Download - American Foreign Service Association

FOREIGNJ O U R N A LSERVICECONTENTSMarch 2010 Volume 87, No. 3F OCUSONIraq & Its NeighborsCover and inside illustrationsby Laszlo KubinyiPRESIDENT’S VIEWS / 5Exploring the New Frontiers ofDiplomacy and DevelopmentBy Susan R. JohnsonSPEAKING OUT / 13A Real Reset Button forU.S.-Russian RelationsBy Thompson BuchananREFLECTIONS / 84A-100, Past and PresentBy Steven Alan HonleyLETTERS / 7CYBERNOTES / 9BOOKS / 68IN MEMORY / 71MARKETPLACE / 78INDEX TOADVERTISERS / 82IRAQ, IRAN AND THE UNITED STATES / 16The route to direct talks between Washingtonand Tehran could run through Baghdad.By Selig S. HarrisonACHIEVING CLOSURE ON IRAQ’S PREWAR WMD / 23Understanding why it turned out Saddam Hussein had no WMDprovides insights useful in other situations.By Charles A. DuelferTHE U.S. AND TURKEY: BACK FROM THE BRINK / 30American, Iraqi and Turkish policymakers should continue tofocus on promoting dialogue and making common cause.By Ross WilsonTHE MIDDLE EAST: FORKS IN THE WAY FORWARD / 37The stakes for getting U.S. policy right in the Middle East are higher than ever.Here is an overview of the problems and opportunities.By Chas W. Freeman Jr.F EATUREDIPLOMACY REBOOTED: MAKING DIGITAL STATECRAFT A REALITY / 43The State Department is now in a position to build novelapplications to support the mission of diplomacy.By Chris BronkAFSA NEWS2009 ANNUAL REPORT: WORKING FOR A STRONGER AFSA / 49YEAR IN REVIEW / 51CONSTITUENCY SUMMARIES / 57CLASSIFIEDS / 65MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 3

LETTERSThe Sky’s Not FallingRegarding AFSA’s objection to theSenate’s proposed excise tax on highcosthealth plans (“Priorities and Surveys,”January AFSA News Retiree VPcolumn), I wonder if it polled its membershipto find a substantial majorityagainst the proposed excise tax. If so, Iregret having missed the opportunity toregister my own opinion, for I am apparentlyout of sync with my fellowAFSA members.If it did not consult the membership,then I find it unacceptable thatthe AFSA Governing Board decided tojoin other unions in putting its narrow,parochial interests ahead of what I regardas the greater national goal of extendinghealth coverage to all.And believe me, those interests arevery narrow. After spending some timeon the Office of Personnel ManagementWeb site (www.opm.gov), I foundthat fewer than 1 percent of the nearly500 available family plans (matchingmy personal circumstances) would currentlybe subject to the excise tax. Andfor the 17 national plans that AFSAmembers are most likely to find suitable,the average total premium (governmentplus individual contributions)in 2010 is $5,277 for singles and $11,950for families. These figures are wellbelow the excise tax thresholds of$8,000 and $21,000 that would go intoeffect in 2013, if the legislation is passed.Judging by the column in the November2009 Retiree Newsletter, whoseconclusion is reiterated in the JanuaryFSJ, AFSA believes the sky is falling.This is based on a faulty assumptionthat premiums will immediately beginincreasing at a projected 8-percent annualrate. In fact, the thresholds are adjustedupward by only 3 percentbeginning in 2014.Using the OPM figures, I calculatethat it will not be until 2019 that the annualcost of the average national singleplan reaches $8,000, by which time thethreshold will have risen to $10,400.And the cost of the average family planwon’t hit $21,000 until 2022, when thethreshold will have risen to $29,900.But if those assumptions are sustainedthrough 2022, health costs willconstitute more than 31 percent of oureconomy. Do we not believe — do wenot consider it an absolute national priorityif we are to remain economicallycompetitive — that we must succeed inslowing, if not reversing, the growth ofhealth costs relative to the rest of theeconomy?Apart from the apparently veryshaky factual basis upon which AFSAjustifies its opposition to excise taxes,I’m particularly dismayed that it wouldwant to obstruct this very viable way tofinance the extension of health care toall Americans — even if it hits a smallhandful of us in the pocketbook.Many of us have spent the greaterpart of our careers living in countrieswhere no one goes bankrupt as a resultof medical mishaps, some of us inother developed countries where lifeexpectancy is higher than ours andhealth costs a fraction of ours. If we’reas exceptional a nation as our politiciansconstantly proclaim, then surelywe can find some way to providehealth care for all at less than $21,000per family or $8,000 per individual.I would very much like the GoverningBoard to justify its lobbying objective,both in terms of verifying that itwas consistent with member preferenceand in terms of factual foundation.This is close to a membership-decidingsituation for me. A Journal subscriptionis much cheaper than annual dues.Brent SchaefferFSO, retiredGaborone, Botswana andHendersonville, N.C.Better Times for Public AffairsI thought that Alexis Ludwig’s DecemberSpeaking Out column, “RestoreState’s Office of Public Communications,”was spot on. It certainly broughtback memories of better times for publicaffairs: Upon returning from anoverseas assignment back in the 1970sand 1980s, one could contact the Bureauof Public Affairs and volunteer forspeaking engagements and interviewswith the media.Because Seattle was my home leaveaddress, I volunteered for venues inWashington, Idaho and Oregon. Whetherit was a Kiwanis dinner, a radio call-inshow or a newspaper interview, my au-MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 7

C YBERNOTESSite of the Month: A New Online Center forForeign Policy DiscussionOn Feb. 1, WorldAffairsDaily.org, a project of the World Affairs journal, debutedas an online center for discussion of foreign policy. As James Denton, publisher andeditor of the online division, puts it, this is “a genuinely international site that allowsany English-language reader to understand more fully the often unsettling events andcomplex issues that dominate the world’s headlines and debates.”On a daily basis, this attractive and accessible site presents a selection of officialstatements, news stories and think-tank reports from around the world. Thus, on anygiven day, readers will be able to see how a particular story is reported and commentedupon in, for example, the Washington Post, France 24, Al-Jazeera, RIANovesti, the Islamic Republic News Agency, “Frontline,” Afghanistan’s Quqnoos Website and other media. “We know there is a global community,” says Denton. “Ouridea is to allow everyone to hear the conversations taking place in its various neighborhoods.”In addition to selections from the bimonthly World Affairs journal, the site showcasesAmerican bloggers from across the political spectrum, as well as influentialmainstream and dissident voices from Europe, the Middle East, Russia and elsewhere.The aim is to facilitate frank, real-time conversations among opinion-makersat home and abroad about the ideas and events that define our era. “If we succeed,”says Denton, “when our viewers go to www.worldaffairsdaily.org, they will be lookingat a rough draft of history.”World Affairs, the journal, is published in partnership with the American PeaceSociety. Issued intermittently since its founding in 1937, the publication was relaunchedin a new format in 2008.perceive their government as illegitimate.It also explored the assumptionthat the opposition represents a movementfavoring a substantially differentposture toward the United States.The PIPA study analyzed multiplepolls of the Iranian public from differentsources conducted during thethree months following the June election,including one poll conductedby WorldPublicOpinion.org, which ismanaged by PIPA.The study did not prove that therewere no election irregularities; but neitherdid it support the belief that a majorityrejected Ahmadinejad. It alsofound little evidence to support theother assumptions. “Our analysis suggeststhat it would not be prudent tobase U.S. policy on the assumptionthat the Iranian public is in a pre-revolutionarystate of mind,” says StevenKull, director of PIPA.The complete report is available onlineat www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/.Another view of the situation inTehran not often heard in the U.S.comes from veteran New York Timesforeign correspondent, historian andNorthwestern University professorStephen Kinzer, who told a Philadelphiaaudience in late January thatAmerica’s ideal ally in the Middle Eastis not Jordan or a “new-and-improved”Iraq — and certainly not Saudi Arabia— but Iran.Kinzer was interviewed by thePhiladelphia Inquirer (www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine). In his newbook, Reset: Iran, Turkey and America’sFuture, due out in early June, hechallenges the popular belief that it’s inour best interest to cultivate a weak, ifnot destabilized Iran.Like Turkey, he argues, Iran shareslong-term strategic interests as well asa democratic impulse with the U.S.Moreover, Kinzer points out, as a Shiitenation, Iran has a deep-seated aversiontoward radical Sunni movementslike the Taliban.In his widely acclaimed 2003 politicalstudy, All the Shah’s Men: AnAmerican Coup and the Roots of MiddleEast Terror, Kinzer argued that theanti-American rage that consumesIranian leaders was incited 50 yearsago when the CIA destroyed the nation’sfirst — and so far, only — experimentwith liberal democracy after lessthan a decade.Democracy will flower again inIran, Kinzer told the Inquirer, if only“the U.S. can resist the temptation tointervene and can allow events to taketheir own course.”Google v. China: Tough Love?A new row over Internet censorshipin China erupted in mid-January withGoogle, Inc.’s announcement that itplanned to stop censoring searches onits Google.cn network, and was consideringleaving China altogether if theproblem could not be resolved.Only one of several disputes thathave recently raised the temperatureof Sino-American relations, this onehas pushed the twin issues of cybersecurityand Internet freedom back up tothe top of the U.S. foreign policyagenda.In her Jan. 21 address on “InternetFreedom,” Secretary of State HillaryClinton reiterated the Obama administration’sdetermination to “strengthen10 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

C YBERNOTESJust as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns, or nuclearpower can either energize a city or destroy it, modern information networksand the technologies they support can be harnessed for good or for ill. Thesame networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al-Qaidato spew hatred and incite violence against the innocent. And technologies withthe potential to open up access to government and promote transparency canalso be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights.— Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking on Internet freedomat The Newseum, Washington, D.C., Jan. 21, www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htmglobal cybersecurity” and outlined astrategy for working with repressiveregimes on the topic (www.state.gov).Clinton referred to the president’s appointmentof a cyberspace policy coordinator,and the ongoing work of theState Department’s Global InternetFreedom Task Force, established in2006, as well as initiatives at the UnitedNations and in other multilateral forato put cybersecurity on the world’sagenda.National Intelligence Director EricBlair underlined the pervasive threatto critical computerized infrastructurein testimony to the Senate Select Committeeon Intelligence in early February,emphasizing that both governmentand private industry networks are already“under persistent and subtle assault.”Among unclassified sources,the Center for Strategic and InternationalStudies’ running compilation ofcyberattack incidents, “Cyber EventsSince 2006,” is an eye-opener (www.csis.org).To examine the issues, no less thanthree sets of hearings have been scheduled:one by the Congressional-ExecutiveCommission on China, whichmonitors human rights and the developmentof commercial law in the PRC;one by the Senate Judiciary Subcommitteeon Human Rights and the Law(“Technology Companies’ BusinessPractices in Internet-restricting Countries”);and one by the House ForeignAffairs Committee (“The GooglePredicament: Transforming U.S. CyberspacePolicy to Advance Democracy,Security and Trade”).Earlier, with an endorsement fromHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep.Chris Smith, R-N.J., called on Jan 14 forlawmakers to take up his “Global OnlineFreedom Act” — legislation thathas been stalled in Congress for severalyears.Meanwhile, Google has joined theNational Security Agency in efforts tofurther analyze the cyberattacks fromwithin China aimed at gaining accessto the Gmail accounts of human rightsactivists that prompted the lateststandoff with Beijing. The companyis attempting to negotiate a resolutionto the impasse as the stakes in Chinaare large and complex. Beijing’s retreatin October on its “Green Dam”plan for mandatory built-in surveillanceon all PCs sold in the countrygives hope for progress (see “StoryNot Available in China;” NovemberCybernotes). ■This edition of Cybernotes was compiledby Senior Editor Susan BradyMaitra.MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 11

