re: "The State of State: Joan's Case Continued"

Patricia H. Kushlis at WhirledView ("a look at world politics and most everything else") had an update on a sordid tale.

Money quote(s):

"Remember Joan Wadelton’s long running battle against the State Department’s Bureau of Human Resources that I reported here on March 14, 2012?

In case you missed it, the post is well worth reading. But I understand that lots of people did read it because I know that the post entitled “State Department Human Resources – A System Run Amok” circulated widely throughout the State Department, at US Embassies, Consulates and Missions abroad as well as elsewhere.

It is just the latest in a series of WhirledView posts over the last four years on corruption in State's personnel system. I understand that people forwarded it to friends and colleagues. It was also picked up by other blogs with a substantial number of readers throughout the State Department, on the Hill and elsewhere in the foreign affairs and defense communities."

It's not surprising that the original post received such wide readership within the foreign service community; it's our personnel system and we're all customers of it whether we like it or not.

"(S)ome of the major themes that have emerged:

-- All respondents believed what I wrote -- not a single person has tried to rebut anything in the post (or any of my previous posts on the topic);

-- Respondents were horrified by Joan's story and expressed sympathy for her and outrage against her treatment;

-- Several sent me stories about their own problems with State HR. I cannot corroborate the problems or the stories but every one is consistent with what my own separate investigations have uncovered;

-- The single most troubling discovery about State's Office of Inspector General is that rather than engaging in benign neglect – or better yet showing complete impartiality as should be the case -- the OIG comes across as an active and malignant presence in investigations of individual claims against HR’s behavior. This is reinforced by allegations that the OIG's practice of reporting the names of complainants about HR to HR management – rather than to investigate their charges or simply keep the individual’s confidentiality -- has also occurred with complaints filed in other Bureaus."

CAA can state with reasonable confidence that he has received, thus far, correct and proper treatment from HR in terms of assignments and promotions. Possibly because CAA takes some pains to be pseudonymous, of course, but CAA to date has enjoyed a reasonably normal assignments and career progression.

But cases like Joan's reduce my confidence in the system.

5/2

re: Anonymous comment

CAA received a rather ill-tempered (much like laser-mounted sea-bass) comment at his "Seasons Greetings" post the other day.

To wit:

"Anonymous said...

Anyone who wishes a career in the Foreign Circus deserves it. It recruits people lacking spines and brains to insure that the officers never question their fuedal lords. You are one step away from dismissal. There is no real appeal as your supervisor can call you an incompetent, racist, toad and not have to prove a word of it. You must prove him to be wrong, but remember the system protects the guilty not the innocent. This is how it enforces complete submission. Expose theft, criminality, etc and you are dead meat because you rock the boat. An ambassador would never violate the laws of the US for personal profit. Right?

Assignments are on the basis of rabis, not the needs or talents required. Don't speak German, don't even bother asking for Germany. Don't speak Russia, an assignment to one of the coackroach stans is just the ticket you need. Find out your supervisor has served in Europe for the past 20 years and his hardship tour is Mexico City, tough it is how the system works.


Better yet the best do not make it past the senior grading process which is reserved for the prime examples of what the foreign circus considers to be "outstanding." I've seen these losers trying to get posts in law firms and lobbyists in DC once people can no longer tolerate their gaffs, mistakes, and omissions,


One other word, imagine living in housing that is subpar, dangerous and assigned by people who care little and do less. No wonder the divorce and alcoholism rate among FSO is through the roof. Worse yet is the number of kiddies who become warped little monsters because of the availibity of drugs and the mindset that they are part of an "elite."


Talk to an FSO. Most if they speak honestly will not recommend it as a career. If they are honest see if they mention these points. If they do not you know you are being had.


As for the tests, these are for losers. State has stated for years it wants to look more like the US as a whole. What do you think this means? Probably 25% of all candidates do not take the test to get in. They simply don't cut the mustard, but these same people will be ahead of you in the promotion and assignment ques.


Great organization. Do yourself a favor and join the IRS. At least its professional. Even the ATF isn't as politically incoherent as State.


One last point, State status as a bad joke is recognized throughout Washington. Ask any staffer if State is the first choice to be consulted on economic, military or political data that is considered realiable, timely or relevant."

