The Foreign Service Journal, November 2013

Another great issue! Thomas Boyatt, Susan Johnson, Ronald Neumann andThomas Pickering deserve kudos for continuing tomake the case regarding the deterioration of the Foreign Service’s role inmanaging U.S. foreign policy (“The Case for a Professional For- eign Service,” September FSJ ). The data the authors use to show the decrease in Foreign Service officers occupying senior- level positions certainly seem indisputable. For those arguing against their thesis, I would simply quote the late Senator Dan- iel Moynihan, D-N.Y.: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” What the implications are may be debat- able, but that is precisely what the authors are calling for: a debate. I am dismayed at some of the “water cooler” talk about this issue emanating from some of my colleagues who engage in knee-jerk reactions without focus- ing on the authors’ main points. While I have come to terms with the apathy in our ranks regarding AFSA’s efforts to promote the Foreign Service, the out- right hostility by some is shocking and depressing. I call on all my colleagues to heed the authors’ clarion call by contributing to an intelligent discussion about the issues they have raised. After all, this is your organiza- tion and profession. WilliamBent FSO U.S. Embassy Kabul Fix It! During her four years as AFSA’s leader, Susan Johnson thoughtfully devoted several of her President’s Views columns to exploring attributes of a military career that could be helpful in strengthening the Foreign Service. For instance, titles, characterizing rank, are everything in the armed forces, from image to assignments. 10 NOVEMBER 2013 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL Every military officer has a personal title regularly used before his or her name. This is how each one is known, both inside and outside the service. Inmy opinion, all Foreign Service officers likewise deserve a personal title, not just a number. This should be used regularly in communications and included on their security badges. The Foreign Service Act of 1980 authorized titles for its senior officers; regrettably, these are seldomused. These, along with appro- priate new titles for non-Senior Foreign Service personnel, would reflect pride in a diplomatic career. Ms. Johnson also usedmany of her col- umns to highlight unmet challenges pro- gressively eroding traditional strengths of the Foreign Service and stifling the morale of its career officers. I’m therefore pleased to see that she is continuing that effort after leaving office, in concert with TomBoyatt, Ron Neumann and TomPickering, in their September article, “The Case for a Profes- sional Service.” Considering the authors’ impressive professional experience, however, I was disappointed that nowhere in their article do they offer specific steps to reverse the deterioration they describe. True, in their final paragraph they cite Secretary of State John Kerry’s Foreign Service background, and declare: “We believe he is well placed to lead a fundamental re-evaluation, and trust he will do so expeditiously.” That assessment is accurate, of course. But taking into account the relevance of his family andmilitary background, and his years in the Senate, one can readily imag- ine Secretary Kerry charging his senior staff to “Fix it! I’ll help when you needme.” John Fry Minister-Counselor, retired Annapolis, Md. n