The Foreign Service Journal, December 2007

recruitment merely perpetuates the “old boy” system and the flawed mentality that only years of corps service bring competence and success. We need to modernize and accept the changes in the U.S. labor market of the last 25 years, and AFSA should support efforts to do so. Ralph Falzone FSO Embassy Hanoi Getting the Best Ludovic Hood makes a well- reasoned and convincing argument for a mid-level FSO entry program in his September letter. Many other officers also feel that there is a lack of avenues and enticements available for talented acquaintances and school- mates with a raft of professional experi- ences to enter the Foreign Service. The pleasure I took in seeing ques- tions raised, often off-hours in print, was matched only by the shock of learning that AFSA has actually made it a policy to oppose any such pro- gram. American diplomacy is sorely in need of the best minds and the best leaders possible. Now, more than ever before, government must compete with highly prestigious and well- compensated business and academic positions. The plain truth is that for successful investment bankers, think- tank advisers, lawyers or military personnel contemplating a new career in foreign affairs, the prospect of spending four years with no oppor- tunity to take on the challenges for which you signed up, or respon- sibilities similar to those from where you came, is a non-starter. New hires — the lifeblood of any organization — should be given reasons to join the Foreign Service, not disincentives. I would like very much to hear AFSA’s rebuttal to Hood’s persuasive case for instituting a mid-level entry program. It would appear that only tenured, middle-level FSOs who could not compete with entrants from the private sector would have anything to fear from such a program. Mid-level hiring worked for the Foreign Commercial Service. Why not for the State Department? At the very least, why not encourage the department to institute a fast-track program similar to that of the U.K.’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to seek out and aggressively promote talented and experienced newcomers? New management styles, ways of thinking and new skill sets, as well as the motivation that arises from com- petition, can always benefit an organi- zation. Corporations remain competitive by hiring the best within their field, as well as taking strong candidates from other fields. The Foreign Service would do well to emulate them. Congratulations to Mr. Hood for rais- ing an issue essential to the future relevance of America’s professional diplomatic corps. Nick Snyder FSO Embassy Beijing A Tragic Death in Afghanistan On Oct. 4, Steven Thomas (Tom) Stefani was killed in an IED attack on the military convoy he was part of in Ghazni province, Afghanistan. I want to express to his family, friends and colleagues at the U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, as well as his co- workers in Afghanistan, my deepest sympathies and sorrow at their loss. To my knowledge, Tom has the unfortunate distinction of being the first U.S. government employee in a non-combat, non-drug interdiction, non-counterterrorism role killed in Afghanistan. Tom was a USDA rangeland man- agement specialist, who answered a call for assistance by his agency and volunteered to serve in Afghanistan. I met him only briefly during my tour there (April 2006 through May 2007), but always found him to be committed to the task at hand, extremely pro- fessional and skilled. He was some- one who got the job done, no matter what obstacles were placed in front of him. USDA volunteers primarily serve as advisers to military commanders in the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, where development theory and civilian-military cooperation are being put into practice. Tom was based in Ghazni province, an in- creasingly hostile and dangerous place, but one where the need for development assistance is perhaps most acute. He lived, worked and played in conditions many can’t even imagine, let alone have the desire to experience. Tom’s death is made even more unfortunate by the way it has been handled by USAID and the State Department. I only heard about it through the grapevine, two weeks after he was killed. After getting over my shock, I began to check around to see if I missed the announcement from USAID or State. When I checked both internal Web sites, I was dismayed to find no notice on the USAID site at all, and only a brief mention of Tom’s death by a State Department official during a routine daily press briefing. There was no statement from the Secretary of State, the acting USAID administrator or the ambassador. Only Acting Secre- tary of Agriculture Chuck Conner released a statement. Although he was not an employee of either State or USAID, Tom, like the other USDA advisers serving in Afghanistan, was there under a Partici- pating Agency Service Agreement between USAID and USDA. In Fiscal Year 2006 alone, an estimated $1 million was transferred by USAID to 10 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 7 L E T T E R S