As near as I can figure it, Anonymous came to CAA from the Eternity Road blog where CAA is listed in the "Mainly Politics" blogroll. Anonymous was apparently posting from Manassas, Virginia, where he (or she) is a Verizon customer.

1. "Anyone who wishes a career in the Foreign Circus deserves it. It recruits people lacking spines and brains to insure that the officers never question their fuedal lords. You are one step away from dismissal. There is no real appeal as your supervisor can call you an incompetent, racist, toad and not have to prove a word of it. You must prove him to be wrong, but remember the system protects the guilty not the innocent. This is how it enforces complete submission. Expose theft, criminality, etc and you are dead meat because you rock the boat. An ambassador would never violate the laws of the US for personal profit. Right?"

Aww. This sort of talk is liable to hurt my feelings.

Oddly, the recruitment and examination process seemed (to me) designed to ensure that prospective FSOs exhibited both brains and good judgment. Part of good judgment, to me, means picking your battles carefully and being picky about upon which hill you want to die, upon which sword you wish to fall.

(Military and naval officers have to know how to do the same thing.)

As a consular officer, I know that when it comes to fraud or malfeasance or matters of integrity, the Bureau of Consular Affairs will have my back if I'm in the right. Part of being in the right is knowing the applicable laws, directives, and regulations and following them in the spirit they're intended. Not being burdened overmuch with ambassadorial ambitions, perhaps that's easy for me to say....

As a former intelligence professional, I've always taught my subordinates to tell the truth. The truth being what they themselves saw, heard, read, or otherwise sensed and intuited, and being very clear about which is which. Err on the side of clarity at the expense of politeness or political correctness; don't be afraid to voice a conclusion or informed opinion but label it as such and be clear about your sources and reasoning. In other words, show the math. Let those who have broader access (i.e., all-source analysts) make broader conclusions.

And to be frank, any supervisor who called me "an incompetent, racist, toad" would probably suffer an accident walking into a door jamb.

(But CAA has been hoarding his PTSD card for just such an occasion.)

2. "Assignments are on the basis of rabis (sic), not the needs or talents required. Don't speak German, don't even bother asking for Germany. Don't speak Russia, an assignment to one of the coackroach stans is just the ticket you need. Find out your supervisor has served in Europe for the past 20 years and his hardship tour is Mexico City, tough it is how the system works."

This has not been, to say the least, my experience of the assignments process to date. Needs of the post or bureau have generally seemed paramount.

While it's certainly imperfect, and something of a black box in spots, I know (for instance) plenty of officers who had to learn (or re-learn) German in order to be assigned therein. Once FSI-trained in German and with an assignment under ones belt, however, legend has it that being in the "German mafia" could get you re-assigned back to Germany later on after an assignment (or three) elsewhere in the (Third?) (W)orld. I've seen that happen, including instances where the intervening assignments were in Iraq or Afghanistan (or both).

(To me, that always seemed more a matter of taking advantage of language/country experience rather than favoritism. Germany alone boasts six different post, plus Austria, plus Switzerland. Due to the decline in the number of high school and college German curriculae, fewer and fewer FSOs enter the Foreign Service speaking the language, which means most FSOs taking an assignment there have to be trained in-house at FSI.)

As for the former Soviet "Stan" assignments going to newly trained Russian speakers, this is of a piece with French speakers serving in West Africa before getting a much-coveted Paris gig or similar scenarios involving Portugese/Angola-Mozambique-Brazil/Lisbon and Spanish/South&Central-America/Madrid. It's not prejudice or favoritism; it's paying your dues.

Generally speaking, very few of even the senior ranks of the career Foreign Service will spend all that long in Western Europe before taking a "career enhancing" hardship assignment. That being said, some hardship assignments are harder than others; there is a range involved there and hardship ratings can be based on a variety of factors.

CAA has himself received hardship differential pay in countries which are home to quite posh resorts. It should be noted that CAA did neither live nor work (nor even much visit) in said resorts; U.S. embassies tending to be located in slum-filled capital cities rather than along an exotic coast or in picturesque mountains.