SPEAKING OUTA Real Reset Button for U.S.-Russian RelationsBY THOMPSON BUCHANANIt is imperative todevise a formula toinsulate the NearAbroad from adamaging rivalrybetween Moscowand NATO.On March 6, 2009, Secretaryof State Hillary RodhamClinton presented RussianForeign Minister Sergei Lavrov with atoken of her commitment to improvingrelations: a “reset” button. Althoughthe word engraved on the gift,“peregruzka,” actually means “overcharge”or “overload” (depending onthe context), Lavrov gamely pressedthe button alongside Clinton.Just four months later, however,Vice President Joe Biden used aspeech to the Georgian Parliament toproclaim a U.S. commitment to bringingboth Georgia and Ukraine into theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization.In so doing, he may have intended toblunt attacks from Republicans bymimicking earlier denunciations ofthe “Evil Empire,” such as those formerVice President Richard Cheneyand former President Ronald Reaganroutinely delivered.But while such rhetoric still resonateswith much of the Americanpublic, it does not serve our larger nationalinterests. At a minimum, thevice president reinforced the skepticismof nationalist Russians thatAmerica sincerely wants closer ties.He also complicated the task of ournegotiators on a variety of critical issuesby inducing Moscow to wonderwho really speaks for the Obama administration.Sec. Clinton performed deft damagecontrol, reassuring Russia that theUnited States still regards it as a greatpower and is not trying to use thenewly independent states of the“Near Abroad” to contain it. But ifthis is some “good cop, bad cop” strategyfor dealing with Moscow, it underestimatestheir intelligence andtheir visceral toughness. Speaking asa diplomat who spent nine years inMoscow, both before and after thecollapse of communism, I can attestto the folly of assuming that we willget our way on these issues just becausewe’re the last superpowerstanding.The Near Abroad and NATOWords have consequences. Ourpledge to help Georgia and Ukrainebring their military forces up to speedto qualify for NATO membership impliesa commitment of support in theevent of conflict with Russia in accordancewith Article 5 of the NATOTreaty. It also encourages the leadershipof those nations to overestimatethe support they can expect from theWest for their own domestic agendas.We may be sure that if Moscowperceives any state on its border to beclosely allied with the West, it will dowhat it can to destabilize that state —and it is in a much better position todo so than we are to defend it. We arenot dealing with the prostrate, relativelycooperative Russia led by BorisYeltsin, but a bitter, much strongerpower that feels the West took advantageof its weakness during the 1990sto extract concessions, without offeringanything tangible in return. And itis fiercely determined to defend whatit sees as its national security interestsin the Near Abroad.With this in mind, the Obama administration’sdeclarations and actionsshould explicitly reassure Moscowthat:• We are as concerned as Russia isabout the prospect of instability in theregion.• The only interest Americanshave in the Near Abroad is in promotinggenuine sovereignty and prosperity.• It is in Russia’s own interest to doeverything it can to demonstrate thatit wants to turn over a new leaf in relationswith its neighbors.• We want Moscow to play a majorMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 13

S PEAKINGO UTrole in ensuring peace and stabilityalong its borders, and in helping usaddress major problems throughoutthe world.The issue is not whether we supportthe sovereignty of these newlyindependent states. Of course wedo. But let us identify the wisestways to protect both their interestsand ours.Some Progress onResetting RelationsA number of positive steps havebeen taken by both sides to “reset” relations,although each side’s understandingof what that means is ratherdifferent. For some Russians, at least,it means that the Americans shouldaccept Moscow’s positions on a wholerange of issues. And that is certainlynot what we mean by the term.A first positive step was PresidentBarack Obama’s decision to rethinkthe policy of missile defense installationsin Eastern Europe, one thatlacked logic in the eyes of our NATOallies and many Americans. Inevitably,the Central Europeans accusedus of giving in to Moscow, andthe U.S. political opposition quicklylabeled the administration “soft on nationalsecurity.” But the decision contributedto the relative success of theU.S.-Russia summit in July 2009, andto Moscow’s more positive attitudesince then.On the issue of Iran, PresidentDmitry Medvedev has appearedmore forthcoming than Prime MinisterVladimir Putin, accepting at leastthe possibility that sanctions may benecessary if Tehran continues to moveahead with its nuclear program.Moscow is also allowing U.S. troopsand supplies to transit Russia in supportof the war in Afghanistan, andRegrettably, Russiastill believes that theonly real securitylies in dominatingits neighbors.there has been some talk of broadercooperation there.More discouraging, while the atmospherefor arms control negotiationshas been positive, the two sidesremain stymied by technical issues relatedto maintaining a balance ofpower — a consideration that has alwaysbedeviled these talks.Setting Realistic PrioritiesRegrettably, Moscow shows nosigns of abandoning its traditional beliefthat the only real security lies indomination of its neighbors. But thatonly makes it more imperative for usto devise a formula to insulate theborder states from a damaging rivalrybetween Russia and NATO.Formal arrangements that addressedthe problem of conflictingterritorial interests in the past — likeAustrian neutrality, or the old RapackiPlan for Central Europe — are probablynon-starters. But we should at leasttry to come to some understandingwith Moscow that the Near Abroad isnot a sphere of influence for any singlestate, but a showcase for joint concernand mutual restraint.It would be politically suicidal forthe Obama administration to formallywithdraw its support for NATO expansioninto Georgia and Ukraine,particularly in light of its decision toabandon plans to install missile defensesystems in Central Europe. Butwe should at least stop talking aboutit and leave it to the Europeans tomake clear that the idea is a nonstarter.At an appropriate moment in ongoingtalks over some related issuelike the Conventional Armed Forcesin Europe Treaty, perhaps our envoyscould informally float the idea of neutralizingthe Near Abroad as an areaof competition, with a clear understandingthat this would mean non-interferenceby either side in thedomestic politics of the region.Of course, we would need to persuadeTbilisi and Kyiv that their securitywould be best protected by anunderstanding between Moscow andWashington. Toward that end, Georgia,Ukraine and Russia should be encouragedto discuss their overalleconomic relations, which are in somany ways complementary and havebeen historically profitable.As the dominant power in the region,Moscow should take the initiativein pursuit of better relations,removing obstacles it has imposed inareas like the import of Georgianwine and vegetables. Concessions arealso needed on the part of bothGazprom and Kyiv regarding the transitof oil and gas through Ukraine.In addition, the U.S. should providetargeted foreign assistance. Theaim of these steps would be todemonstrate that there are concretebenefits to be gained from Russo-American cooperation in the region.On the issues of Abkhazia andSouth Ossetia, we need to encourageTbilisi to recognize that it would re-14 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

S PEAKINGO UTquire war to impose Georgian ruleover the separate ethnic populationsof the two enclaves, which already expelledlocal Georgians. Moreover,any effort to invade these territorieswould provide Russia with a pretextfor destroying Georgia.The realistic hope is that, over time,there can be a slow revival of commerceand dialogue among Abkhazia,South Ossetia and Tbilisi, possibly leadingto some form of federation in thefuture. But this will only happen whenMoscow decides that peace in the regionserves its larger interests.Critics of the administration willundoubtedly complain that Americawill lose face if it backs away from thecommitment to support NATO membershipfor Tbilisi and Kyiv. But inThe U.S. shouldgive priority toimproving relations withMoscow over stickingwith a dead-end,dangerous policy.terms of the greater U.S. national interest,it is more important to improverelations with Russia than to insist ona dead-end and dangerous policy inthe Near Abroad. ■Thompson Buchanan was a ForeignService officer from 1955 to 1981, servingas deputy chief of mission in Burundi,Gabon and Norway, amongother assignments. His Russian expertisedates from 1948, when heworked for the Office of IntelligenceResearch at State. He later servedthree tours in Russia, including assignmentsas political counselor and consulgeneral in Leningrad. In post-communistRussia, he interviewed refugees forthe Immigration and NaturalizationService and worked on aid projects. Asa member of DACOR and the CosmosClub, he has sponsored numerous lectureson Russia and Central Asia.MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 15

F OCUS ON I RAQ & ITS N EIGHBORSIRAQ, IRAN AND THEUNITED STATESLaszlo KubinyiTTHE ROUTE TO DIRECT TALKS BETWEENWASHINGTON AND TEHRAN COULD RUNTHROUGH BAGHDAD.BY SELIG S. HARRISONhe 2003 American invasion of Iraq aroused both anxiety and hope in Iran. The adventof U.S. military forces and bases on its western border posed a potential threat to its security. At the same time, thedestruction of the Sunni-dominated Saddam Hussein dictatorship stirred expectations that the Shiite majority in Iraqwould come into its own, at last, after five centuries of Sunni minority rule, and that Iraq would tilt toward Iran afterU.S. forces left.16 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

