The Foreign Service Journal, November 2007

N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 7 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 7 Another Insulting Homecoming I was part of the first team of DS agents to volunteer for a one-year assignment in Iraq to assist with the transition from the Coalition Pro- visional Authority to the U.S. em- bassy. We served from 2004 to 2005. In November 2006, I retired as a special agent with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Since then, I have been reading with a great deal of interest newspaper articles and State Department notices regarding the special incentives that are being offered to encourage Foreign Service employees to volunteer for high- threat posts such as Iraq and Afghani- stan. I wish to applaud the department and AFSA for their efforts on behalf of employees/members and their will- ingness to initiate innovative pro- grams that range frommodified salary caps to counseling services to treat Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Compared to the package current- ly being offered to department employees who volunteer for service in Iraq, the original Iraq Recognition Package was rather meager. How- ever, I should note that those of us who stepped forward did so out of professionalism and duty, and not for monetary gain, promotion or onward assignments. Unfortunately, our return to the U.S. was reminiscent of the welcome I received when I returned from Vietnam. The only recognition of our sacrifice was a notice from the State Department that they had overpaid us and wanted their money back. To emphasize their point, we were also advised that should we contest this matter, we could face criminal pro- secution. I know this issue is old news, but what is unconscionable is the fact that even after State admitted that the mistake was its own, it still demands repayment. The department main- tains that even though the new salary cap was implemented during the time we were in Iraq, it did not apply to us because we did not get paid for those hours until 2005. Other DS agents and I have been contesting this action since April 2005. AFSA represented us at the initial hearing, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association has now taken over the case. In the event that the ruling should go against us, we have secured legal representation and are prepared to take the matter to federal court. I find it perplexing that the de- partment initiates new programs for those willing to serve in high-threat posts, while at the same time continuing to treat those of us who responded to the initial desperate call for volunteers with disdain, bureau- cratic stonewalling and contempt. It is my ardent hope that those dedicated State Department employ- ees who volunteer to put their lives on the line do not have to face the same homecoming that we did. Richard E. Lubow Diplomatic Security Special Agent, retired Herndon, Va. Historical Ironies: Tehran & Peking Ex-hostage Moorhead Kennedy’s “The Boxer Siege: A Precedent for the Iranian Hostage Crisis” ( FSJ, September) is a welcome piece of his- torical writing. The parallel between his detention by the Iranian students together with 51 embassy colleagues and the 1900 legation siege in Peking (now Beijing) is replete with ironies. For instance, Kennedy notes that it was the 1980 invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein that paved the way for the release of our colleagues in Tehran the following year. However, Kennedy overlooked some tragicomic ironies related to Pe- king. In 1900, the U.S. was an un- abashed imperialist power with a garrison of 150,000 men who fought local “insurrectos” (freedom fighters) in the newly occupied Philippines. From there, a regiment was deployed to Peking under a German com- mander in chief of the allied forces. After the legation siege was lifted, U.S. troops went on a search-and- destroy mission. They were about to blast with artillery the Wu Men (South Gate) of the Forbidden City in order to engage Chinese defenders, L ETTERS