re: "Is the military invading the State Department?"

Christian Brose at FP's Shadow Government ("Notes from the loyal opposition") explores the idea of a mid-career entry program for military officers joining the Foreign Service.

Money quote(s):

"The thought that some military officer would move laterally into a mid-career diplomatic or civilian post in the State Department, jumping ahead of Foreign Service officers who had served their time stamping visas in Botswana or someplace, was a non-starter for the institutional Foreign Service. And needless to say, no military officer worth a damn would retire after a decade or so in uniform to stamp visas in Botswana with 24-year-olds fresh out of their A-100 class."

The idea that "stamping visas" is merely a form of serving time, a rite of passage for new FSOs crops up fairly often, sometimes even among actual FSOs (who should know better).

First, if all you're doing is "stamping" visas, then you're doing it wrong. Vice consuls and other visa adjudicators are expected to apply the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (as amended, and boy is it ever) and related regulations (found in the Foreign Affairs Manuals, the Foreign Affairs Handbook, scores of SOPs and tables, and hundreds of cables) in order to facilitate legitimate travel to the U.S. while serving as the first-line of border security.

So if you're doing it right, it's not exactly sleep-walking. This is serious business; nobody wants to import foreign criminals, terrorists, or even extra economic migrants; the U.S. domestic supply will suffice.

Second, while the visa functions (both non-immigrant and immigrant) probably account for 60-70 percent of consular jobs overseas, they aren't the sum total of consular work. While from the outside looking in, most foreigners would think of the visa function as being the most important part of consular section, from the U.S. perspective the American Citizen Services (ACS) function is much more important. Helping U.S. travelers and residents abroad is a State Department mission going back to the founding of our Republic.

Third, while entry-level FSOs may expect to serve at least one year (but I think two years is more likely) of their probationary period (typically two 2-year assignments abroad) doing consular work.

Those in other career tracks (political, economic, management, public diplomacy, & consular) will only return to consular work if they choose to bid on consular positions. That being said, a professional FSO needs to have a working knowledge of consular work, both visa and ACS, in order to effectively perform their jobs overseas.

Every U.S. diplomat will be the recipient of questions about visas and passports in the course of their assigned duties; except for the most senior of diplomats abroad, every FSO will take their turn as duty officer, where 90 percent of after-hours calls will be consular-related; and the senior-most diplomats will find themselves as the supervisors of consular managers, and be legally obligated to provide oversight of consular accountability and perform adjudication reviews. So having a clue is helpful in avoiding any career-killing mis-steps.

Fourth, the average age of a new FSO is 32 years old, the maximum age of a new FSO is in the late 50's; so the number of 24 year old vice consuls, fresh from grad school or university, is fairly small. Most are starting their second or even third careers, just like the hypothetical military officer with a decade in uniform behind him (or her).

(Thought experiment: how do you suppose the DoD would react to the suggestion that government employees with 10 years experience transfer in as majors and colonels? Would they embrace this bold, fresh new approach?)

Fifth (and last), prior government (including military) experience is accounted for in determining an entering FSOs initial class and step (similar to GS grades and steps). There's a formula whereby HR evaluates each entering FSO's level of formal education along with their years of professional-level experience. I'm reasonably certain that the hypothetical major (or lieutenant commander) with 10 years experience will get credit for all of those 10 years as being "professional-level." So I would expect them to enter in Class 4 (or "FP-o4"), the FS equivalent of a captain. And within five years to be Class 3 ("FS-03", the first of the three mid-grade ranks and equivalent to a major).

A fairly brief journeymanship of 3-5 years would put a military officer, starting in an entirely new commissioned service, back at a rank equivalent (or higher) than the one they held in their former career, with the potential to reach the "brass" they'd thought out of their reach.

I should also mention that a Veteran's Preference is factored into the FS selection process.

"I remember in the fall of 2006 asking one U.S. Army officer whether mid-career entry into the State Department appealed to him, and he answered emphatically, yes. He was a veteran of both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as I recall. He had maybe a dozen years of experience -- managing people, programs, resources, and working overseas. He loved to serve, but he could see the writing on the wall. He knew he wasn't destined for brass on his shoulders, and the thought of moving to work as a civilian or Foreign Service Officer thrilled him."

I encourage any U.S. military or naval person, commissioned or not, to at least look into the Foreign Service as your next career.

And to not limit that consideration solely to the generalist FSO fields. Someone with overseas experience managing people, programs, and resources might also be a fit for one of the Foreign Service Specialist fields.

"(R)eal change requires institutionalizing the thinking behind "smart power" -- which really requires creating an entirely new set of assumptions and expectations about what life today as a diplomat will be (hint: more dangerous, more lonely, and less glamorous). Another hint: this will be extremely unpopular with much of the Foreign Service."

Not to get into personalities, but I took a moment to read Mr. Brose's bio page and note that his State Department experience is limited to being a speech writer for Secretaries Powell and Rice. As one or two of FS web loggers have noted in the past, one of the ways the Foreign Service does itself a disservice is by our over-diligence as control officers for foreign visits by members of Congress and high-ranking State Department officials. We literally knock ourselves silly ensuring that these visits go smoothly and bump-free.

I'm sure traveling the world inside the secretary of state's "bubble" was quite cozy for Mr. Brose, but it certainly doesn't equip someone to get snarky about how glamorous Foreign Service life is these days, nor about how in the future it'll be more dangerous and lonely.

The future is now, Mr. Brose.

_____

Hat tip to The Hegemonist ("a personal weblog touching on international relations, foreign policy, and diplomacy").

_____

Please see my additional comments at "And what about Botwana?"