F OCUSSeven years later, the Obama administrationremains committed tothe withdrawal of all U.S. forcesfrom Iraq by the end of 2011. However,major uncertainties remainconcerning our future role thereand how it will affect Iran.Two key emerging issues havespecial importance in Iranian eyes.One is whether the U.S. Air Forcewill be able to continue using thebases it has developed in Iraq to deploylong-range bombers capable ofstriking Iran. The other is whether the United States willcontinue to tolerate the political dominance of Tehran-orientedShiite political forces in Iraq, as it has done since the2005 elections, or will work, instead, with Saudi Arabia tocontain Iranian influence in Baghdad. Washington’s positionon these little-discussed issues could well prove to beof critical importance in its ongoing effort to negotiate amodus vivendi with Iran.The centrality of Iraq in Iranian attitudes toward theUnited States was underlined to me repeatedly duringthree visits to Tehran in 2007 and 2008. On one of thesetrips, I attended a four-hour seminar with 15 Iranian specialistson Iraq from different government agencies,arranged at my request.“You know, we’ve been waiting for this moment since1639,” commented Mahmoud Vaezi, a former deputy foreignminister who now directs the Center for Strategic Research,a think-tank affiliated with the Expediency Council,a government body headed by former President AliAkbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. I didn’t know what had happenedin 1639, but soon learned that it was the year inwhich the Treaty of Qasr-i-Shirin was signed. This was theSelig S. Harrison visited Iran in June 2007 and in Februaryand June 2008. As South Asia bureau chief of theWashington Post and, later, as a senior associate of theCarnegie Endowment for International Peace, he did researchthere before the 1979 revolution and authored astudy of its ethnic tensions, In Afghanistan’s Shadow:Baluch Nationalism and Soviet Temptations (CEIP, 1980),as well as four other books on Asian affairs and U.S.-Asianrelations. He is a senior scholar at the Woodrow WilsonInternational Center and director of the Asia Program atthe Center for International Policy.For nearly five centuries,Iran has been hoping Sunniminority rule would endin Iraq, allowing Tehranto regain some of itsold influence.treaty that defined the boundarybetween Safavid Persia and the advancingOttoman Turks, who pushedPersia out of what was to becomethe modern state of Iraq.As Richard D. Frye observes inThe Golden Age of Persia, “The separationof eastern and western Iranis evident, and throughout Iran’shistory the western part of the landhas been frequently more closelyconnected with the lowlands ofMesopotamia than with the rest ofthe plateau to the east of the central deserts.”Before 1639, Persia had extensive influence in Mesopotamiathrough local Shiite principalities. The Shia religiousuniverse embraced parts of both Persia and Mesopotamia,and the Shia faithful commuted between religious centerson both sides, just as they do today. (An estimated fourmillion Iranians visited Karbala and Najaf in Iraq last yearand some two million Iraqis visited Qom in Iran.) After1639, the Turks and, later, the British installed a successionof Sunni puppet regimes in Iraq. Then came SaddamHussein’s Sunni dictatorship and his invasion of Iran in1980, launched with U.S. help and encouragement.What Vaezi’s reference to 1639 meant was that fornearly five centuries, Iran has been hoping the day wouldcome when Sunni minority rule would end in Baghdad,and Tehran would get back some of its old influence.In Friendly Hands?During the Foreign Ministry seminar, S.A. Niknam,who had been chargé d’affaires in the Iranian embassy inBaghdad for five years during the Iran-Iraq War, exclaimed:“How can you accuse us of ‘interfering’ in Iraq?You have come from 6,000 miles away with 160,000 soldiers.We are an immediate neighbor with a 1,000-mileborder and intimate historical, religious and economic tiesgoing back centuries. You helped Saddam against us in awar that cost us more than 300,000 lives, so naturally wewant to be sure that Iraq is in friendly hands.”By a “friendly” Iraq, Iran means one dominated by itsShiite co-religionists, who make up about 62 percent ofthe population. Thus, Tehran was delighted when theUnited States, prodded by United Nations mediatorLakhdar Brahimi and Iraq’s pre-eminent Shiite cleric,Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Sistani, bowed to demandsMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 17

F OCUSfor elections in 2005 on terms thatassured the victory of the Shiite majority.Then and now, Iran has carefullyavoided committing fully to any factionin Iraq’s internal Shiite powerstruggles. The Ministry of Intelligenceand Security, also known asVEVAK, and other Iranian intelligenceagencies have assisted militias maintained by boththe Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the vehicle of theShiite mercantile and middle classes, and Moqtada al-Sadr’s urban populist movement. They have also workedclosely with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s smallerDaawa Party, and have gradually increased their influencein the internal security agencies of his ISCI-linked regime.Soon after its 2003 invasion, the United States sponsoredthe creation of the National Intelligence Service,headed by a longtime anti-Saddam CIA ally, MohammedShahwani, a Sunni. Al-Maliki countered by installing anIran-trained VEVAK protégé, Sheerwan al-Waeli, as headof the Ministry of National Security, and succeeded in replacingShahwani with his own man in August 2009.Iranian concerns about the direction of U.S. policy havefocused on the so-called “Sunni Awakening” that theGeorge W. Bush administration promoted after the 2005parliamentary elections. This amounted to the employmentof some 91,000 mercenaries in Sunni militias under U.S.control in a program aimed at improving security that costan estimated $150 million per year at its peak. Each fighterwas nominally paid $300 a month. But as Steven Simonpoints out in his article in the May/June 2008 Foreign Affairs,the Sunni tribal sheiks involved took “as much as 20percent of every payment to a former insurgent,” whichmeant that “commanding 200 fighters could be worth overa hundred thousand dollars a year for a tribal chief.”Because the Sunni militias posed a direct challenge tothe predominantly Shiite army that al-Maliki was buildingup, ISCI leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim complained that“weapons should be in the hands of the government only,and the government alone should decide who gets them.The alternative will be perpetual civil war.”Pressure from al-Maliki eventually led to the terminationof the program in return for promises that the demobilizedfighters would be absorbed into his army. But thishas yet to happen on any significant scale. In Baghdad,the principal legacy of the program is Sunni outrage thatTehran has carefully avoidedcommitting to any singlefaction in Iraq’s internalShiite power struggles.could lead to a rebirth of al-Qaidaactivity in Iraq. And in Iranian eyes,the Sunni Awakening has arouseddeep suspicion that Washington ispursuing a conscious “divide andrule” strategy designed to build upa Sunni counterweight to Shiitepower.The death of Supreme Councilleader al-Hakim on Aug. 26, 2009, accentuated a powerstruggle within the Shiite leadership that could affect thestability of the Baghdad government, but it is not likely toweaken Iran’s political clout in Baghdad. Iran orchestratedthe creation of a new Shiite coalition at a meeting last Augustthat united the ISCI, al-Sadr’s forces and the Tanzimal-Iraqbranch of Daawa in the new United Iraqi Alliance.“A Disgraceful Pact”Al-Maliki, like many other Shiite political leaders of hisgeneration, spent the Iran-Iraq War years (1980-1988) inexile in Iran and has longstanding ties with VEVAK. Initially,he had Tehran’s blessing when he became prime minister,but relations suffered during the protracted strugglewith the Bush administration in 2007 and 2008 over theterms of the security agreement under which the UnitedStates has pledged to withdraw all of its combat forces.When a draft U.S.-Iraq accord without a withdrawaltimetable was signed on March 17, 2008, it remained awell-kept secret until nationalist critics within al-Maliki’sinner circle leaked it to Iranian diplomats and to the Iraqimedia. The reaction in Tehran was explosive. On May 11,2008, Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the hardline dailynewspaper Kayhan, attacked the agreement in a vitriolicsigned editorial titled “Iraq on the Edge.” He handed acopy to me during an hourlong interview this past June.“If you want to know what has been happening,” hesaid, “I suggest you read this.” Shariatmadari is the “PersonalRepresentative of the Supreme Leader,” AyatollahAli Khamenei, and is seen as his media spokesman.“How is it,” the editorial asked, “that the Maliki governmenttook the first steps toward signing such a disgracefulpact in the first place?” The United States, it said, is usingthe treaty to “sow the seeds of discord” between al-Malikiand his coalition partner, al-Hakim, so that “the U.S. canput pro-American individuals in charge. It is amazing thatal-Maliki failed to see such a conspiracy coming.” In a clearwarning to the prime minister, the editorial added that if18 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

F OCUSthe treaty is implemented, Iraqiswould replace his government with“another Islamist government.”Al-Maliki was summoned toTehran for a three-day dressingdown(June 7-9, 2008) that led to hisannouncement, on June 13 in Amman,that negotiations with theUnited States had reached “a deadend and a deadlock.” Informants ingovernment-affiliated think-tankstold me that he had had “difficult” meetings, as one put it,with Khamenei and with the Revolutionary Guard generalswho oversee Iraqi policy. Soon thereafter, Iranian newspapersreported, al-Maliki’s defense minister signed amutual security accord with his Iranian counterpart. It hasnever been made public.The deadlock between Baghdad and Washingtonended when the Bush administration agreed that the projectedsecurity agreement would have a “time horizon.”What remains missingfrom the U.S. posture is areadiness to acknowledgethat Tehran, too, hassecurity concerns.And on Nov. 18, 2008, after hagglingover seven drafts, a final versionof the agreement was adopted,providing for the full withdrawal ofU.S. combat forces by Dec. 31,2011. To cover its retreat, theWhite House maintained that thesuccess of the “surge” policy hadenabled Iraq to stand on its own, releasingpent-up nationalist oppositionto the presence of foreignsoldiers. This, in turn, had supposedly compelled al-Malikito insist on a withdrawal timetable so that his opponentscould not use nationalism against him in theforthcoming elections. But what this explanation omittedwas the crucial role that Iran had played in al-Maliki’s conversion.Alireza Sheikhattar, who was first deputy foreign ministerwhen I visited Tehran in June 2008, told me that Iranwould not allow the continued operation of U.S. air basesMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 19

F OCUSthat could make Iraq “a platform forharming the security of Iran andother neighbors. Why should theU.S. have air bases in Iraq?” Baghdadcan take care of its own defense,he said, “and the Iraqis should have areal air force of their own. Why arethey prohibited from having morethan token aircraft and related facilities,even for civil aviation? They arenot poor. They can purchase fightersand have their own aircraft for both internal and externalsecurity.”Addressing Security ConcernsWouldn’t this pose a potential security threat to Iran?Not if Iraq has a sovereign, democratic government,Sheikhattar said. “There is an absolute majority in favor ofIran” now that the Shiite government is in control, he assuredme.Iraq is now seeking to buy 108 aircraft through 2011, including36 late-model F-16 fighter-bombers from theUnited States. So far the Pentagon has not made a decisionon the F-16s, but it has agreed to sell 24 U.S. attackhelicopters and six C-130 transport planes to Baghdad.As if in reply to Sheikhattar, Admiral William J. Fallon,the former commander of the U.S. Central Command, emphasizedin a July 20, 2008, New York Times article that“control of Iraqi airspace” would be an “important componentof the security agreement that would require clearheadednegotiations.” The final draft of the agreement gave“surveillance and control over Iraqi air space” to Baghdad.At the same time, Article 9, Section 2 of the accordpermits U.S. aircraft “to overfly and conduct airborne refueling;”Articles 5 and 6 envisage the continued U.S. operationof bases by allowing U.S. forces the “access and use”of “some necessary facilities” after the withdrawal of combatforces; and Article 7 envisages the pre-positioning ofequipment under U.S. control. The provision for airbornerefueling was a major focus of contention in the negotiationson the accord, because it is viewed in Tehran as givingthe U.S. Air Force unrestricted operational latitude thatcould be used for bombing or surveillance missions in Iran.Sheikhattar, now the Iranian ambassador to Germany,points in particular to the giant Balad Air Base north ofBaghdad, just 74 miles away from the Iranian border and429 miles from Tehran, where the U.S. Air Force currentlyThe principal legacy of theU.S. surge in Iraq is Sunnioutrage that could leadto a rebirth of al-Qaidaactivity there.bases two squadrons of F-16 fighterbombers,each capable of carrying 24tons of bombs. Balad has also been alaunching pad for Qatar-based B-1bombers and Predator unmannedespionage surveillance aircraft.Spread out over 15 square miles,Balad was second only to HeathrowAirport in London in the volume ofits air traffic at the height of the warin Iraq. The expansion and modernizationof the base has been steadily proceeding, with$87 million allocated to new construction in the fiscal 2007budget and $58.3 million more in 2008. This has includedhardening its two 11,000-foot runways, which will now beserviceable until 2014, and installing the latest lightingtechnology for night operations. “We’re good now for aslong as we need to run it,” the Chief Air Force Engineerthere, Lt. Col. Scott Hoover, told Associated Press correspondentCharles J. Hanley. “Ten years?” Hanley asked.“I’d say so,” he replied.The master plan for Balad’s expansion has served as amodel for three other air bases near the Iranian border:Al-Asad, where $76 million in new construction is underway, Tallil and Al Kut.While denying that the United States wants “permanentbases,” Defense Department officials acknowledgethat they hope for “long-term access.” And Articles 5, 6and 7 of the security accord explicitly envisage a substantialU.S. presence and pre-positioned equipment andweaponry. Iran, for its part, will no doubt be carefullymonitoring the type of long-range aircraft and surveillancecapabilities that turn up at the bases along its borders andwhether they are deployed there on a regular basis.The Iranians I met were reconciled to the continuedpresence of U.S. military personnel for training purposesfollowing the withdrawal of combat forces, and even toU.S. participation in operations against al-Qaida and otherSunni extremist groups. But the future of the air bases willclearly be highly contentious and could well affect theObama administration’s diplomatic effort to rule out anIranian nuclear weapons capability.Mutual InterestsWhat has been missing so far in the U.S. posture is areadiness to acknowledge that Tehran, too, has securityconcerns. This is especially clear in terms of the nuclear20 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

