The Foreign Service Journal, October 2006

OC T OB E R 2 0 0 6 / F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L 73 A F S A N E W S V.P. VOICE: STATE BY STEVE KASHKETT The Elephant in the Room T he Foreign Service is struggling to adapt to the newworld of increasingly dangerous conditions andunaccompanied postings. The Secretarywants us to concentrate on “trans- formational” diplomacy in difficult places and hot spots. The director general has implemented a series of far-reaching mea- sures to refocus our assignment systemonhardship service over- seas. We have all participated in endless discussions, debates and negotiations over these changes. But there is a reluctance to talk openly about what is looming behind all this: the threat of direct- ed assignments. Of course, we all joined the Foreign Service on the assump- tion of “worldwide availability,” and we all understand that the department has thepower, in theory, toorderus to take anyassign- ment anywhere. But, in practice, this is a solution of last resort that the State Department has very rarelyhad to employ. In themore than 30 years since the end of the Vietnam War, the combination of incentives, career development requirements and adeeply ingrained senseof duty among FSmembers haveproducedcandidates for even the most unpleasant assign- ments. While some people may have neededabit of extra encouragement or arm-twisting, our voluntary bidding systemhas always worked. Thewars in IraqandAfghanistan, the growing terrorist threats in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and the deepening hos- tility toward Americans at many other posts have changed that. In just a few short years, we have gone from a few dozen unac- companied positions worldwide to nearly 800, almost half of which are in the two active war zones. For a Foreign Service of about 11,000, it is a challenge to produce a new crop of 800 vol- unteers to go unarmed to dangerous postings away from their families every summer. The department is nowstarting to acknowledge the elephant in the room. The director general and other senior officials are openlywarning that directed assignmentsmight be on the hori- zon, particularly for theProvincial ReconstructionTeams in Iraq. I disagreewith thosewho think this couldbe good for the Foreign Service, making us more like the military. We are not the mili- tary either by background, temperament, training or skill sets— nor is any other country’s diplomatic corps. Directing people against their will into assignments in war zones would be disas- trous for the Foreign Service. Any systemfor determiningwhichForeignServicemembers get tapped for ordered assignments to Iraq would have serious drawbacks, particularly if the objective is to get our best, most qualifiedpeople to serve there. Here are some of the choices that have been bandied about in the corri- dors of State and overseas: Fair-share candidates: Identifying employees who have not served in a hardshippost in recent yearswouldpri- marily target peoplewhose personal sit- uations make them least suited for the most dangerous, extreme hardshipduty, and it would innoway guarantee that people with any particular qualifications for Iraq would be chosen. Arabic speakers: Concentrating on Foreign Service mem- berswhopossessArabic language and regional experiencewould put pressure on the very segment of the Foreign Service that has already served in Iraq in the greatest proportion. Aswehaveheard frommanyof thesepeople, thatwould strain the staffingatmanyof ourother vitally important posts in theMiddle East. Employees without families: Taking family situations into account when making assignments to a war zone would be unfair to unmarried employees, discriminatory, andquite possibly illegal. Randomlottery: Selecting those fordirectedassignmentsbased on a purely randomprocess would ignore all of the above crite- ria andwould be the least sensible approach to getting ourmost qualified members to serve in Iraq. Moreover, any directed assignment schemewould inevitably lead to the “WhyMe?”phenomenonamong the targetedemploy- ees, resulting in bitterness, a sense of unfairness and an endless series of formal grievances. Those who end up serving against their will aremore likely to do sowith a less healthy attitude and lowermorale andpersonalmotivation than someonewhomade achoice tovolunteer. Many seniormanagers intheForeignService have confided toAFSA that the last thing theywouldwant at our most difficult,most dangerous,most stressful posts is an employ- ee who was ordered to go. If the department decides it needs to take the exteme stepof directing people into assignments indan- gerous places, we at AFSA look forward to being consulted and involved in a process of developing fair, objective and transpar- ent criteria by which the targeted employees will be identified. There is no escaping the conclusion that encouraging volun- teers — by any means necessary — is far better than directing people to serve unarmed inwar zones. Ultimately, this is the lens throughwhichwe shouldall viewthemanyproposednew incen- tives, career development requirements andchanges toour assign- ment system. There is no escaping the conclusion that encouraging volunteers — by any means necessary — is far better than directing people to serve unarmed in war zones.