re: "State Department reform: Much ado about nothing?"

Thomas M. Hill at The Brookings Institution ("a nonprofit public policy organization") is thinking about State Department's reorganization plan.

Money quote(s):

"A second rumored reform to fold State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs and Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration into the Department of Homeland Security came under attack from Senators Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) as well as House Democrats. Senator Cardin stated, “I firmly believe the State Department should remain the face of America to the world and the entry point for foreigners traveling here, for consular activities and refugee resettlement.”"

It's fine for all options to be on the table and to give consideration to major changes.  It's not necessarily a bad thing to have to stop and consider why things are being done a certain way or why things are a certain way.  If nothing else, Sec. Tillerson and others now have a firmer grasp of why it makes sense for State to be the "front end" of the visa and other consular services, even where there are shared and even overlapping responsibilities with DHS.

"The opposition to these rumored reforms was so significant that Secretary Tillerson felt compelled to include a slide in the reorganization plan preview titled “what redesign is not” and saying, “there is no intention by State or USAID to undertake the following actions at this time: moving Consular Affairs to DHS… Dismantling State or USAID…”"

Glad that's settled then.

re: "Abu Muqawama: State, USAID Must Learn From Afghanistan Errors"

Andrew Exum wrote an article for WPR ("World Politics Review") that anyone in a position of leadership at State Dept. really ought to read.

Money quote(s):

"No one escapes criticism in Chandrasekaran's narrative, this columnist included, but the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Marine Corps come under especially heavy fire.

The reaction from the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. military as a whole has been to add the book and its criticisms to the list of lessons that need to be learned from the disastrous U.S. experience in Afghanistan. The State Department and USAID, by contrast, have reacted angrily to Chandrasekaran's account, blaming the messenger rather than looking into what they might learn from the message."

&

"Since at least the First Gulf War, American society has raised the U.S. military onto a pedestal, constantly praising the military, even when its performance has been, by objective standards, not terribly great. Is it any wonder U.S. military leaders feel they have room for introspection and self-criticism?

The State Department rarely garners similar praise from the American people or its elected leaders. Republican congressmen on Capitol Hill talk a big game on national security and vow never to cut the military's budget, while at the same time threatening to slash the International Affairs budget by 20 percent. U.S. military officers and troops are held up as the best of what America has to offer, while diplomats . . . well, few Americans are quite sure of what diplomats even do.

That's a pity because, despite bungling the admittedly challenging Afghanistan mission, the State Department has a pretty good story to tell about itself." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

It's one of those perennial delusion of the American body politic: that foreign aid and diplomacy (State and USAID) are where all the money goes, when quite the reverse is true.

(This is not to say that the dollar amounts aren't large, from any individual citizen's perspective. It's certainly more than I'll ever have in my wallet or bank account. Even my Swiss and Caymen accounts. But they amount to rounding errors in the context of the federal budget as a whole.)

"One of the illicit delights of reading the WikiLeaks cables has been to discover what wonderful diplomats the United States has in its service. The reports written by U.S. ambassadors and their subordinates are knowledgeable, literate, pithy and often amusing. They confirm, in a larger sample size, my anecdotal experiences visiting embassies around the globe. I remember, for example, spending an afternoon with the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh in 2010 and being blown away by the competence and professionalism of the staff. Many foreign service officers were on their third tours in the country, and even the newest officer -- charged with running the motor pool, of all things -- spoke fluent classical Arabic as well as several dialects."

CAA has not, of course, actually read anything at the Wikileaks site. That's still a no-no.

But CAA did read a few of the articles which were written about those State cables which were leaked, and they tended to echo Mr. Exum's impression: well-written, insightful, and honest; telling "truth to power" as it were.

And as for the motor pool officer.... it's helpful, in foreign countries, if the guy in charge of the motor pool's drivers and mechanics can actually speak their language. That tends to help with little things like telling them what you want them to do.