F OCUSissue. It was a promise of securityguarantees that led to Tehran’s willingnessto suspend all uranium enrichmentin November 2004, at thestart of talks with the EuropeanUnion on a permanent ban. And itwas the Bush administration’s unwillingnessto join in such guaranteesthat led to the breakdown ofthe talks and the resumption of enrichment.The language of the joint declaration that launched thenegotiations was unambiguous. “A mutually acceptableagreement,” it said, would not only provide “objective guarantees”that Iran’s nuclear program is “exclusively forpeaceful purposes” but would “equally provide firm commitmentson security issues.”In addition to security guarantees relating specifically tomilitary issues, Iran would be likely to seek broader guaranteesin future negotiations ruling out U.S. support foroverthrow of its government. The Obama administrationShared opposition to anybreakup of Iraq could providea basis for U.S.-Iraniancooperation in Baghdad.has already sought to distance itselffrom the active support for “regimechange” reflected in its predecessor’sovert democracy promotionand its covert support of disaffectedethnic minorities. Nevertheless,Iranian leaders have continued towarn against U.S. support for a “VelvetRevolution” amid the unrest thathas followed the contested June 2009 elections. And it continuesto accuse the United States of supporting Kurdishseparatists as well as Jundullah, a Baluch separatist movement.Speaking at Bijar in Iranian Kurdistan on May 12, 2009,Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that“unfortunately, across our borders, our western borders …money, arms and organization are being used by the Americansin fighting the Islamic Republic’s system.” Many journalistshave long reported that Mossad, the Israeliintelligence agency, gives arms to Pejak, an Iranian Kur-MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 21

F OCUSdish separatist group. And NewYorker reporter Jon Lee Andersoninterviewed a senior Kurdish officialin 2008 who said that Pejak operatesout of bases in Iraqi Kurdistan with“covert U.S. support” to conductraids in Iran.Precisely because Tehran fearsKurdish separatism, Iran shares thegoal of a unified Iraq with the United States. It does notwant to see the Iraqi Kurds break away and link up with theKurds in Iran and Turkey.This shared opposition to the balkanization of Iraq and amutual interest in promoting its economic stability providethe basis for U.S.-Iranian cooperation in Baghdad — butonly if Washington is sensitive to Iranian security concernsand recognizes that Tehran views the maintenance of a“friendly” regime in Iraq as essential to its security.George W. Bush sharply limited U.S. options when heended five centuries of minority Sunni rule by deposingTehran does not wantIraqi Kurds to break awayand link up with Kurdsin Iran and Turkey.Saddam Hussein. Iraq will now be,willy-nilly, closer to Iran than to anyother external power, and it wouldbe self-defeating for the UnitedStates to fly in the face of this realityby aligning with Sunni interests inBaghdad.To be sure, the United Statesdoes have a moral obligation to dowhat it can to minimize persecution of Sunnis. But there isno escaping the hard reality that they will now have to adjustto Shia dominance, just as the Shias did for so longunder Sunni rule.Ray Takeyh, a leading Iran scholar who has advised theObama administration, puts it well. “The door to walk intoa larger negotiation between the United States and Iranwould be through Iraq,” he said, “where there is some coincidenceof interests. But you can’t do that if your declaredpolicy is to prevent a country next door from having any influencein the country that is right there.” ■22 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

F OCUS ON I RAQ & ITS N EIGHBORSACHIEVING CLOSURE ONIRAQ’S PREWAR WMDLaszlo KubinyiSUNDERSTANDING WHY IT TURNED OUTSADDAM HUSSEIN HAD NO WMD PROVIDESINSIGHTS USEFUL IN OTHER SITUATIONS.BY CHARLES A. DUELFEReven years after the United States removed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power, awide range of accepted “truths” persist concerning whether Baghdad actually possessed weapons of mass destruction.Many of these are wrong; others are partially accurate, but represent little more than “bumper-sticker” characterizationof a pivotal, but quite complicated, issue. In some ways, current misunderstandings about Iraq’s WMD are as off the markas the prewar assumptions, but in different ways.MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 23

F OCUSMany factors contribute to thesepersistent fallacies. Misconceptionsand miscalculations evolve frommindsets and biases that grow overtime — on all sides and for numerousreasons.For example, Saddam himself deliberatelyprojected alternative viewsof reality to keep his enemies (internaland external) confused, remainingambiguous about his (lack of) WMDto keep Tehran off-balance. In his experience, WMD hadbeen extremely useful. It had helped save him during thewar with Iran in the 1980s and — as he saw it — deterredthe United States from taking him out in 1991.Saddam Hussein’s leadership style also instilled uncertaintyand fear among his minions concerning what theyshould do or report, especially regarding WMD. So heknew that he could not trust the reports of his own people.And if Saddam had doubts about what was going on inIraq, how could outside analysts make accurate judgmentsfounded on facts rather than expectations?For the record: There were no militarily significantstocks of chemical or biological agents (much less nuclearweapons-related development programs) in Iraq whenU.S. forces occupied Baghdad in April 2003. The countrydid have limited numbers of prohibited long-range ballisticmissiles, however, giving Saddam the option of deployingWMD when circumstances permitted.This “absence of WMD” is, however, only one point onthe long curve of the Saddam regime’s behavior. It is animportant point, to be sure (especially for politicians), butit does not convey the regime’s internal dynamics, nor itsintentions for the future. And it certainly ignores importantmatters of context.Charles A. Duelfer was the deputy executive chairman,and then acting chairman, of the United Nations SpecialCommission on Iraq from 1993 until its termination in2000. He was in the country from April to August 2003and later headed the Iraq Survey Group throughout 2004,producing the Comprehensive Report on Iraq WMD(known as the “Duelfer Report”) for the Director of CentralIntelligence. He now consults on a range of intelligenceand security management topics with Omnis, Inc., and isthe author of Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq(Public Affairs, 2009).We now know that therewere no militarily significantWMD stocks in Iraq whenU.S. forces occupiedBaghdad in April 2003.Unintended ConsequencesWhen international inspectionsbegan in 1991, following the war toliberate Kuwait, neither SaddamHussein nor anyone else had a clearidea of what to expect. The U.N. SecurityCouncil’s resolution ending thewar (UNSCR 687) linked the liftingof sanctions to Iraq’s compliance withWMD disarmament, as verified byteams from the U.N. Special Commissionand the International Atomic Energy Agency.Saddam reasonably assumed that these inspectorswould make some visits to Iraq and, in a fashion similar toprevious IAEA inspectors, certify the absence of weaponsof mass destruction. The process would then end. Othergovernments had similar expectations, reflecting the factthat policymakers in Washington and other capitals hadtaken a short-term view in crafting the resolutions.In the wake of the surprisingly swift, low-cost victory,Washington’s priority was to lock in the success and limitBaghdad’s ability to re-emerge as an aggressive power.There was also an unspoken belief that Saddam’s regimewould soon fall due to internal instability, fueled by popularanger over the nation’s military defeat. No one foresawthat the sanctions would be the root and branch ofongoing international conflict for over a decade.The parallel with the punitive terms the Treaty of Versaillesimposed on Germany following World War I — andtheir consequences — went unrecognized or ignored. Indeed,even sophisticated international policy analysts stillmiss the fact that the U.N. Iraq resolution constituted coercivedisarmament, not an arms control accord.Following the letter of the law, UNSCOM inspectorsdemanded that Iraq give up something it adamantly didnot want to yield. Just as Germany had sought to thwartthe Allied inspectors monitoring its disarmament, Saddam,we later learned, set as his highest priority the removal ofsanctions, and at the lowest cost in terms of complianceand prestige. He therefore tested the process from thestart, giving inspection teams minimal access and onlyturning over the most obvious Scud missiles and chemicalweapons. In fact, just weeks after the inspections began,Baghdad blatantly denied inspectors access to locationsknown to contain weapons materials.In response, the Security Council held emergencymeetings but could only agree to send the heads of the24 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

