The Foreign Service Journal, October 2007

70 F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L / OC T OB E R 2 0 0 7 N ever have ForeignServicemembers received as much training as they do today. Enrollment at the ForeignService Institute—including class- roomanddistance learning—is up62per- cent since 2001. FSI course offerings have increased toover 500per year. Mandatory leadership and management training has been fully phased in. FSI, a facility that seemed half-empty when it opened in 1993, is nowsoovercrowded that some for- eign-language classes have been split into morning and afternoon shifts. Thus, America’s diplomats are receiv- ing more training than ever before. But is it enough training of the right type in view of the needs of 21st-century U.S. diplomacy? And, given our nation’s far greater investment in education and train- ing for the uniformed military, is the rel- ative underinvestment in Foreign Service education and training contributing to an erosion of the Department of State’s role as the lead foreign affairs agency? How the Other Half Trains While some Foreign Servicemembers may question being compared to the uni- formed military, the fact is that the ForeignService personnel systemwas pur- posefullymodeled on that of theU.S. mil- itary. For example, the Foreign Service’s “up-or-out” promotion system, imple- mented in 1946, was based on the U.S. Navy’s personnel system. Because both the Foreign Service and the military work under difficult and often hazardous con- ditions throughout their careers,members of both are allowed to retire with a pen- sion after 20 years of service. As is the case in the military, Foreign Service assignments are heavily influenced by the needs of the Service. For that rea- son, Congress included only the Foreign Service and the uniformed military in a 2003 lawproviding a longer period tomeet the occupancy requirements to qualify for exemption from the taxation of capital gains on the sale of a primary residence. Unfortunately, the similarities between the two personnel systems do not carry over into the area of professional educa- tion and training. Take, for example, the U.S. Army, which I know firsthand, hav- ing spent three years as an armored cav- alry lieutenant 25 years ago and graduat- ing from the U.S. Army War College via a StateDepartment training detail in 2006. The chart belowdepicts theU.S. Armyoffi- cer education system. As the chart shows, Army officers undergoextensive training evenbefore they are commissioned. Upon entering active duty, they attend an Officer Basic Course lasting three to fivemonths depending on career track (e.g., armor, infantry, etc.). At about year five of service, Army officers undergo six months of training at a Captain’s Career Course, followed by the CombinedArms and Service Staff School. Between years four to 17 of service, some officers attend advanced civilian schooling to pursue a master’s or Ph.D. degree. At about year 12 of service, they are assigned to year-long Intermediate-Level Education (formerly called the Command and General Staff Course). At about year 17 A F S A N E W S AFSA Issue Brief With this inaugural edition, we begin a new series of articles that will outline AFSA positions on critical issues. These “Issue Briefs” will run in AFSA News several times a year and will help keep the membership informed about current AFSA priorities. Training America’s Diplomats: Better than Ever, but Is It Enough? HOW UNDERINVESTMENT IN FOREIGN SERVICE TRAINING IS HURTING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY BY JOHN K. NALAND, AFSA PRESIDENT U.S. Army Officer Education System (major courses) Pre- Company Grade Field Grade General Officer Commission (Yrs. 1 to 11) (Yrs. 12 to 29) (Yrs. 30 +) West Point, 4 yrs. Officer Basic Intermediate-Level Capstone or Course, 12-20 wks. Education, 12 mos. 7 wks. ROTC, 2-4 yrs. and and or Captain’s Career Pre-Command Officer Candidate Course, 6 mos. Course, 2-11 wks. School, 14 wks. and Army War College, 9 mos.