"Unfortunately, the State Department is not very good at telling its story to either the U.S. Congress or the American people. When people effectively stand up for the budget of the State Department and make the case for a larger International Affairs budget, it is too often either U.S. military officers or conservative, "pro-military" defense intellectuals. The State Department and its foreign service officers deserve some of the blame here. I recently finished John Lewis Gaddis’ biography of George F. Kennan, and Kennan’s life is a reminder that those Americans who are most knowledgeable about other cultures can often be the most contemptuous and ignorant of U.S. domestic political culture. Foreign service officers who do not hesitate to spend endless afternoons drinking chai with Central Asian warlords somehow can't, by and large, stomach the occasional coffee with a junior congressman from Nebraska." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

State has gotten better, having taken a leaf from the DoD and individual uniformed services books and established a permanent liaison presence on Capitol Hill itself, for both houses of Congress. Those folks work daily to increase Congresional awareness of what State (and the Foreign Service) have to offer them in terms that they understand, such as helping members of Congress in providing constituent services (to use a consular example).

So I'm not sure what Mr. Exum means in terms of avoiding coffee with congressmen. For FSOs abroad, generally the last thing visiting CODELs want to do is talk with U.S. diplomats so when they're abroad finding facts. They can talk to State Dept. people when they're in Washington, by gum!

"The result is that the State Department as an organization constantly feels that it is under pressure and underappreciated by its appropriators. We should not wonder, then, why such an organization fails to be introspective or critical of itself. That shortchanges both America and the State Department"

&

"A military can defend -- or learn from -- its performance during a war, but diplomats and aid workers can rarely demonstrate how their efforts toward conflict-prevention preclude a need for the military to get involved in the first place. And the efforts of diplomats and aid workers rarely benefit the economies of congressional districts in the same way military bases or the arms industry does.

Nonetheless, if the State Department and USAID are ever going to have the confidence to be as self-critical as the U.S. military, they have to better sell their efforts to the American people and its representatives in Washington."

It's like Al Pacino said in The Recruit: "Our failures are known. Our successes...are not." When a country doesn't fall apart, collapse into civil war, or things don't otherwise get worse; was that because the U.S. was effective in that country or would it have happened anyways. It's always hard to prove a negative.

That being said, as a consular manager, CAA likes to take whatever opportunities he can to garner a little American good will for the State Department, for the Foreign Service, and of course for the dedicated and wonderful people who make up what used to be called the Consular Service.

How to do that? Well, in terms of Congress itself and congress members specifically, be timely and appropriately respectful in responding to congressional inquiries. This should be a given, of course, but it should at least be mentioned.

Some parts of the federal government think that stonewalling or otherwise blowing off questions or requests from the people who vote on their agency's budgets is a good idea. I've never gotten that impression about State, but let's not slack off on this.

Have an office SOP (standard operating procedure) for responding to congressional inquiries which includes things like setting a suspense date when they're received, some simple process for recording and tracking each inquiry's progress, an easily understood scheme for assigning individual responsibility for researching and then drafting a response, and some form of review process by a manager.

CAA likes for the staff under his supervision to have as much "ownership" of their caseload as is practical. So if an inquiry has to do with a particular employees caseload or portfolio, such as a visa case that they handled themselves, then CAA would always have that FSO research and draft the response.

For one thing, every FSO should know how to correctly write an official letter to a congressmen using the correct protocol and forms of address. This is pretty basic stuff, but there's nothing like doing it to gain familiarity and a level of professional comfort.

For another thing, CAA believes in empowering subordinates. This goes along with owning your portfolio or caseload. Supervisors and leaders should set goals, set standards, and then get the Hell out of the way and not micro-manage if they can avoid it. Sometimes being a leader means butting back into a particular case, but if your staff is properly trained (and HR didn't send you an idiot), this shouldn't happen all that often.

Proper formats for responses, including standard language (i.e., boilerplate) should be standardized and readily available for FSO (or local staff) to consult or plagiarize.

And CAA's FSO staff could put their own signature block on their responses if they wanted, or CAA would put his; however the FSO was most comfortable. In some cases, it will be wiser to put a more senior person's name on it, but when that happens it's best to explain to your FSOs why you made that decision.

An example is when an inquiry may be controversial and you want to divert any lightning bolts from Mount Olympus away from your junior officers.