F OCUSIAEA and UNSCOM to Baghdad todiscuss the issue. Gifted with an exquisitetalent for the use of power,Saddam correctly concluded that hecould block inspections at a low cost— certainly nothing that would threatenhis regime. This early lesson set thetone for years of growing friction withinspectors. The worst that would happenif he blocked or delayed inspectors for an hour or twowhile a site was “cleansed,” a favorite Iraqi tactic, was a continuationof sanctions and very limited military strikes.Secure in that knowledge, Saddam worked to maneuverhis way out of sanctions while conceding the leastamount of access to the inspectors. The dogged persistenceof UNSCOM and IAEA teams over the years eventuallyresulted in Iraq largely being disarmed of WMD —but no one outside Iraq was convinced of this. Indeed,U.S. analysts came to assume that the regime always dissembled— and that it did so precisely because it hadsomething to hide: WMD.After 9/11,Saddam was too slow tounderstand that the worldhad changed.The Problem of SanctionsGradually, Saddam also realized that the SecurityCouncil (most particularly, the U.S.) would not act to liftsanctions, no matter how much he did to comply with itsterms. This, of course, touched on the basic fallacy in theWest’s approach: No one really believed that if sanctionswere lifted, Saddam would continue to comply with the disarmamentgoals. Moreover, it was highly improbable, onceoil and commerce began flowing freely, that the Councilwould ever agree to reinstate sanctions. Saddam was astutein giving out oil contracts and too many Council memberswould have too great a stake in continuing the flow.I discussed this dynamic candidly with many seniorregime officials, both before and after the 2003 Iraq War.Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz deftly used it to drive awedge between Security Council members. Russia,France and China were inclined to relieve constraints onSaddam, while the U.S. and Britain remained determinedto contain him.Still, Saddam Hussein never lost sight of the fact thatWashington was the major player. It was obvious that hederived prestige from being the only leader to stand upand confront the last superpower. Less obvious was hisview that he would also attain such status by being alliedwith Washington. (A general note: We unnecessarily inflatethese tyrants, raising them to ourlevel, every time a president publiclydenounces them.)And until 1998, Saddam and otherIraqis clung to the belief that a softeningof relations with Washington waspossible. After all, during the 1980sthe United States had stayed relativelyclose to Baghdad as it fought againstthe common threat Tehran posed — even as Baghdadused chemical munitions against the Iranians (and theKurds inside Iraq). Throughout the 1990s, senior Iraqisrepeatedly asked me what it would take to re-engage withWashington. They requested that I convey to the WhiteHouse their willingness to do almost anything — cooperateagainst fundamentalists, help in the Middle East peaceprocess — if only Washington would talk to Baghdad. Inthe words of one official, Baghdad could be “the bestfriend of the United States in the region, bar none.”There was never a direct response. Publicly, our positionwas consistent: Baghdad had to comply with all U.N.resolutions, and then relations could improve. At the sametime, there were regular statements that the U.S. favoredregime change and had no expectation that Saddam wouldcomply with the U.N. resolutions.Saddam did not know if these were just words, or more.To his highly honed sense of power and influence, itseemed inevitable that the U.S. and Iraq would reconcile.The two nations’ interests were congruent. Both were seculargovernments. Moreover, Iraq was the bulwark againstthe radicals in Iran. And as the most powerful Arab country,with great resources including skillful engineers andindustrious people, Iraq was far more important than thetribes running the Gulf sheikdoms. Until 1998, Saddamcalculated that Washington would eventually “get over”the invasion of Kuwait and resume close ties.Regime officials never grasped that it would be politicalsuicide for an American leader to open a dialogue withSaddam, no matter what the terms. Nor did they fully understandthe uproar over Monica Lewinsky; to them it wasinconceivable that a relationship with an intern could hobblea superpower. But once Baghdad realized how badlythe Clinton administration had been weakened, it pressedthe UNSCOM inspection issue to a conclusion.Based on the judgment that inspectors could not functionunder the conditions Baghdad had imposed, theUnited States — supported only by the United KingdomMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 25

F OCUS— conducted four days of bombing in December 1998.The UNSCOM inspectors left and never returned, and theSecurity Council was mightily divided.As Tariq Aziz later told me, Iraq had a choice of sanctionswith inspectors or sanctions without them. No oneshould have been surprised when it chose the latter.A Fateful YearBy the time President George W. Bush took office in2001, a decade after his father’s smashing military victoryover Iraq, it was clear that the sanctions regime was crumbling.One of the first tasks of Secretary of State ColinPowell was to address this situation, which he did by proposingto the U.N. Security Council a radically reconfiguredsanctions program dubbed “smart sanctions.” (TariqAziz smugly dismissed them as “stupid sanctions.”)Up to this point, there had been a presumption thatmost exports to Iraq should be denied. Now there wouldbe a list of prohibited items, while all other requests wouldnormally be approved. This shift was intended, in part, tolessen the effect of sanctions on the Iraqi people — but itsmain goal was to retain support for any constraints on Saddamfrom Russia, France and other Security Council members.In the pre-9/11 world, this was considered to be thebest way to accomplish that goal.Even so, by that summer Saddam Hussein appeared tobe on the verge of shedding U.N. sanctions — his highestpriority — at a low cost in prestige and power. Internationalcommerce was returning to life, and its oil productionwas rising. At meetings of the Organization ofPetroleum Exporting Countries, the Iraqi delegation wasthe center of attention, with traders eagerly anticipating thefull and unfettered return of Iraqi oil to the market. Saddamshrewdly doled out favors and oil contracts to build aninternational constituency. “If you wanted to be a friend ofIraq when sanctions were formally dropped, then you betterbe a friend of Iraq now” was an effective tactic, especiallywhen combined with a moral argument that thesanctions were killing thousands of innocent Iraqis.American control of substantial Iraqi airspace throughthe “no-fly” zones (patrolled at great expense and risk) wasa matter of extreme annoyance, but it posed no immediatethreat. Saddam had a very long time horizon unconstrainedby the business, election or news cycles that compressWashington’s thinking, and his perspective extendedfar beyond that of American politicians.That calculation was not far off the mark — until 9/11.But Saddam was too slow to understand that the world hadchanged. After all, he had no connection with the perpetratorsor with al-Qaida generally, so he did not foreseethat the U.S. would treat him as an equivalent emergingthreat that had to be dealt with once and for all.Only after President George W. Bush gave his 2002State of the Union address denouncing Iraq as a memberof the “Axis of Evil” did Saddam begin to appreciate thegravity of his position. But he was still unwilling to accepta resumption of inspections (without an explicit commitmentby the Security Council to lift sanctions), and his obstinacyprovided evidence to those concerned about thepossibility that Iraq had begun rebuilding WMD as soonas U.N. inspectors had left Iraq three years earlier.Ultimately, this was his fatal mistake. Had Saddamfreely accepted the return of inspectors in 2002 rather thancontinuing to defy the Security Council, it is highly likelythat the momentum for invasion would have dissipated.Saddam followed this course against the advice of bothTariq Aziz and Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, who understoodthe post-9/11 diplomatic climate.However, Saddam knew the status of his WMD programsand felt that the U.S. must know it, as well. Andhaving received assurances from Russia and France thatthey would block any U.S. proposal that the United Nationstake military action, he may have anticipated that theSecurity Council would finally make a concrete promiseto lift sanctions if inspectors found nothing within somedefined period of time.The Coefficient of WMDTo understand why it turned out that there were noweapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003 is to understandsomething that may be useful in other circumstances.It may also convey knowledge about whereSaddam and his regime were headed.Why did Saddam use weapons of mass destruction incertain situations and not in others? What were the underlyingdynamics? The goal I set for the investigation ofIraqi WMD programs in 2004 was to understand all thefactors involved, not just to discover the status of WMDinventories in 2003.It is the difference between algebra and calculus. Whatequation was Saddam Hussein attempting to solve forwhich the coefficient of WMD was zero at certain pointsand greater than zero at other times? What were the factorsand constants that comprised this equation? And26 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

F OCUSThe 2003 war had nothingto do with intelligencefailures about Iraq’s WMDprograms; it stemmed fromerrors of judgment inusing intelligence.could the West have figured out howto affect Iraqi calculations?Certainly we knew in the fall of2002 that Saddam was not complyingwith the U.N. Security Council resolutionsaimed at containing hisregime. He had not allowed inspectionsfor almost four years and wasactively working on ballistic missiles(with assistance from Russian technicians,we learned after the war). Itwas clear that Iraq was importing conventionalmilitary equipment fromsuppliers willing to violate U.N. sanctions.In post-9/11 Washington, Iraq was a problem to besolved, not managed. The Bush administration tried to addressit through the United Nations — but only because itbelieved there was no way Saddam could (or would) complywith the U.N. resolutions. However, those who madethat argument did not have much experience with inspectionson the ground. While U.N. inspectorsmay not have believed Saddamwas compliant, they certainlyknew that it would be extremely hardto prove he was not. And at theUnited Nations, process can be anend in itself, becoming an endless endeavorthat never comes to resolution.Among intelligence analysts, thepredominant hypothesis was that inthe absence of inspections during theprevious years, Saddam would havebeen crazy not to rebuild his weapons.The result was an extraordinary focus on WMD assessmentsand extremely limited supporting intelligence. (I would observethat the data supporting assessments about currentIranian nuclear efforts dwarf the tidbits underlying the estimatesof Iraqi nuclear activity made in 2002.)When the Iraq Survey Group completed its analysis ofthe regime and its relationship to weapons programs inMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 27

F OCUS2004, it was clear Saddam had anticipated that, once he returnedto more normal relations with the rest of the world,he would be able to rebuild his arsenal, including WMD.But before the war, the picture was complicated and nuanced.We had no analogue in Washington for Saddam’sthinking or the internal operations of his regime. For U.S.politicians, ignorant of the Baghdad mindset, it was impossibleto have anything more than a cartoon image of SaddamHussein.Even many intelligence analysts found it difficult tofathom Baghdad, given the few opportunities to interactwith Iraqis inside Iraq. As an intelligence analyst, how canyou see or collect data about something for which you haveno word or concept?Likewise, Saddam had vast misperceptions about Washington.Among them, he and his government assumed thatthe last superpower must be well-informed. Baghdadmade critical decisions in 1998 concerning inspectors underthe assumption that the United States knew Iraq had eliminatedits WMD systems.Operating in the DarkThe combative interactions between U.N. weaponsinspectors and Iraqi officials throughout the 1990s largelyestablished the mindsets and biases that led to misapprehensionsand miscalculations on both sides in 2000-2003.Once Baghdad was rid of all international inspectors in1998, Washington lost virtually all knowledge of what wasgoing on inside Iraq. The relatively detailed data UN-SCOM had generated suddenly vanished, leaving the U.S.with no independent sources.Our intelligence analysts nonetheless were obligedto make their best guesses about Iraq’s WMD program.Based on previous experience with Saddam’s behaviorand their caution about underestimating his militarymight (as the West did prior to the 1991 war), there wasan altogether natural tendency to presume Baghdadwould reconstitute WMD in the absence of any inspectors— and be able to conceal such efforts under thecover of the renewed trade between Iraq and the outsideworld that was flourishing under the U.N. Oil-for-28 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