3. "Better yet the best do not make it past the senior grading process which is reserved for the prime examples of what the foreign circus considers to be "outstanding." I've seen these losers trying to get posts in law firms and lobbyists in DC once people can no longer tolerate their gaffs, mistakes, and omissions,"

If I read this correctly, the "losers" in this paragraph are those who make it into the Senior Foreign Service (SFS). Not having spent much time around D.C. law or lobbying firms since joining the Foreign Service, I must yield to Anonymous' expertise.

(For those keeping score, CAA is in no imminent danger of becoming a member of the Senior Foreign Service.)

4. "One other word, imagine living in housing that is subpar, dangerous and assigned by people who care little and do less. No wonder the divorce and alcoholism rate among FSO is through the roof. Worse yet is the number of kiddies who become warped little monsters because of the availibity of drugs and the mindset that they are part of an "elite." "

Wow. CAA married a Foreign Service brat; on the morrow I will inquire whether she is a "warped little monster."

Housing varies. Rules as to how it's assigned are uniform throughout the service, but its quality, quantity, and availability are subject to the reality of life abroad. Generally it's more comfortable than military tentage in a combat zone or even enlisted dependent housing at domestic military bases. But that is going to depend upon what's available on the local market or what the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations was able to construct.

I'm not trying to sugar-coat this; much of the world is simply not up to providing the kind of amenities (i.e., safety, comfort, and health) the average American suburbanite takes for granted. That's one of the tradeoff Foreign Service families make, or at least have made for them by their Foreign Service Officer/Specialist parent or spouse.

The availability of drugs is not something unique to FS or even expat life. I hear tell, in fact, that there are drugs even in American public schools nowadays. As for the "elite" charge, this is where the occasional domestic assignment helps keep FS brats grounded, just as a year or three of commuting to Foggy Bottom by Metrorail will blunt the elitest edge of even the most credentialed FSO.

Lastly, I can't really speak to divorce and/or alcoholism rates beyond the anecdotal.

5. "Talk to an FSO. Most if they speak honestly will not recommend it as a career. If they are honest see if they mention these points. If they do not you know you are being had."

Who shaves the barber? All Cretans are liars.

An honest FSO (and we all at least start honest) will tell you it's not for everyone, but we're still only half kidding when we tell each other we're "living the dream."

Every assignment isn't a dream, and there are supervisors (and co-workers) you will grow to loath so much that you will rather take Lower Slobovia without them rather than work in London with them. FSOs need to be very honest with their spouses and children and weigh their interests fairly during the course of their FS careers.

6. "As for the tests, these are for losers. State has stated for years it wants to look more like the US as a whole. What do you think this means? Probably 25% of all candidates do not take the test to get in. They simply don't cut the mustard, but these same people will be ahead of you in the promotion and assignment ques."

CAA presumes that Anonymous is referring to those who, as either Pickering or Presidential Management Fellows (or similar) bypass having to take the written examination (actually, nowadays it's computer-based). They still have to make it past the FS Oral Assessment (and not all of them do).

Once upon a time, when CAA was in his A-1oo class (new FS Officer orientation), out of idle curiousity and political incorrectness he crunched the numbers with regards to ethnic background. Within a percentage point (or two), they did in fact match what I recalled of the general U.S. population.

CAA is a pretty smart guy (if I do say so myself) and without false modesty can admit to having served in several career fields which can fairly be described as being quite selective, even elite. The folks that make it into an A-100 class can only be described as smart.

(I never bothered to crunch the numbers with regards to gender, but it's fair to say that the women in the Foreign Service are simply scary smart.).

7. "Great organization. Do yourself a favor and join the IRS. At least its professional. Even the ATF isn't as politically incoherent as State."

Conclusion insufficiently grounded by facts in evidence. Hearsay. Comparing State with these two federal agencies in particular is something in the way of libel by itself.

(Lies. Damned Lies. Statistics!)

8. "One last point, State status as a bad joke is recognized throughout Washington. Ask any staffer if State is the first choice to be consulted on economic, military or political data that is considered realiable, timely or relevant."

Which staffers would those be? Congressional members or committee staff (i.e., "hill rats")? CAA's sense is that many of the wannabee policy-wonks that infest Capitol Hill/Adams-Morgan/Georgetown never managed to pass the FS exam and are holding a grudge about it.