(If you're the leader, providing top cover to your followers is just part of why they pay you the big bucks, after all.)

CAA also likes to respond to congressional inquiries in the medium by which they are received. If an inquiry comes in electronically, then by email shall it be answered; but with a hard copy to follow by mail.

In fact, CAA used to send an electronic copy of his office's responses as email attachments even when the inquiry itself arrived in hard copy, just to let the congressional offices know that a response to their question was on its way, with a sneak preview so they weren't being held in suspense or anything.

CAA once dated a congressional staffer who had as a major part of her responsibilities the logging and tracking of correspondence her congress member's office received, much of which fell under the heading of congressional inquiries that were relayed to individual agencies.

(This was a few years before meeting Mrs. CAA, but that's not really germane.)

The point is that the handling of such matters is a core function of any congressional office. So FSOs would be wise to bear that in mind.

The further point is that good congressmen know how to field requests and questions by their constituents, and like good players of America's pastime, they know how to field the balls that come their way.

So FSOs need to do the same, and with the same understanding of their importance. They really do come from the people who pay our salaries and they are routed to us by the people who set those salaries.

(There are other ways FSOs can implement outreach to congress or the U.S. citizens, but that'll have to wait for another post on another day.)

7/25

re: "Hitting nails on the head"

nmleon had responded to my earlier comment of Thursday, February 9th at 9:42AM EDT, responding to Jeff Emanuel's post at Redstate.

nmleon said:

"Having spent 3 of the last 5 yrs in Iraq (DoD contractor), I can say that Consul has it exactly right as far as he’s commented.

Nobody ate MREs on an extended basis, and the massively complicated logistics supply chain was until last Dec managed by DoD under the aegis of our SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement). With the failure of the administration to negotiate a new or continuing SOFA, we had no option but to withdraw our military forces from Iraq.

Without a SOFA, the remaining USG organizations (and the contractors managing their logistics supply chain) HAD to be folded into DoS (with diplomatic status) or be essentially left as tourists, fully subject to Iraqi law even in the performance of their duties.

As to whether or not USAID etc should have missions there at all, I’m less than certain. While we had a continued (small) military presence I think it was a no-brainer. Iraq is a country with a lot of potential if sectarian strife can be ameliorated. Without our continued military presence I have doubts that will happen."

2/9

re: "Spies Like Us"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to punditpawn 's comment of Wednesday, February 8th (at 9:36PM EST (link).

punditpawn said:

"16,000 employees? Does that mean in reality that 15,995 of those are CIA spies and the other 5 run the embassy?"

Response:

"Embassies are the U.S. government representation in a foreign country. They house not only an ambassador and various State Dept. functions (consular, management, political, economic, and public diplomacy) and the activities (communication, security, &tc.) necessary to support them, but various “tenant agencies” housed along with them.

Overseas, those range from the routine (IRS, FAA, GSA, military attaches and liaison/assistance officers) to the exotic (DEA, Marshal Service, Library of Congress).

Much of the Baghdad mission is likely (I have no personal knowledge of this) engaged in various USAID and other development/reconstruction activities with the Iraqis.

Oh, and being called a CIA agent got old when I worked in DC; it’s a lot less funny overseas."

2/9

re: "Why State is Incompetent at Development"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") reported on Amb. Crocker's return to Kabul and a turf battle to resolve (as of this weekend, he's still there).

Money quote(s):

"One of his first tasks in his new job will be to repair the dysfunctional relationship between U.S. diplomats in Kabul and Afghanistan-based USAID officials, which has hampered U.S. development assistance in the country."

In light of recent developments, this doesn't seem like that big a deal. But given the monetary amounts involved, that perception would be, perhaps, short-sighted.

"(A)ccording to a recent report by the State Department Inspector General's office, the relationship has suffered from bureaucratic and communications issues between aid workers and diplomats.

The report found that the problems between the embassy and USAID in Kabul stem in part from the State Department's idea that chiefs of mission should be in charge of all development issues in their country, as envisioned by the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) that State released earlier this year."

