Flight of the Diplomats
NEWS: Midlevel foreign-service officers are fleeing the US State Department in droves. Guess who's taking their place?
|
|
"Tom" figured he'd earned himself a better assignment. For more than two years, the middle-aged, midlevel US diplomat had been working war zones—first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Tasked with setting up government institutions in the provinces, far from the comforts of the Green Zone, he'd rarely taken off his body armor. "The ied risk was extremely high," explains Tom, who insisted on a pseudonym. "Part of the time, the camp where we were staying was mortared constantly." But when that mission ended, rather than reward his risk-taking with a better job, the State Department just offered more hardship assignments—isolated and dangerous postings with little chance for reprieve or advancement. "The person trying to find me a next job emails me to say, 'Why don't you fill an opening in Monrovia?'" Tom recalls.
Tom's predicament was no anomaly. In 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice vowed to move diplomats "out from behind their desks into the field"—away from places like Western Europe and into developing nations where they would play a more hands-on development role. But her plan, however laudable, was put forth without the money and smart management needed to make it work. Now seasoned diplomats are fleeing Foggy Bottom in droves, leaving America critically short on diplomatic expertise just when it is needed most.
The State Department, by its own projections, will lose 14 percent of its veteran diplomats every year from 2007 to 2011—an entire generation in a few years' time. The talent pool is shrinking, too; the number of people taking the foreign-service exam fell more than 40 percent between 2002 and 2006. Under Colin Powell, State had hoped to hire more than 1,000 officers, but the department's latest budget sought fewer than 300. And because Rice didn't push hard enough for that funding, the department may actually lose jobs this year. The dire situation has officials counting paper clips. "Everyone must reduce expenses whenever and wherever possible," warned a March memo instructing supervisors to cut positions and defer staff training requests. State employees, it further admonished, would have to "reduce their use of supplies."
The Bush administration was hard on State from the start. The number of overseas postings where diplomats cannot bring their families has more than quadrupled, from 200 in 2001 to 905 today. And the job has gotten riskier everywhere: US diplomats have been gunned down in Khartoum and Amman, suicide-bombed in Karachi, and killed by hand grenades in Islamabad. They are entering war zones unprepared, with just a few weeks of training for a Baghdad posting; four decades ago, Vietnam-bound diplomats got six months of preparation, which included combat training. Nearly 40 percent are now returning from conflict areas with post-traumatic stress disorder, according to Steve Kashkett, vice president of the American Foreign Service Association, the union representing US diplomats. That's more than twice the rate for soldiers. And for all their troubles, foreign-service officers may see their salaries slashed up to 20 percent when they take a hardship post, on the grounds that living overseas costs less. "They are shifting bodies," says one congressional staffer, "but they aren't backing that up with more money."
Across the world, the brain drain has left US embassies understaffed—nearly 1 in 6 positions is vacant—and in the hands of inexperienced people. The trend is particularly worrisome in Iraq, reports one veteran foreign-service officer. "You have [junior officers] in important positions," he says. "It's not correlating well with what you'd want in the most important embassy in the world."
Joshua Kurlantzick is a contributing writer for Mother Jones.
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." -John Adams
It makes no sense to put these untrained diplomats into hostile enemy territory where they are prime targets because they are easy marks.
Most of these diplomats have already made sufficient contacts. Let them work from home.
"You have [junior officers] in important positions," he says. Maybe true in numbers my experience tell me they had more chiefs than Indians.
And sure HarryNads, if we've now made the whole world into a war zone, then diplomats have only limited functions in it. But their work can't be done here at home; the idea of diplomacy that only functions at home is patently ridiculous. If our diplomats won't even venture to visit other countries, how are they going to meet and deal with other nations' officials?
Exactly how would they go about this, anyway? By email and cell? I doubt President Sarkozy is going to hang on the phone with even Rice for long; if it means ignoring the foreign diplomats that DID show up for his party at the Presidential Palace. Real diplomacy happens at such events, not through web-mediated networking.
On the other hand, this is just the sort of idea we might expect of a McCain administration, since McCain can't even understand plain english, and therefore thinks the president of our NATO ally Spain, is a radical leftist Central American commie. Why should we maintain an embassy in a communist country like Spain anyway?
Or Germany or France either; since they are no longer our allies, but our opponents, according to McC. I wonder how those countries feel about joining Spain on our "next president's" [deleted] list? For someone who trumpets his "uber-alles" foreign policy stripes, McCain has a pretty abysmal grasp of the basics of diplomacy and geography.
------
Kill your teevee, and grow a brain.
While I appreciate the tone of this article, some details are a little off.
