The Foreign Service Journal, October 2010

O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 7 Training for the Future The Journal deserves high praise for its May issue, which presented a rich collection of articles on the future of our foreign affairs establishment. The article by Ambassador Edward Marks, “The Next-Generation Depart- ment of State Project,” broke new ground on imaginative and construc- tive ways to reorganize what has sadly become a sclerotic machine. Like many of my contemporaries, I had nostalgically hoped for a salvaging of the traditional structures we loved so well. But it is now clear that these will not meet the challenges of the 21st century. As always, the great conun- drum seems to be training; its lack forces us to rely on the spotty process of mentoring. Since we have not generally sought to recruit new officers who managed to prepare themselves broadly before en- tering the Service, it would seem wise to consider creating a diplomatic school to provide all entry-level per- sonnel with at least a year of graduate- style training before they undertake their first assignments. Robert F. Illing FSO, retired Porto, Portugal Down with “Up or Out” I greatly enjoy AFSA FAS VP Henry Schmick’s informative columns in AFSANews on the origin of the For- eign Service’s “up or out” personnel sys- tem. His reporting and analysis confirm my belief that it is time for the foreign affairs agencies to get rid of this system. The U.S. government’s application of military practices to civilian employ- ment is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding. An “up or out” sys- tem makes sense for the military, be- cause its job is to fight and win armed conflict. Anything else is secondary to that mission. The battlefield is an un- forgiving workplace. Military officers assume a great deal of responsibility upon commissioning; the most junior officers are personally responsible for dozens of men and women and hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment. Young adults in their early 20s make life-or-death de- cisions in combat. Young commanders lead troops into battle, because after a certain age most adults acknowledge their mortality and become more cau- tious. The military is generous with train- ing for two reasons: a) you want your warriors to be as keen as possible when war breaks out, and b) you want to keep them busy when it hasn’t. In contrast, Foreign Service officers do not assume equivalent responsibil- ity until much later in their careers; rarely face the dangers of combat; sel- dom, if ever, make life-or-death deci- sions; and need less training because they are actually doing what they were hired to do instead of getting ready to do it. This is not to say that training is not necessary — simply that FS train- ing needs are fundamentally different. The problemwith the misguided re- tention of the Foreign Service’s up-or- out system, particularly the time-in- service requirement, is that it forces good, competent officers out just when they have themost to offer, including the wisdom that comes with experience. Demographic changes over the last 60 years dictate a review and revision of an outdated system if we want to en- sure the best Foreign Service for the 21st century. Steve Huete Agricultural Counselor Embassy The Hague For the (Congressional) Record It is with great fondness that I read Edward Alden’s article, “Remembering Mary Ryan,” in your June issue. I felt, however, that it did not do full justice to this incredible public servant. So I would like to offer an additional per- spective on Ambassador Ryan’s respon- se to the 9/11 attacks, as well as her role following the August 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Though Alden’s article makes a passing mention of the 1998 bombings, it does not show the true impact this dreadful moment had on our Foreign Service and our institutional family, in- L ETTERS