Where could the State Dept. possibly have gotten this idea, considering that ambassadors are the personal representatives of the president and responsible for all U.S. Government activities in their country-of-assignment (unless there's a MOU or SOFA to the contrary)?

(CAA is being disingenuous, of course.)

"The report went on to say that bureaucratic differences "exacerbate feelings of professional misunderstanding" between CDDEA and USAID, and that officials in Washington need to step in to impose a resolution to these problems."

CAA loves his USAID colleagues, wishing them well even to the extent that he mourns the ever-tightening and anaconda-like envelopment of USAID by the State Dept. It never fails to remind of the similar fate of USIA/USIS.

That being said, if D.C. is called upon to knock-heads on this issue, it's fated to go only one way.

"USAID personnel in Kabul chafe at the embassy's demands for lots of briefings and explanations of their financial management. They also feel like second-class citizens because the embassy doesn't provide them with the best housing and office space, the report said.

On the other hand, the embassy folks don't believe the USAID personnel are on board with the "whole of government" approach, the report states. They think USAID withholds information from them and sometimes creates political messes they are then forced to clean up."

Hmm. Color CAA unsympathetic about USAID personnel not getting the "best housing and office space" in a war zone.

7/27

re: "Attack on American Convoy in Baghdad Kills USAID Contractor, Wounds Three"

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.") plotted to two data points.

Money quote(s):

"This is the second time in several days that a civilian convoy was attacked in Iraq."

It's not as if the bad-guys in Iraq have ever differentiated between civilians and military in terms of attacks.

"Two is not a trend, but this is worrisome; how much worse can this get post-military withdrawal?"

Lots.

re: "Another task for Crocker: Fix relations between embassy and USAID"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside The Foreign Policy Machine") has a little something for the new COM's "to do" list.

Money quote(s):

"Ambassador Ryan Crocker was sworn in today as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. One of his first tasks in his new job will be to repair the dysfunctional relationship between U.S. diplomats in Kabul and Afghanistan-based USAID officials, which has hampered U.S. development assistance in the country."

The relationship between State and USAID, to put it opaquely, has been in transition for years. The office of USAID's chief or "Administrator" is held or "dual-hatted" by a senior State Dept. official.

And yet USAID is not (yet) actually an organic or subsidiary agency within the Department of State.

At the same time, except for military or DoD personnel operating under the authority of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that puts them under the authority of a military commander, all official U.S. persons working within a foreign country are supposed to come under the authority of the "chief of mission" or COM (i.e., the U.S. ambassador).

Confused yet? Okay; now imagine you're a USAID staffer working in Afghanistan

"(T)he Coordinating Director for Development and Economic Affairs (CDDEA). The office was meant to oversee USAID's efforts in the country, but according to a recent report by the State Department Inspector General's office, the relationship has suffered from bureaucratic and communications issues between aid workers and diplomats.

The report found that the problems between the embassy and USAID in Kabul stem in part from the State Department's idea that chiefs of mission should be in charge of all development issues in their country, as envisioned by the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) that State released earlier this year."

Where ever would State get such an idea?

"The IG said that Crocker should work with the office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan (SRAP) Marc Grossman, Deputy Secretary Tom Nides, and the Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance to explain to USAID exactly how they should work with the embassy.

USAID personnel in Kabul chafe at the embassy's demands for lots of briefings and explanations of their financial management. They also feel like second-class citizens because the embassy doesn't provide them with the best housing and office space, the report said.

On the other hand, the embassy folks don't believe the USAID personnel are on board with the "whole of government" approach, the report states. They think USAID withholds information from them and sometimes creates political messes they are then forced to clean up.

The USAID mission has responsibility for a large portion what will reportedly be over $71 billion of U.S. assistance to Afghanistan by the end of 2011, making it a significant player in the largest U.S. development mission in the world.

It's been a rough few weeks for the USAID mission in Afghanistan. A report last week by the Government Accountability Office found that USAID is failing to properly oversee aid dollars."

re: "The difference between pacifism and non-violence"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") has a suggestion.

