Well Said...

Every month in the Foreign Service Journal AFSA President John Naland writes a column. In the past couple issues Naland has focused on the professional development and responsibility of Foreign Service Officers. Reminiscent of the debates over the professionalization of the U.S. military officers corps in the past century, Naland has suggested a range of measures, including education and open debate, that would improve the overall quality of our diplomatic corps.

Naland's column in the November issue of the Foreign Service Journal was brilliant. In it he points out the obvious...while much of the criticism (including my own) of the Secretary in failing to get resources for the Department and in (quite frankly) misusing the men and women entrusted to her leadership is just, it ignores the obvious. The Secretary is supposed to be surrounded, supported, and, if necessary, challenged by the senior career leadership of the Department. That senior leadership has failed.

Naland sums the problem up well:

"These examples show senior officers failing to stand up for the career Service. Instead of speaking up to their political superiors about likely negative consequences of the pending decisions, some officers became compliant yes-men and yes-women. Some crossed the divide between nonpartisan career officials and political appointees by allying themselves with a politically appointed patron. As a result, they reaped personal gains such as obtaining or retaining a plum assignment leading to a pay-grade promotion or performance-pay bonus."

These officers know who they are. So do many of the rest of us. Happily, I do not believe they are representative of the majority of career Foreign and Civil Service personnel in the Deparment. Hopefully in the next administration, these people will be given an opportunity to shine.

Will a New Secretary Mean New Leadership?

Rumors of Hillary Clinton possibly become Secretary of State have apparently shifted the focus of transition speculation to the State Department for now. The Washington Post this morning had a couple articles on the topic. The most interesting article, which really was nothing new to those of us in the Foreign Service, was on the serious lack of resources for the Department and the Foreign Service.

It was bad enough when our travel budgets were slashed so that---even cramped in the worst seats in the plane (no "economy plus" for our fearless public servants)---we lacked the money to travel to the places and meet the people necessary to advance our nation's foreign policy agenda. Now I'd be happy if my office had the money to buy us pens.

And forget about Secretary Powell's much lauded training float. Foreign Service Officers get one week of leadership and management training every few years. I know we're supposed to be the best and the brightest, but 3 weeks of classroom exploration does not make good leaders. And that lack of training shows...

The State Department, despite its important mission, is a very small government agency, with relatively weak lobbying power, especially compared to the Department of Defense. It's important, though, that we have a Secretary committed to fighting for the resources he or she needs to carry out the administration's foreign policy. It was deeply disappointing that recently the loudest call for increased funding for the Department of State came not from the Secretary of State, but from Secretary of Defense Gates. Hopefully our next Secretary will understand that repeated exhortations for Foreign Service Officers to make sacrifices in service of their country should be combined with the expenditure of a little political capital and sweat to get the FSOs the resources that might help make their sacrifices worthwhile...