I'm Not Really as Qualified as I Claimed I Was

It's been awhile since I last blogged, mainly because, quite frankly, I was beginning to find this whole foreign service thing a bit tedious, and the last thing I wanted to do was prolong thinking about it while I was at home. Tedious or not, however, I've been thinking a lot about the foreign service recently, so have a jumble of thoughts to share.

Let's start with the big news: the Department has once again launched the bidding season with a call for volunteers for Iraq. This time they've been a bit more forthcoming, and have sent letters to prospective "volunteers" informing them what jobs they'll be asked to volunteer for. Perhaps finding it out this way, rather than via the Washington Post is the reason that reaction to the letters has been much more muted than it was last year. Perhaps. I'm skeptical myself. My informal survey of the lucky volunteers thus far has revealed a surprising number of people who have already done hardship tours. (Actually, it's not surprising at all---one of the "criteria" for the positions is that you have served in an NEA post in the past. Most NEA posts are hardships.) So building upon this observation, I speculate that there is less wailing and gnashing of teeth this year because these are people who were under no illusion that they could spend their entire careers in posts without hardship or danger.

[A brief aside: it's not actually an illusion that one can spend his or her entire career without serving in a hardship or danger post, despite what our human resources bureau keeps telling us. In fact, since returning to Washington, I've been presented with no small number of role models who not only survive the foreign service without doing their "fair share," but who actually thrive. Click here and here for just two examples.]

Anyway, back to Iraq volunteers...while the reaction has been muted, there has been some. The one or two people I've heard of who are not at hardship posts and have been deemed "qualified" have responded with the plaintive cry that they are not, in fact, qualified for the assignment! This was a consistent theme last year, and one that I've been thinking about a lot. Yes, I suppose that people who already have Arabic and area experience are qualified for these jobs. On the other hand, how many of our colleagues stood up in A-100 when handed a flag and declared, "oh no, I can't go to [fill in the blank]! I'm not qualified!" Better yet, how many people, when they joined the foreign service and were told they would have to be worldwide available, responded, "well, okay, but I'm really only qualified to serve in Canada, because that's the only place I've visited and I only speak English"?

Fine, fine, most people join the foreign service with international experience already. But how many of those people really believed that would be the only region in which they served? Were there mass protests on flag day when the CDOs applied other criteria than pre-employment travel and education to decide where one would serve. (How many people majored in the Bahamas and Jamaica anyway? Poor Iceland, I bet we'd be hard pressed to find diplomats qualified for that post...) Clearly our CDOs had more power than we imagined...sent to Africa on your first tour? You're probably only qualified to serve in Africa now. Good luck establishing that minor bureau...

I suspect that the very same people loudly declaring that they should not be sent to Iraq because they are not qualified, would not have the same concerns if the Department suddenly decided to direct them to Europe or Australia.

One could argue that Iraq is a special case. It is a war zone, and, thus, requires more experience than an Embassy in Western Europe. As someone who received one of those "you're qualified, so you're volunteered" letters though, let me assure you that I have no special training in war fighting (or surviving). If Iraq is a special case, nothing in my career as a generalist, including my service in NEA, has especially prepared me for it. I have no background in Iraq and/or its politics. I imagine I'll learn. I am a generalist, afterall, and am supposed to be able to do my job anywhere in the world.

It was really annoying last year to hear some of my colleagues scream and moan and insist that they shouldn't go for any number of reasons. To me that sounded like, "not me, take so and so instead." If the policy of sending so many people to Iraq, including against their will, is bad, it's bad; there's no need for foreign service officers to throw each other to the wolves to limit the personal impact of that bad policy. Some of the outcry last year left a very bad taste in my mouth as I watched at least one A-100 classmate loudly and publicly proclaim that her life was so much more precious than everyone else's and, as a result, it was absurd that the Department would even consider sending her. In the end, they didn't. She has now moved on to complaining about other things, like the inconvenience of flights to her next (non-Iraqi) post.