Money quote(s):

"We need to have a national policy that allows us the flexibility to support national sovereignty movements and finally give up on the Realpolitik of supporting the least heinous of the bastards in a particular region. Isn't that the perfect job for our moral superiors on the left? Shouldn't they jump at the chance to community organize actual oppressed people, instead of working the faux victim racket here at home? Let's give them the chance. That is why there is a USAID, a State Department and hordes of NGOs and other agencies. Let's decide to actually mean what we say about all men being created equal and endowed with certain rights. That would require a way to support non-violent means of resistance, but it should also come with a reminder that we don't cotton to those who slaughter non-violent protesters.

It never hurts to be on the side of freedom & liberty in a war of ideas against submission and oppression."

re: "Diplomacy Lite, Military Heavy"

Patricia at WhirledView discussed getting the balance right.

Money quote(s):

"Why is American foreign policy so diplomatically light but so militarily heavy? No, I’m not imagining things. And it’s been that way for decades – George W. Bush and Dick Cheney just pushed the envelope further in that direction after 9/11."

"Today the problem is - because of continued over-reliance on the military to solve all foreign policy problems - the US Armed Forces have been ordered to assume roles and engage in tasks for which they are eminently unsuited, unskilled and ill-prepared. Unfortunately, the State Department and what’s left of USAID have been so weakened over the years to be unable to take them on successfully either."


"(T)he State Department, USAID and whatever little else is left of the battered civilian side of America’s foreign affairs bureaucracy have too often demonstrated their inability to pull their own weight. They cannot be rebuilt overnight. This will take time, considerable funds, enlightened management, a major cultural/personality change in the Department itself and long term dedication."

"Congress has just agreed to increase the number of Foreign Service Officers by 1,000 (700 at State and 300 at USAID) next year. That’s all to the good. But what about the Peace Corps and where will those 700 newbies at State be assigned? Stamping visas every one?
In reality, these projected increases are 1) a drop in the bucket (the good news is that the phrase that there are more members of military bands than US Foreign Service Officers has finally become part of the vernacular) when the State Department still can’t manage its personnel well; 2) the Foreign Service Act of 1980 continues to force out too many competent officers at the peak of their careers for no good reason; and 3) it takes years (like about 20) to develop a seasoned officer with the requisite skills and foreign language ability to function well overseas. Just in time, as it turns out, for many to be retired prematurely."

&

"If only the State Department powers-that-be were half as clever as the US military and took American foreign affairs interests to the state and local levels not to mention into the halls of Congress. But I have scant evidence that State understands the importance of developing a domestic constituency."

S&S - Afghan militants increase attacks on contractors

From my archive of press clippings:

Stars and Stripes


Afghan militants increase attacks on contractors


By Joshua Partlow, The Washington Post

Online Edition, Saturday, April 17, 2010


KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — The Taliban has begun regularly targeting U.S. government contractors in southern Afghanistan, stepping up use of a tactic that is rattling participating firms and could undermine development projects intended to stem the insurgency, according to U.S. officials.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Within the past month, there have been at least five attacks in Helmand and Kandahar provinces against employees of U.S. Agency for International Development contract companies who run agricultural projects, build roads, maintain power plants and work with local officials.

The USAID implementing partners, as the contract companies are known, employ mainly Afghans, who are overseen by foreigners. The their role is becoming increasingly important as more aid money floods into southern Afghanistan as part of a dual effort to generate goodwill and bolster the Kabul government.

A suicide car bomb that exploded Thursday evening outside a compound used by Western contractors in Kandahar was the latest and deadliest attack. The Associated Press reported that the blast killed at least six people wounded 16 other people, including at least two Americans, along with South African and Nepalese employees."

"At least one company working in Kandahar, Bethesda, Md.-based DAI, evacuated some employees to Kabul after the attack, the officials said."

&

"Thursday’s attack came two days after Hosiy Sahibzada, 24, an Afghan who worked for DAI, was gunned down in Kandahar City. On Tuesday, an Afghan employee of Arlington-based International Relief & Development, was shot and killed in Helmand province’s Garmsir area.