As for being consulted on data of various sorts, when CAA was schooled in intelligence analysis, he was cautioned that policy- and decision-makers tend to rely less on official- and/or intelligence reports than on the sources of information to which they had access before becoming policy- and/or decision-makers. Personal contacts. Media. Pre-existing impressions and prejudices. And usually only as an afterthought would actual processed intelligence be considered, and that for what-do-you-have-that-I-haven't-already-heard.

State has decent political and economic collection and analysis, and it's all-source analysts in INR have a uniformly stellar reputation within the Intelligence Community (IC) (although frankly, going to State for military information seems like a fairly stupid thing to do). Where State really adds the value is in providing context for intelligence by having a cadre of folks who're either on the ground and know the players or have been there.

By way of example, during a previous assignment I happened to have a lot of general access to intelligence products from across the spectrum of the IC. On a whim I looked up satellite imagery of a area of significance in a prior overseas assignment (am I being vague enough?). The imagery didn't match what I knew were the facts (geography) on the ground. After a bit of head-scratching, I realized what I was looking at, and that was imagery of the town just west of what I should have been seeing, and I was quickly able to find the correct imagery.

Now, imagine you're on an aircraft carrier and you're launching helicopters to evacuate American citizens from a certain Third World city, and you end up in the wrong place. Or worse, imagine you're in a bad way and you're waiting on a helicopter to come get you, and it's late or never makes it at all, simply because someone who had the local knowledge never had input.

This sort of thing can get complicated.

re: "US Mission Iraq: Not DOD's Giganotosaurus Footprint, But a Super Embassaurus For Real"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") has the details for our diplomatic footprint in Iraq.

Money quote(s):

"It'll be your new normal diplomatic one-year deployments with no end."

Since at least 2003, when the first bid list for the not-yet-open new embassy in Baghdad was first published, it was obvious that this "new normal" was destined to become the deployment "tail" that would subsequently "wag" the Department's assignment "dog."

re: "In a War That Must Not Be Named, Leadership and Security On the Line"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe") makes some on-point observations about this life, this business, we have chosen. 1, 2

Money quote(s):

"Worldwide Availability: All officers are considered worldwide available, that is, prepared to go where needed; ready, at any time, to meet the needs of the Service. Needs of the Service trumps almost everything else, almost always. The first two tours of entry level officers are normally "directed." New employees can put in their bid lists, but they could end up going to places not on their lists. Needs of the Service. Over 60% of FS posts are considered "hardship," in isolated, unhealthful and even dangerous environments. Family members may not even be authorized to join the employee or even if they join, they potentially could be evacuated at any later time. Once saw a mid-level officer who started with a huge bid list, later shrunk down to 6 positions, all in Iraq. Needs of the Service. He had choices, six of them; all in Iraq."

During the early days of the CPA in Iraq, a number of very junior officers found themselves sent to Iraq solely because they had Arabic language training. In the after-actions and lessons-learned, the Department took something of a thumping for sending its least experienced, most-easily-spared officers to what was, for the uniformed services at least, a national security priority.

Not to knock the service and tremendous efforts of those very junior officers; in fact I honor them even as I note that they should never have been put into those positions in the first place. They were sent because to send the most-qualified, more senior FSOs would have disrupted the ever-so-important normal assignments process (not to mention inconveniencing more senior FSOs).

I remain unconvinced that political sentiments within the career ranks of the Department found service in Bush's Iraq war to be a less pressing priority than later was made the (official) line.

CAA considers himself to have actually been quite fortunate in his assignments thus far, although two out of the three overseas assignments were in hardship posts. At my very first post, I grew quite accustomed to the sound of gunfire in the evenings. Since I was in a "nice" part of town, gunfire there generally could be assumed to be celebratory in nature.

In Iraq, of course, gunfire and explosive BOOMS(!) also became just part of the landscape. I knew that if I heard an explosion and it was on either the hour or the half-hour, precisely, that was just EOD doing their thing.