F OCUSFood program.Iraqi leaders had informed UNSCOM that their possessionand use of weapons of mass destruction were vitalin the war against Iran in the 1980s. Later, they believedthat the prospect of encountering WMD had deterredU.S. troops from driving all the way to Baghdad in 1991.Aware of this, Iraq analysts back in Washington figuredSaddam would be missing a trick if he did not rebuild hisWMD stockpiles. They were right about the plan, butnot the timing. Saddam was going to wait until after thesanctions were lifted.In conclusion, let me offer one more observation. It istrue that our intelligence assessments concerning IraqiWMD were largely wrong and mistakenly flaunted in theprewar political environment. However, our intelligenceabout the internal dynamics of Iraq and how the nationwas held together was largely correct.The real problem is that the Bush administration refusedto tap those perspectives when it made major decisionsabout postwar governance. Prewar actions toestablish relations in ministries of Saddam’s governmentwere blocked. The refusal to use such knowledge and assessmentsled to monumental blunders such as de-Baathificationand the decision to disband the Iraqi Army.Indeed, the White House refused to undertake even limitedcovert activities aimed at facilitating carefully limitedimmediate changes to the very top levels. Instead, itopted for the wholesale destruction of the existing apparatusof government.In my opinion, the bulk of the resulting postwar chaosin Iraq was avoidable. While Saddam Hussein was a problemthat had to be addressed one way or another, thetragedy was that it did not need to be done so badly. Thiscostly miscalculation did not derive from mistakes aboutIraq WMD inventories, but from ignoring readily availableevidence about the internal dynamics of Iraq. Onthese points, the intelligence community (and some oldhands in State) had far better knowledge. Yet for reasonsbest known to themselves, political leaders chose not toact on this intelligence. ■MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 29

F OCUS ON I RAQ & ITS N EIGHBORSTHE U.S. AND TURKEY:BACK FROM THE BRINKLaszlo KubinyiRAMERICAN, IRAQI AND TURKISH POLICYMAKERSSHOULD CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON PROMOTINGDIALOGUE AND MAKING COMMON CAUSE.BY ROSS WILSONelations between Turkey and the United States foundered between 2003 and 2007over various issues, the most important of which was Iraq. Disagreement over the U.S.-led invasion diminishedAnkara’s standing in Washington, produced Turkish public antipathy toward American policy in the region and, mostimportantly, undermined our governments’ ability to cooperate on Iraq and other issues.Getting the nexus of Turkey-Iraq issues right was job number-one for U.S. Mission Turkey between 2005 and 2008.30 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

F OCUSDiplomacy and policy changes inboth capitals successfully transformedperceptions of the Iraq problem andput U.S.-Turkish relations back ontrack. Given the challenges that lieahead, American, Iraqi and Turkishpolicymakers should continue tofocus on dialogue, achieving commoncause, and addressing specific issuesof concern.Three ProblemsDisagreement about Iraq provoked the worst downturnin U.S.-Turkish relations since the 1974 crisis overCyprus. The issue had several components: the events of2003 and their legacy, Turks’ negative view of U.S. operationsand tactics and, especially, the presence in northernIraq of terrorists from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party(known in English as the PKK). A significant ethnic minorityin Turkey, the Kurds have fought for decades tomaintain their cultural heritage and gain basic civil rights.In the late 1970s, the PKK launched an armed rebellionagainst Aukara for an independent Kurdish state.As is well known, the Turkish Parliament failed onMarch 1, 2003, to pass a government-backed measurethat would have allowed the U.S. Army 4th Infantry Divisionand other forces to enter Turkey and then invadeIraq from the south. The lack of support and disruptionto U.S. plans were big setbacks for U.S.-Turkish relations.High-level consultations, especially among senior defenseofficials, dried up. Secretary of Defense DonaldRumsfeld did not visit Ankara during his remainingthree-and-one-half years in office. Our bilateral High-Level Defense Group virtually ceased to function and interactionsamong our militaries shriveled, reflectingestrangement as well as the exigencies of war. (U.S. useof Incirlik Air Base was a key survivor as our security relationshipturned downhill. Along with arrangements toship non-lethal supplies by ground across Turkey, it hasremained an important link to U.S. forces in Iraq andAfghanistan.)Ross Wilson was U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan from 2000to 2003 and to Turkey from 2005 to 2008. A career ForeignService officer, he also served in Moscow, Prague, Melbourneand Washington, D.C. He retired in 2008 and is avisiting lecturer at The George Washington University.Disagreements about Iraqprovoked the worstdownturn in U.S.-Turkishrelations since the 1974Cyprus crisis.In addition, an economic aidpackage that would have sped recoveryfrom Turkey’s 2001 financialcrisis died, as did talk about a possibleQualified Industrial Zone tradepreference arrangement.Other events reinforced the negatives.• On July 4, 2003, U.S. forcesdetained and “hooded” a TurkishSpecial Forces contingent in Suleymaniye.(Turkey has had many hundreds of troops stationedin northern Iraq since the 1990s, and it still does.)The details of the incident remain obscure. Whateverthe cause and despite U.S. apologies, Turks saw it as anational humiliation. The chief of the Turkish GeneralStaff declared a “crisis of confidence” with the UnitedStates. The act of revenge for Suleymaniye that openedthe viciously anti-American film “Valley of the Wolves:Iraq” helped make it one of the most popular movies everproduced in Turkey.• Sensationalist media coverage turned the November2004 U.S. military operation to regain control of Fallujahinto a horror story full of civilian casualties causedby our reported use of white phosphorus. Turkish PrimeMinister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the victims “martyrs,”and one of his party’s parliamentarians denouncedthe operation as “genocide.” A similar operation in 2005at Tal Afar, home to a large number of ethnic kinsmen,the Turcomen, produced even more lurid headlines.• Whether the picture was of Abu Ghraib or mosquesbombed, whether the United States was responsible ornot, everything in Iraq seemed to reflect badly on us, ourrole in the region and our relations with Turkey.The PKKThe most intractable component of our problems withTurkey over Iraq was the PKK. After the 1999 captureand rendition to Turkey of its leader, Abdullah Ocalan,the group declared a ceasefire in its campaign. Attacksdid not entirely stop, but calm returned to Turkey’s southeast,and the state of emergency there ended. The PKKthen regrouped at its northern Iraq camps just below theborder and at Qandil Mountain, 100 kilometers to thesouth. Larger-scale terrorism resumed in 2005.Whenever the PKK’s northern Iraq presence got tooirritating in the 1990s, Turkish troops had entered Iraq toMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 31

F OCUShit it — without objection from SaddamHussein. After the U.S. invasion,however, cross-border actionwas no longer possible. Washingtonthought this might unhinge the IraqiKurds, potentially unsettle the moststable part of the country, and perhapshave other unintended consequences.And U.S. officials responsiblefor Iraq policy had more immediateconcerns than 3,500-oddfighters located in remote border regions who, whatevertheir other sins, did not target Iraqis or Americans.But as terrorist attacks in Turkey mounted, claiminghundreds of lives, Turks increasingly blamed the PKK’sde facto sanctuary in northern Iraq. They demandedthat either we or the Iraqis act, or that Turkish forces beallowed to do so. U.S. acquiescence to Israel’s July 2006cross-border invasion of Lebanon to fight Hezbollah accentuatedthese demands, especially when it was followedin August by at least 13 bomb attacks in Istanbuland other urban centers. Many Turks concluded thatwe and the Iraqi Kurds tacitly — or perhaps even actively— supported the PKK. Seizures from capturedfighters of U.S.-origin small arms (provided to Iraq forsecurity forces there) seemed to confirm this.Our embrace of the Kurdistan Regional Governmentand calls by reputable figures outside the Bushadministration to divide Iraq along ethnic lines addedthe specter of Kurdistan to Turks’ angst. It seemed tosome that our goals for Iraq included an independentKurdistan that might even take in a chunk of Turkey’ssoutheast as a reward for the Iraqi Kurds’ support indeposing Saddam Hussein in 2003 — and retributionfor Turkey’s lack thereof.In May 2007, a suicide bomber in Ankara targetedTurkey’s military commander. More attacks followed,and matters came to a head when PKK attacks overthree out of four consecutive weekends in Septemberand October 2007 claimed dozens of casualties near theborder in southeast Turkey. No democratically electedgovernment could allow such violence to go unanswered,and Turkey’s parliament passed a measure onOct. 17 authorizing a cross-border operation. This was thepicture when Prime Minister Erdogan arrived in Washingtonto meet President George W. Bush on Nov. 5 ofthat year.President George W. Bush’sNov. 5, 2007, meeting withTurkish Prime MinisterRecep Tayyip Erdoganproved to be a turning point.Diplomacy and DecisionIt seemed obvious in 2005 thatgetting the Iraq problem in U.S.-Turkish relations fixed was essential.Iraq was our nation’s topforeign policy priority. We neededTurkey’s help and cooperationthere, as well as an end to the Iraqrelatedenmity that was degradinga decades-old alliance and underminingour work on terrorism, energy,Iran and other issues. So we increased ourconsultations with Ankara on Iraq, made common causeon several of those issues, and addressed specific problems,especially the PKK. Policy changes in both Washingtonand Ankara were essential.Dialogue: Much of diplomacy consists of talking withand listening to others, so expanding our consultationswith Turkey on Iraq was an obvious — and relatively easy— point of departure.• Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s coordinatorfor Iraq, Ambassador David Satterfield, became a frequentvisitor to Ankara, and both he and his predecessor,Ambassador James Jeffrey (now ambassador to Turkey),as well as senior National Security Council staff responsiblefor Iraq, made plenty of time available for Turkishvisitors to Washington.• Multinational Force-Iraq Commanding GeneralsDavid Petraeus and Raymond Odierno initiated regularmeetings with the Turkish deputy chiefs of the GeneralStaff, Generals Ergin Saygun and Hasan Igsiz.• U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad (laterRyan Crocker) visited Turkey, as well, and they and embassystaff met often with the Turkish ambassador to Iraq(first Ünal Çeviköz, then Derya Kanbay).• Embassy Ankara staff were frequent guests of TurkishForeign Ministry Iraq Coordinators AmbassadorsOguz Çelikkol and Murat Özçelik, briefing them on developments,identifying upcoming issues and solicitingTurkish views.• Iraq usually headed the agenda when Sec. Rice andUnder Secretary of State for Political Affairs NicholasBurns (later William Burns) met with their counterparts.And the “Shared Vision and Structured Dialogue” initiativelaunched by Sec. Rice and Foreign Minister AbdullahGül in 2006 put Iraq in the middle of a comprehensivedialogue about the region.32 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

F OCUS• Vice President Richard Cheney,Joint Chiefs of Staff ChairmanGeneral Peter Pace (later AdmiralMichael Mullin), National SecurityAdvisor Stephen Hadley, and NATOSupreme Allied Commander GeneralJames Jones (later Bantz Craddock)played key roles, as well.Common Cause: We also identifiedand pursued areas where we could cooperate. ForeignMinister Gül and Ambassador Khalilzad teamed up inDecember 2005 to cajole a public commitment from Sunnileaders (including Tariq al-Hashemi, later an Iraqi vicepresident) to abandon their boycott and join Iraqi politics.We consulted on further efforts in 2006 and 2007 to drawother disaffected Sunni groups into the political process.In support of Sec. Rice’s interest in broadening our regionalengagement on Iraq, Gül strongly backed efforts to standup an Expanded Neighbors of Iraq forum in 2007 — helpingto secure, among other things, the participation of SyriaThe most intractablecomponent of our Iraqproblems with Turkey duringthis period was the PKK.and Iran. Turkey hosted the secondExpanded Neighbors ministerial inNovember 2007.Addressing the PKK Issue: Thesenecessary steps only marginally improvedthe atmosphere with Turkey,however, for the PKK problem remaineda chronic and growing ache.We tried several initiatives. A2004-2005 effort to conduct trilateral diplomacy withTurkey and Iraq on the PKK wasn’t taken seriously in Baghdad,and its lack of results disillusioned Ankara. State DepartmentDeputy Coordinator for Counterterrorism FrankUrbancic led an effort to engage authorities in Europe onthe PKK terrorist and criminal networks there that fundedits operations in northern Iraq and elsewhere.Though the Turks initially viewed this as window dressing,the results achieved in several European capitalseventually convinced them the effort had merit. Sec.Rice named retired U.S. Army General Joseph Ralston asMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 33