The U.S. official in Kandahar said it would be foolish to think that the attacks were independent of one another. “This can’t be coincidental,” he said. “This is what they’re doing now.”"

JO - USAID fulfilled obligations for humanitarian assistance

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer

USAID fulfilled obligations for humanitarian assistance


Thursday, July 09, 2009


Dear Editor,

The article in the Sunday Observer of June 28 (pages 1, 4 and 5), and the editorial in the Daily Observer of June 29 (page 8) make reference to USAID's financial support for the reconstruction of houses that were damaged by Hurricane Ivan in 2004.

Read the whole letter here.

Snippet(s):

"Providing humanitarian assistance to reduce the impact of natural or man-made disasters is a core area of our work. Therefore, USAID/Jamaica sought to improve the living conditions in the communities that sustained heavy damage due to the impact of Hurricane Ivan. In response to a request from the Government of Jamaica and in support of the government's reconstruction efforts, USAID financed the construction of 186 units in Portland Cottage and Rocky Point in partnership with the Office of National Reconstruction."

_____

Dr Karen R Hilliard
Mission Director
US Embassy
Kingston 6

JO - USAID setting the record straight on community policing assistance

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer

USAID setting the record straight on community policing assistance

Karen R Hilliard

Saturday, May 31, 2008

The United States Agency for International Development wishes to correct a number of erroneous statements and misleading information provided in the last two weeks through the news media about USAID's support for community-based policing (CBP) in Jamaica.

Read the whole article here.

_____

Karen R Hilliard is mission director, USAID/Jamaica.

JG - Some successes in Grants Pen - USAID

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Gleaner

Some successes in Grants Pen - USAID

published: Sunday May 25, 2008

In this February 28 file photo, students participate in a peace march in the Grants Pen community in St Andrew organised by the Violence Prevention Alliance. The United States Agency for International Development says some success was achieved from the community-policing model implemented in the area a few years ago. - File

DESPITE OBVIOUS challenges with the community-based policing model in Grants Pen, St Andrew, the project's donor, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), is pointing out that there are some successes being reaped from its current project in the community.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"USAID says while PERF's work was well received by some residents in Grants Pen, its contract was terminated due to some failures on the part of PERF."

&

"While murders were down, robberies and rape had increased in the community, the agency says, and according to some police officers, Grants Pen had got out of control.

Subsequent to PERF's termination, USAID says Management Systems International (MSI) was contracted to seek out, sustain and replicate successful elements of the project under a new initiative, the Community Empowerment and Transformation (COMET) project."

JO - Cockpit Country discovery centre opens

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer

Cockpit Country discovery centre opens

Our Habitat

Mark Cummings

Sunday, June 08, 2008

THE Forestry Department, in collaboration with The Nature Conservancy (TNC), has opened a discovery centre in this rural community, as part of their effort to manage the resources of the biodiversity-rich Cockpit Country.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The Cockpit Country, home to the Leeward Maroons of Jamaica, is considered one of the island's more important ecological and cultural assets."

&

"Dubbed the 'gateway to the Cockpit Country', the centre, was built at a cost of US$700,000 with funds from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), under its Parks in Peril programme."

NYT - Hiring Window Is Open at the Foreign Service

This article got a lot of attention recently.

From my archive of press clippings.

New York Times

Hiring Window Is Open at the Foreign Service

By EILENE ZIMMERMAN

Published: December 20, 2008

A RARE bright spot has appeared in a job landscape dominated by layoffs: the Foreign Service.

For the last several years, hiring in the United States Foreign Service was minimal because of a lack of Congressional funding. In addition, war has created an urgent need for diplomatic personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as officers have moved to these countries their previous jobs have remained unfilled.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"So, in the last several months — with a new president on the horizon and new funding from Congress — both the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development, or Usaid, are ramping back up.

A supplemental war funding bill, which became law in June, has provided money for Foreign Service hiring. And President-elect Barack Obama “has talked explicitly about the need to increase the Foreign Service and we hope he will make that a priority,” said John Naland, president of the American Foreign Service Association, the professional association and labor union representing career diplomats.