"And for all their troubles, foreign-service officers may see their salaries slashed up to 20 percent when they take a hardship post, on the grounds that living overseas costs less."
In fact, this is rarely the case. Officers posted to Baghdad earn 70% on top of their base salary and receive nearly 3 months' time off work during the one-year post. That's why it's so popular with younger officers, those who need to save money and pay off loans and debts. High-hardship posts pay 20-35% above base salary.
And Congress, while continuing to pad their own wallets, is the entity slashing budgets for other crucial government institutions.
Again, I appreciate this article, but some details need to be clarified to give readers a more accurate picture of how the system works.
Please Print members of congress who received money from Business, Banking,lobbist and corportions.
Basically when an officer works in DC they get "base pay" plus locality pay. Locality pay is NOT a cost of living allowance, but rather compensation for the difference between public and private sector pay in that region (for the best example of this, look at locality pay for Houston - extrememly high despite relatively low cost of living for a city).
However, all "hardship" and "danger" pay is added to base pay, not to Washington DC pay. So if an FSO goes to a "hardship" post where they get a 20% pay increase, they actually make LESS money than if they had stayed in DC. This significantly decreases the incentive.
Clearly there is still a great incentive to go to Baghdad or Kabul where, even taking this into account, you get at least a 50% pay increase, but for a lot of "hardship" posts you get the hardship but no increase in pay, and in some places you get a pay cut. For a lot of more senior officers this can be hard to swallow, particularly as locality pay increases and more hardship positions are added.
Why go someplace where your spouse can't work and your kids might have to go to boarding school because of the lack of education when you are going to get paid less AND, because of the shortages in personnel, work harder to cover for position gaps? While being constantly demeaned as a "whiner" no matter how many hardship posts you may go to?
granted there may be rampant dissatisfaction or unqualified people in positions of importance. but it's partial consequence of demographics too.
You should go back to school, starting at about the 6th grade level. Start by learning how to spell common English words correctly. If you make it through college and land a job working with modern professional people you will come to understand why the circumstances described in this piece are unacceptable. If you really want to bring the world back to the Middle Ages where diplomats are tough and problems are all solved with threats and force, then I guarantee that you need to be willing to live in abject poverty. You would not be allowed to own a car or eat decent food or live in a decent house or apartment in the world that people like you would bring into being if you were to have your way. You should chill out and let the "elitists" around you run things for your own good. They actually have your interests at heart as well as their own, unlike the current crop of miscreants (naughty people) running things from Washington. Perhaps if we have another depression and you are forced to sell apples on a street corner you will have time to think about some of these things a bit more clearly.
Education is the key. The trillions of dollars being spent in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan are appalling, when this tax money could have been channeled to improve the social status of women. By empowering the women status in all world societies, they would have a greater chance of eradicating war. Women are the first educators to their children. Instead women are relegated to subservient roles as slaves of men. Women and men are equal. Although women may have different roles, they are entitled to the same rights and liberties as men. Until this becomes ingrained in the fabric of world societies no significant change will occur. Men by nature are belligerent and glamorize war. WAR IS THE MOST STUPID CHOICE, and must never be pursued as an option to resolve conflict. Had this been taught to children from the beginning of history, mankind would not be as backward.
Ruth Montgomery a reporter that served for two decades at the White House wrote in her books about "dark forces" trying to bring mankind into a third global conflict. And this could very well be possible with the nuclear proliferation being forced upon the world and the crude-oil prison. The Russsians already raced to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean - planted a Russian flag inside a titanium capsule, claiming the Arctic was always Russian -to exploit the petroleum reserves trapped underneath. But will China be idle with two and a half billion people, a massive military machine, and with an economy totally geared by black-oil? The great question is, will the great USA stay out of it?
Mankind must overcome its primitive tendencies, and evolve beyond war, race and gender prejudices. Above all we are all related, bonded by Mother Earth and the Universal Creator. To those who do not think "dark forces" may be orchestrating the demise of this planet, just look how divided the humankind is. They keep humanity divided for it is easier to conquer those who are not united. Think about it Americans, these forces are invisible to our eyes but it does not mean they do not exist. Was not Louis Pasteur ridiculed by his contemporaries when he claimed invisible microbes were the main cause for many human ailments? We are all being manipulated by forces that use our leaders as puppets. These leaders may think they are quite smart but in fact they are quite the opposite. They forget their lives too come to an end. Compared with the age of planets and stars we are like the flowers in the fields, blooming today and wilted tomorrow. Take the tyrants that frightened the world in the twentieth century as Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol-Pot, Suharto, Saddam Hussein, etc. They are all departed. They are all fools, and grossly ignorant of what means to be human. The name HUMAN means Higher Universal Man, and the time has come to fully honor this name.