F OCUSa special representative to focus onthe problem of the PKK presencein northern Iraq. Ralston’s statureas a former NATO commander impressedTurkish leaders, but theynever believed the United Stateshad changed its policy against kineticaction on the PKK problem.They were right, but the Ralstonmission did defuse tensions for aperiod and helped to catalyze achange in Washington’s thinking.The key action came from Pres.Bush. At his meeting with Prime Minister Erdogan onNov. 5, 2007, the president did three things. First, hepublicly declared the PKK to be “an enemy of the UnitedStates, of Turkey and of Iraq.” These words replaced formulationsabout the problem that were more or less ardentdepending on one’s proximity to Ankara, but werenever effective as rhetoric or policy. Second, he agreedwith Erdogan that Turkey could conduct limited operationsagainst PKK border encampments in northern Iraq.And third, he undertook to provide U.S. intelligence supportfor those efforts.A Turning PointGenerals James Cartwright, the JCS vice chairman,Petraeus and Craddock visited Ankara days after theWhite House meeting to show we were serious and to discussthe practicalities. Details were worked out by thecommander of U.S. Mission Turkey’s Office of DefenseCooperation, Air Force Major General Eric Rosborg (inconsultation with MNF-I and the U.S. European Command),and counterparts at the Turkish General Staff.Deconfliction arrangements were made to prevent unintendedfire on friendly elements in northern Iraq, and asmall center was established to facilitate the real-timesharing of actionable intelligence.Turkey carried out its first cross-border artillery attackon PKK encampments on Dec. 1, 2007, followed by airstrikes at Qandil Mountain and bases close to the borderon Dec. 16-17. A relentless effort took place in themonths that followed. By the summer of 2008, the PKK’ssafe haven in northern Iraq was no more. Its training andlogistical capabilities had been significantly degraded, anddevelopments in Turkey-Iraq and Turkey-Iraqi Kurd relationswere isolating it politically, as well.Turkey counseled theIraqis during their 2008negotiations of a status-offorcesagreement with us andtried to help on Kirkuk andelection law issues.There were hiccups, to be sure.Almost as soon as the smokecleared from the first Turkishstrikes in December, officials responsiblefor Iraq policy — worried,for good reason, about theadditional strain such actions puton the Iraqi political system — saidthe Turks had made their point andshould stop. This did not reflectthe president’s undertaking toPrime Minister Erdogan, butthroughout the months that followed,concerns were expressed at all levels that Turkey’sactions posed too much risk to our overall effort in Iraq.Hard work by U.S. officials in Iraq helped maintain calm.A Turkish land incursion that began on Feb. 21, 2008,against PKK bases a few kilometers south of the borderproduced more strain. It lasted a week.From roughly this point forward, Turkey-Iraq relationsand American dealings with Ankara on Iraq began to improve.On March 7, 2008, Turkey hosted Iraqi PresidentJalal Talabani in Ankara — a long-encouraged and longsoughtvisit that hadn’t been possible earlier. (That Talabanimade the trip then seemed to indicate that he, too,saw this as exactly the time for Turkey to chart a new relationshipwith Iraq and Iraqi Kurds.) In July, Tayyip Erdoganmade the first visit to Baghdad by a Turkish primeminister in 18 years, and he and Iraqi Prime MinisterNouri al-Maliki energized efforts to normalize political,trade and other ties and to support the Iraqi government.Turkey counseled the Iraqis during their 2008 negotiationsof a status-of-forces agreement with Washingtonand tried to help on Kirkuk and election law issues. Doorsopened for military exchanges and training. Later,Turkey’s Iraq Coordinator Murat Özçelik initiated a dialoguewith senior Kurdistan Regional Government officials.(This process got a boost when Turkish ForeignMinister Ahmet Davutoglu met with KRG PresidentMasud Barzani in Erbil in 2009.) U.S.-Turkish relationsimproved, including in the security arena.What accounts for this shift? Our change of policy toallow counterstrikes against the PKK in northern Iraq wasa key factor. Turkish authorities, now visibly protectingtheir citizens, felt politically able to upgrade their engagementwith Iraq and the Iraqi Kurds. Our consultationshad an effect, too, in helping Ankara look past34 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

F OCUSimmediate issues to the eventualdrawdown of U.S. forces and influencein Iraq, which posed a problem— and an opportunity — forTurkey.Various developments helpedthe Turks reconcile themselves tothe prospect of an autonomous IraqiKurdish entity in the north. Parallelefforts by U.S. diplomats may have helped KRG leaderssee that cultivating cooperation with Ankara could be important,perhaps vital, to their longer-term interests givenother problems they faced. Mutual trade and investmentinterests furthered such thinking. A final factor may havebeen concern about Iranian ambitions in Iraq and regionally.While having no interest in confrontation with Iran,Turkish officials wanted to project more moderate and stability-orientedinfluences that would, inter alia, bolster therole of Turkey and like-minded countries in the region.Although this article focuses on the problem of Iraq inThe eventual drawdownof U.S. forces in Iraq posesa problem — and anopportunity — for Turkey.U.S.-Turkish relations, it is worthnoting that Pres. Bush’s change ofpolicy on the PKK also helped, atleast indirectly, to unlock a new approachto Turkey’s internal Kurdishissues in 2008-2009. The government’seffort has been tentative andencountered setbacks, but hopefullywill succeed in drawing moreKurds into the mainstream.Looking ForwardPotential problems lie ahead in Iraq, in Turkey-Iraqrelations and in our own dealings with Turkey on Iraq.• One issue is the U.S. redeployment out of Iraq.Transiting material through Turkey en route to Europeand the United States would save money and time.• Elections and the formation of a new Iraqi governmentin 2010 will be difficult. Al-Qaida is still very active,even as problems in Kirkuk remain unresolved. ViolentMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 35

F OCUSWashington shouldsustain the dialogue aboutIraq with Turkey in2010 and 2011.and centripetal forces lie, at best, justbelow the surface.• Turkish-Iraqi border patrol andmilitary contacts remain inadequate,especially with the Peshmerga in thenorth. The continued presence ofhundreds of Turkish troops in northernIraq could be a point of conflict —or an opportunity for constructive engagementon both sides.• The PKK may stage its own flashpoint. It has no interestin promoting comity between Ankara and Baghdador between Turks and Iraqi Kurds, or in the success ofAnkara’s initiatives to address popular grievances amongTurkish Kurds — any or all of which would further isolateit and undermine its interests.The United States should keep up a sustained conversationabout Iraq with Turkey in 2010 and 2011. We shouldencourage Ankara’s continued engagement across the Iraqipolitical spectrum, especially its efforts to bolster moderatesand work with the military.We and Iraq should continue tocooperate with Turkey as its forces goafter terrorists in remote border areas,and U.S. officials in Ankara, Baghdadand Erbil must do everything theycan to ensure that the newly re-establishedU.S.-Turkey-Iraq trilateralforum on the PKK produces results.Other ways to help include: encouraging trade and investmentin border areas, through the kind of preferentialtrade arrangements proposed in 2008 for Afghanistan andPakistan; facilitating Iraqi natural gas exports to Turkey andthrough it to Europe; and conditioning multilateral assistanceon Iraqi steps to integrate economically with Turkeyand other neighbors.Iraq and Turkey can have a good future together,though that is by no means inevitable. Constructive effortson all sides will contribute greatly to the chances ofsuccess. ■36 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

F OCUS ON I RAQ & ITS N EIGHBORSTHE MIDDLE EAST:FORKS IN THE WAY FORWARDLaszlo KubinyiTHE STAKES FOR GETTING U.S. POLICY RIGHT INTHE REGION ARE HIGHER THAN EVER. HERE IS ANOVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES.WBY CHAS W. FREEMAN JR.hen you look back, some years can be seen as having inflected history, moving men andevents along paths they would otherwise not have taken. 2001 — the year of 9/11 — was such a time. 2009 shaped up asanother, not just for the decisions that were made but for those that were not.The second President Bush bequeathed his successor a set of thoroughly broken policies in the Middle East and thenear-total estrangement of the United States from former allies and friends in the Arab and Muslim worlds. PresidentMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 37

