreign Service experi- ence produces and, I hope, to others as well. Mary Cameron Kilgour USAID FSO, retired Gainesville, Fla. Misrepresenting USIA Officer Corps Wilson Dizard’s article about the U.S. Information Agency (“Remem- bering USIA,” July-August) has some interesting anecdotal material but suf- fers from an egregious error. He describes the USIA officer corps as “by and large, a pick-up crew that got its training as propagandists on the job. As such they were exceptions to the traditional Foreign Service officer pattern. Most came from media industries (and) several were Holly- wood actors.” This superficial and uninformed description does a great injustice to the career officer planning in the USIA that began under the first USIA director, Theodore Streibert, and was carried on during the agency’s history, especially while Lionel Mosley was head of personnel. USIA had a commitment to career officers, including a junior officer pro- gram promoting diversity and talent. USIA officers were given career status by the president and the Congress in the mid-1960s, thanks to the efforts of Director Leonard Marks. I am disappointed that Wilson Dizard would treat career officers so superficially and saddened that the Journal ’s editors did not pick up on this destructive gaffe. R.T. (Ted) Curran FSO, retired Washington, D.C. USIA Standards Wilson Dizard egregiously misrep- resents USIA personnel in his article when he talks about “a pick-up crew ... trained on the job,” characterizing them as an exception to the pattern of Foreign Service officers. This is patently false. I joined USIA in 1960 via the exact same Foreign Service examination required of State FSOs. On joining, I went through a rigorous training process, some of it with State Depart- ment counterparts. The pedagogy could be challenged, but not the seri- ousness and professionalism of the training. In 1969, I was asked by the direc- tor’s office to undertake a study of atti- tudes of younger officers to determine if USIA had a “generation gap,” and to make recommendations for revising the assignment and training process. Again, training was a subject taken seriously and USIA invested in innov- ative changes in both junior officer and mid-career training. Over my 36 years of service, USIA maintained the highest standards in recruiting and put special emphasis on training. My final tour was on the fac- ulty of the National War College, where USIA training and experience were highly respected and where USIA students stood out in that excep- tional crowd. I find it lamentable that you allowed your respected journal to be the vehicle for Mr. Dizard’s insinu- ation to the contrary. Robert L. M. Nevitt FSO, retired Washington, D.C. Don’t Trash Dissenters I hope that David Jones just got up on the wrong side of the bed the day he wrote his attack on the three FSOs who resigned over current administra- tion policies (June “Speaking Out”), and that it does not reflect a perma- nent attitude on his part. Although resignations rarely have much effect on policy, and the loss of talent and experience that they represent is regrettable, it is refreshing to find from time to time that there are offi- cers out there who are prepared to sacrifice a rewarding career over mat- ters of principle. Jones’ “good rid- dance” attitude and his insinuation that these officers were drones and time-servers (which they clearly were not) are way off base. Any knowledgeable person who is not a GOP party loyalist and who is not deeply concerned about where the neo-cons have led this administration in the Middle East and elsewhere — or who thinks the situation in Iraq is under control, as Jones seems to — must be asleep. Whether that concern is deep enough to warrant resignation is very much a personal decision. I would recommend against it, but then I no longer have the task of defending L ETTERS O C T O B E R 2 0 0 3 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 7