The Foreign Service Journal, November 2012

10 NOVEMBER 2012 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL LETTERS Tragedy in Benghazi Much remains to be learned about the Sept. 11 attack on our mission in Bengha- zi that resulted in the loss of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Resources Officer Sean Smith and two former Navy Seals. But Foreign Service history during the 1980s might serve as an important reference point in any review. Specifically, events at two posts where I served during that period, Beirut and Moscow, ultimately led to the creation of the Diplomatic Security Service. They also brought about major institutional changes through what became known as the Inman Commission, directed by Secretary of State George P. Shultz. While I was on temporary duty in Bei- rut in 1983, massive truck bombings took place at our embassy and, later, at the U.S. Marine Corps barracks. The latter tragedy demonstrated the vulnerability of U.S. government buildings to a new, uncon- ventional style of terrorist warfare. A few years later in Moscow, a poten- tially devastating loss of critical national security information from KGB-bugged embassy typewriters, as well as other fac- tors associated with our Marine security guard detachment’s “Corporal Lonetree” saga, served as another major operational security wake-up call. Like the tragedy in Libya, both setbacks reverberated all the way to the White House. The Inman Commission’s 1985 recom- mendations called for radical modifica- tions to physical, procedural and elec- tronic security at every U.S. diplomatic post around the world. These altered Foreign Service operations and security regimens more than any others in the his- tory of the State Department. As important as those changes were, a quarter-century later they may seem to be ancient history. But their ramifications and the reasoning behind themmight still hold meaning for us today. I sincerely hope that the State Department treats the Benghazi tragedy not just as a loss of national treasure and blood, but as a clear sig- nal that the time has come for another thorough assessment of our global security posture. A close review of events before, during and after the attack should be a priority. As the department reassesses the level of security appropriate to the cur- rent operational environment, so that Foreign Service operations can continue to promote America’s interests in a more dangerous world than ever before, per- haps an “Inman Commission II” would be helpful. Timothy C. Lawson Senior FSO, retired Hua Hin, Thailand Fixing Employee Evaluations While I agree with Tyler Sparks that our evaluation system would benefit from some changes (“Overhauling the EER Process,” September Speaking Out), I see those changes as tied more to the need for a culture of leadership in the State Department than the fact that, on average, we spend 15 hours on each employee evaluation report. As an Air Force veteran, I can attest to the fact that ranking employees against their peers and guarding against grade inflation do not necessarily promote the best and weed out the worst. What does achieve those objectives is a clearly defined and closely followed set of core values. Sparks cites the Marine Corps rating system as a possible model, but this sys- tem would not be very effective without the vision of the officers and enlisted personnel trusted to administer it. In contrast, the State Department often avoids the charge of leadership by promoting a “manage up” culture, which creates territorial, unnecessarily competitive junior officers, impo- tent mid-level officers and inert supervi- sors. The Bureau of Consular Affairs has dedicated more time to the study and practice of leadership than any other bureau in the State Department. Consular leaders hold themselves, their peers, subordinates and superiors accountable for the proper management of people and resources by means of the leader- ship tenets they have carefully developed, continue to hone and have shared with other bureaus. The department should not only fol- low CA’s lead, but take it further by devot- ing itself to the study and pursuit of good leadership. Again, that is what distin- guishes our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. It should be what distinguishes us, as well. John Fer FSO Washington, D.C. Defining Dissent The September Journal contained a use- ful review of an interesting new book by Professor Hannah Gurman: The Dissent Papers: The Voices of Diplomats in the Cold War and Beyond , a serious study of our profession and its central profes- sional practices. There is much of interest in the book, such as the lucid discussion and description of the central professional role of reporting and writing. Gurman’s