The State Department has asked for funding for 1,500 new positions for the current fiscal year. Of these, roughly 800 are Foreign Service and 700 civil service, said Luis Arreaga, director of recruitment, examination and employment at the department. Many of those positions are being filled because of attrition but about 160 are new. "We consider that a down payment,” said Mr. Arreaga."

It's definitely a good start. More than ten-percent of vacant positions, the one's determined to be least-critical (which is not the same a non-essential) aren't even being put on bid-lists because they know there simply aren't enough officers to fill them. It's human resources triage.

"Not everyone is cut out for Foreign Service work, which can be stressful and highly demanding. About two-thirds of a diplomat’s career is spent overseas; officers usually move every two to four years and can be exposed to dangers like disease and war. The State Department offers a suitability quiz for prospective applicants on its Web site."

It really isn't just a job, it's an adventure.

"Applying for a job with the State Department involves written and oral examinations. Those who pass the oral exam become conditional officers and receive a ranking score based on oral-exam performance and language skills. The higher the rank, the sooner they will be assigned.

Of the 12,000 to 15,000 people who register annually for the written exam, about 450 officers are hired, said Frank J. Coulter, management officer with the Foreign Service and a member of the State Department’s board of examiners."

There are several "hoops" or "hurdles" to be negotiated in the candidacy process: the "written" exam (which is now computer-based and not really written anymore); a "QEP" in which the qualifications of each individual who passes the "written" exam are reviewed; and an oral assessment, which combines several exercises involving hypothetical questions, role-playing, as well as a group exercises. The small percentage of candidates who make it that far undergo security background investigations, medical exams, and other administrative drills before being placed on "The Register."

"New Foreign Service officers at the State Department choose one of five career tracks: consular affairs, economic affairs, management affairs, political affairs or public diplomacy. No matter the track, all entry-level officers spend their first several years working in a consulate, interviewing applicants for United States visas and working with American citizens who need their help.

The State Department also hires Foreign Service specialists, who provide technical, security and administrative support overseas or in Washington. Specialists must pass an oral assessment but not a written exam, and start in a specialty like medicine, information technology or law enforcement, Mr. Coulter said. All newly hired officers and specialists are trained at the Foreign Service Institute in Washington.

Each of the first two postings overseas last two years; after that, it is generally a three-year posting in each country. One-year hardship postings — in a region too dangerous to allow an officer’s spouse and children to accompany him or her — are required at least twice in the course of a career. After two assignments, Foreign Service personnel can bid on postings — requesting particular countries or Washington — but everyone is expected to serve in a variety of assignments, Mr. Arreaga said."


"Usaid’s entry-level Foreign Service officers must have a master’s degree in an appropriate technical area, like economics, agriculture, public health or education. The average Usaid entry-level officer has four years of relevant experience; many come from the Peace Corps, but others have worked for nongovernmental organizations, in private industry or the military."

"THE base salary for entry-level Foreign Service officers ranges from about $40,000 to $72,000 annually, but compensation can increase depending on the danger level of the posting and on a region’s cost of living.

For Foreign Service specialists, the salary range is anywhere from about $26,500 to more than $100,000; for civil service employees at Usaid, the salary ranges from $16,500 to over $100,000. Overseas benefits include housing and private school for dependent children.

Many of those choosing Foreign Service work do so out of a dedication to public service and see it as not just a career, but also a way of life."

Old school types like me see becoming a diplomat as a profession which is also a vocation, like professional military officers or clergy. There's more to this than just what meetings you go to, what passes through your in-box, or how you spend your days between 8 and 5.

There's also that little matter of how U.S. foreign service officers are actually penalized financially when they take a foreign assignment, which boggles my business administration-educated mind.

&

"Correction: December 28, 2008 An article last Sunday about renewed hiring in the Foreign Service referred incompletely to one of five career tracks that new Foreign Service officers at the State Department can choose. It is public diplomacy — which involves working with the media and foreign audiences to promote understanding — not diplomacy."

If that's the only error in the original article, this piece stands as one of the most factually-correct and balls-on accurate articles I have ever seen to come out of the New York Times. Well done!