After Iraq I found myself living in the Virginia suburbs as I struggled to re-adjust to civilian life and to learn a foreign language before I went to my next job. (Still working on the "re-adjust" part, btw.) The apartment Madam-At-Arms found for us while I was away sat perhaps a hundred yards or so from the helipad of a busy hospital center, so at any hour I would hear, quite loudly, the sounds of medivacks coming and going.

I found the sound quite soothing, as helicopter sounds in Iraq were always "friendly."

As I made the rounds being introduced to local officials at my second hardship post, some senior police officers were cautioning me about the dangers to be found in their capital city. Crime. Violence. That sort of thing. When I happened to mention serving at a certain previous hardship post, followed by Iraq, their attitude shifted: "Oh, you'll be fine then."

"Leadership matters. Entry level officers on their first tours obviously do not have the same experience as seasoned officers even if they have previously lived/worked overseas. Their fears are understandable. Their anger at being shut out is also understandable. People need to feel they matter. Telling them to basically suck it up because they received danger pay or to go ahead and curtail due to legitimate fears is not good leadership and management. It builds distrust and without trust, the game, as the cliché goes, is over; teamwork becomes a fairy tale."

For all the great stride the Department has made towards improving State's traditionally dismal leadership culture, we're just not there yet. New officers are getting leadership training from the very beginning, with reinforcements throughout their careers. It's still not inculcated the way the uniformed services do it (and they have their own, recurrent, problems) but we're getting there. It's the more senior folks, both on the Civil Service as well as the Foreign Service sides, who sometimes fail to get leadership isn't just one of those management fads that comes along periodically, like Six Sigma, just-in-time-inventory, or TQM.

"Perhaps the FSO's account should encourage not just a discussion on leadership in a crisis but also what it means to be a diplomat in this new and turbulent world. Should diplomats need to have a new mindset that they are vulnerable like soldiers? And if so, what does that mean in terms of their ability and training to protect themselves and their loved ones?

DOD which is responsible for extracting large numbers of civilians in harm's way during disasters and civil strife, has a joint publication on Noncombatant Evacuation Operations. In it, it gave top billing to a legal and political maxim, "The people's safety is the highest law."

In fact, it's just not DOD in an evacuation. Organizations often tout their people as their greatest strength and resource and their safety, a sort of prime directive. Why else do we evacuate people from harm's way (except in diplomatic posts in war zones)? Why have companies evacuated their personnel out of Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake/tsunami and with the increasing bad news on the nuclear reactors? As the familiar phrase go -- in the abundance of caution ...to ensure their safety.

But what happens when the highest law collides with strategic national interest?"

&

"(L)eadership and policymakers understand that unarmed civilians in a war zone is at great risk, but they chose to stand up embassies and consulates and put diplomats in the middle of conflict, anyway. An accepted risk.

And why does it take so long, and often at the very last minute for an ordered evacuation to take place? Because it is a political decision, even if no one would admit to that. Governments, including ours, may not want to send the signal that it has lost faith in the ability of the host country to tackle emergencies whether of political nature or natural calamities. Most especially, if the host country is a close ally, and where our national interest requires that we help shore up its support. The negative connotation of an evacuation undermines that. Thus, one can conclude that if employees remain in the danger zone, it means somebody has already calculated that risk against vital national strategic and security interest. And accepted that risk.

I supposed we may think of life in the Service as if it were a weighing scale -- the national strategic and security priorities on one side and on the other side, the acceptable personal risk on the employees. But not everyone will get to look at that scale. And not everyone will get to make the judgment call. Employees do not get to vote, diplomatic missions are not democracies.

They ought to teach this at A100.

On second thought, they ought to have this in the recruitment flyer."

Individual officers need to understand this calculus. We go abroad on our country's business. And while we are not exactly pawns (oh, to reach so exalted a status as "pawn"!), we're usually quite far from any effective assistance other than our most immediate colleagues. I've been blessed with excellent Diplomatic Security and law enforcement colleagues at some posts, and quite awful support at another. Bottom line: FSOs are commissioned officers of the U.S. Foreign Service. We go where we're sent and do our jobs. We're also husbands (and wives) (and partners) and fathers (and mothers). We have to make decisions about our spouses' and families' safety, decisions which may be very different from those we make for our loved ones.

This is the life, the business, we have chosen. God bless us, and those like us.