F OCUSBarack Obama responded withrhetorical “change we” — or at leastfive Norwegians — “can believe in.”In his speech in Cairo last June, heclearly signaled that he recognizesthe imperative of solving the Israel-Palestine conflict and repairingAmerican relations with Arabs andMuslims if the U.S. is to enjoy peaceabroad and tranquility at home.Still, in the Middle East and elsewherethe Obama administrationhas made only minimal changes tolongstanding American policies that are conspicuous failures.The short-term stakes in getting these policies rightare large. The long-term stakes are vastly larger.Chas W. Freeman Jr. is a retired FSO and former ambassadorto Saudi Arabia. He is currently president of theMiddle East Policy Council. This article is based on Amb.Freeman’s remarks to the National Council on U.S.–ArabRelations in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 16, 2009.What began as a conflictbetween Jewish colonists andindigenous Arabs has becomea worldwide strugglebetween Jews, Muslims andtheir respective allies.A Large National Blind SpotWhen U.S. interrogators asked Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,the confessed mastermind of the 9/11 atrocities,why al-Qaida had done the terrible things it did that day, hegave a straightforward answer. He said that the purposewas to focus “the American people ... on the atrocities thatAmerica is committing by supporting Israel against thePalestinian people and America’s self-serving foreign policythat corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitationof the Arab Muslim people.” In Osama binLaden’s annual “address to the American people” on Sept.11, 2009, he reiterated: “We have demonstrated and statedmany times, for more than two-and-a-half-decades, that thecause of our disagreement with you is your support to yourIsraeli allies who occupy our land of Palestine.”There is nothing at all ambiguous or unclear about theseexplanations of 9/11 by its planners and perpetrators. Fewabroad dispute their essential validity. Yet here in America,they remain completely unreported outside the Internet.Any public reference to U.S. backing for Israel as a grievancethat motivated the atrocities in New York and Washingtoneight years ago is vigorously disputed andsuppressed as politically incorrect. This has created a largenational blind spot to the seriousness of Arab Muslim reactionto a core American policy.It has also left our country unableto analyze the very real threat to ourdomestic tranquility that intermittentterrorist attacks represent. Byleaving such incidents unexplained,and disconnecting them from thetrends and events in the MiddleEast that helped inspire them, wehave imposed a mental block onourselves that has distorted ourthreat perceptions and greatly hamperedthe development of a realisticnational security strategy.So it is necessary to begin by recapitulating the obvious.The 9/11 assault on the United States was carried out byMuslim extremists, motivated in large measure by their resentmentof U.S. support for Israel and its actions. Theneed to avenge 9/11 and deter a repetition of it led directlyto the American invasion of Afghanistan. The so-called“global war on terrorism” that this invasion inauguratedprovided a spurious but politically sufficient justification forthe occupation of Iraq in 2003.Our labeling of Hamas as a “terrorist organization” inspiredthe joint U.S.-Israeli effort to reject and overturn theresults of the 2006 elections in the occupied territories,even though these elections were universally judged to befree and fair. A similar view of Hezbollah caused the U.S.to encourage Israel in its savage mauling of Lebanon and toprotect it from the huge international backlash against itsmore recent assault on Arab civilians in Gaza.Determination to avoid another 9/11 remains the strategicrationale for the ongoing war in Afghanistan and adjacentareas of Pakistan. Meanwhile, the insolent cruelties ofthe West Bank occupation and the siege of Gaza continueto inflame Arab and Muslim opinion.Taken together, these developments have caused agrowing number of Arabs and Muslims to perceive a broadAmerican crusade to humiliate them and their religion.Their estrangement from the U.S. and other non-Islamicsocieties has deepened. Al-Qaida has discredited itselfthrough its excesses, but Islamic extremism has continuedto metastasize. In Gaza, for example, political forces farmore fanatical than Hamas are beginning to emerge frommassive suffering. What began as a conflict between Jewishcolonists and indigenous Arabs has become a worldwidestruggle between Jews, Muslims and their respective allies.38 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

F OCUSAs Israel’s sole protector, theUnited States has become the targetof sustained asymmetric warfare byterrorists who espouse extremistMuslim agendas. Governments alliedwith the United States or dependenton it — especially those inArab and Muslim countries — are targets, too. The threatwe Americans now face derives less from al-Qaida than itdoes from widening Muslim rage at continuing humiliationand injustice.A Central Strategic TaskA just and durable peace in the Holy Land that securesthe state of Israel should be an end in itself for the UnitedStates. But the fact that the conflict there enrages and radicalizesthe Islamic body politic worldwide should make theachievement of such a peace an inescapable, central taskof United States strategy. This is why it was right for Pres.Obama to take time last June to deliver a message of reconciliationto Arabs and Muslims in Cairo. Despite all theother urgent tasks, he focused on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has repeatedly expressed determinationto stabilize Israel’s relations with its Arab neighborsthrough a “two-state” solution. The administration’sinitial efforts have, however, met with contemptuous rejectionfrom Israel, feckless dithering from the Palestiniansand skepticism from other Arabs. This should not surpriseus, even if it seems to have surpised our president.The current government of Israel rejects trading landfor peace. It sees itself as on the verge of achieving a levelof colonization of Palestinian Arab land that will make anythingresembling a Palestinian state physically impossible.In the exclusively Jewish state of Israel that its leading figuresenvisage, only Jews will be full citizens. Some Arabswill have limited rights, but most will live in an archipelagoof checkpoint-ringed ghettos. They will be free, shouldthey wish, to call these ghettos a “state;” but once they leavePalestine, Israel will not allow them to return.Given this Israeli vision, the American attempt toarrange a settlement freeze so that negotiations can createa Palestinian state is, from the Israeli government point ofview, at best an unwelcome distraction and at worst a hostileact. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not fearpressure from the U.S. to change course. He is confidentthat his American lobby will arrange for Congress to punishthe president if he tries to punish Israel for its intransigence.The Obama administrationis unwilling, at least for now,to put pressure on Israel.An Israeli Cabinet-directed assassinationcampaign has long workedto ensure that “there is no one totalk to” on the Palestinian side. Witha little help from their Israeli conquerorsand us Americans, survivingPalestinian politicians remain hopelesslydivided. Israel has not presented a proposal for peaceto the Palestinians. Sadly, if it now did so, there would beno one with the authority to accept on behalf of the Palestinianpeople.The United States, meanwhile, is seeking to ease Palestiniansuffering in ways that improve the political standingof collaborators with the Israeli occupation authorities. WillPalestinian leaders emerge who are willing to take whateverthey can get from Israel and who are able, somehow,to call off the resistance to it? That seems to be the hope,if not the plan. It is not, of course, the trend.The Obama administration is unwilling, at least for now,to put pressure on Israel. Instead, it has fallen back on theuse of diplomacy as psychotherapy for Israel’s politicalpathologies. It is trying to induce better behavior by arrangingArab gestures that appease Israeli apprehensionsand signal acceptance of the Jewish state in their midst evenbefore its borders are fixed, or the status of both its captiveArab population and those who fled to the refugee campsin neighboring countries is resolved.American diplomats see these gestures as down paymentson the normalization of relations with Israel that theArab League proposed at Beirut in 2002 in the so-called“Arab Peace Initiative.” But the Arabs premised their willingnessto accept Israel on its reaching an acceptable agreementwith the Palestinians. With Israel now neither doingnor promising anything that might lead to an acceptablestatus for the Palestinians, the Arabs see no reason to appeaseit. Nor do they any longer feel obligated by friendshipto accommodate what they judge to be ill-consideredAmerican requests.Two Dreadful IroniesAdding poignancy to the impasse are two dreadfulironies. The state of Israel was established to provide theworld’s Jews with a homeland in which they might safelyenjoy the pursuit of happiness free from continuing persecutionby Gentiles. But the Jewish state has become themost dangerous place on the planet for Jews to live. Andwith anti-Semitism now universally rejected in its tradi-MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 39

F OCUStional Christian heartland, Israel’s actionsand policies have become theprimary significant stimulus to anti-Jewish animus there and elsewhere.Meanwhile, the replacement ofZionist idealism, humanism and secularismwith the cynicism, racismand religiosity of contemporary Israelipolitics has precipitated amounting moral crisis and loss ofconfidence among many committedto the Jewish state.Although some settlers continueto arrive, one-fifth of Israelis now resideabroad. Jewish emigration is accelerating.Meanwhile, the Arab population of Israel andthe occupied territories continues to grow, as does the sizeof the Palestinian diaspora. By 2015, barring mass deportation,half the people in Israel and the occupied territorieswill be Arabs. Thereafter, Jews will be a declining minority.The international community — including, I daresay, mostof the Jewish diaspora — does not accept the settler propositionsthat Jews can and should by divine right entrenchtheir rule over the Arabs of the Holy Land, or define themas morally inconvenient and deport them. An antiapartheidstylecampaign of ostracism, boycott and disinvestmentagainst this version of a Jewish state has already begun.In combination, current trends portend the perpetuationof violent struggle by the Palestinians against their Israelioverlords, even as the Jewish state is isolated fromwithout and corrodes from within. These trends lead to escalatingantagonism between the United States and theArab and Muslim worlds. Given the self-identification ofmany Jews with the state of Israel, these trends also risk arebirth of anti-Semitism and a spillover of violence to theJewish diaspora.Peace with the Palestinianswould enable Israel for thefirst time to be acceptedby 340 million Arabs and1.2 billion non-Arab Muslimsas a legitimate part ofthe Middle East.Peace — Or the AlternativeSo where does this leave the Obama administration’speace project? In Israel’s own estimation and that of the region,the Jewish state is at a turning point. Time is runningout on the prospects for peaceful engagement between it,the Palestinians, other Arabs and non-Arab Muslims. Nopeace is conceivable without the full use of American moraland economic leverage to bring Israel to the negotiatingtable. A decision by Washington to compel Israel to makethe choices necessary to achieve mutually respectful coexistencewith the Palestinians andother Arabs would, however, lead toimmediate political crises in both Israeland the United States. The administrationspeaks with determination,but is it really prepared to riskthis?Peace with the Palestinianswould enable Israel for the first timeto be accepted by 340 million Arabsand 1.2 billion non-Arab Muslims asa legitimate part of the Middle East.It would thereby end the conflict inthe Holy Land. The key to deradicalizationof the Arab and Muslimworlds, and to ending their violent backlash against theWest, it is also the prerequisite for the restoration of peacewithin the realm of Islam.The alternative is the current Israeli government’s effortto impose a Jewish-dominated state dotted with little Arabghettos. This is a “success” that Israelis would almost certainlycome to regret bitterly. Would a state seen by theworld as embodying racism and religious bigotry retain thesupport of the Jewish diaspora? Would the United Statescontinue indefinitely to guarantee its security? The safetyof such an Israel and its citizens would depend on the sofarundemonstrated ability of intimidation, ruthlessly sustained,to grind Arab resistance into acquiescence. Cairoand Amman would have to be kept within a Camp Davidframework that Egyptians and Jordanians, if allowed tovote, would even now overwhelmingly repudiate.Israel’s right to exist as a state in the Middle East wouldalmost certainly be reviewed in intermittent tests of arms,conducted — as in the case of the Crusader kingdoms inPalestine — over decades, if not centuries. Israel wouldhave to sustain military hegemony in perpetuity over larger,ever more populous and ever more modernized Arab andMuslim neighbors. If these conditions were not met, asthey almost certainly could not be, this unilaterally imposedoutcome would be an invitation to protracted Arab andMuslim struggle against Israel and its supporters abroad.It is hard to see this as a formula that leads to anythingbut eventual disaster for Israel and its foreign backers, nowessentially limited to the United States. Israel’s nuclear doctrine— based as it is on an amalgam of Armageddon withthe heroic suicide at Masada — seems to recognize this. Onthe whole, for sensible people in Israel and for Americans,40 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

F OCUSthe peaceful emergence of a viablePalestinian state in the occupied territoriesand Gaza looks like a muchbetter bet than self-isolation.In the meantime, the regionpresents other challenges — even ifnone of them has the transformativepotential of a peace or continuedwarfare in the Holy Land. Let menow turn briefly to these.The best thing theUnited States could do forIraq now is to engageBaghdad’s neighbors.Iraq and Related ChallengesIt is good that the end of the American misadventure inIraq is in sight. But its termination is not likely to repairthe injury it did to the standing of the United States in eitherthe international or Muslim communities. The “surge”averted disaster; the withdrawal may yet bring it. The postoccupationorder in Iraq is unlikely to emerge smoothly orwithout further stressing regional stability. In the land betweenthe two rivers, the United States will leave behind abattleground of grievances. The Kurdish and Sunni Arabminorities, among others, must likely undergo still moresuffering before things settle down. There will be no harvestof good will from the carnage in Iraq.The same seems likely to be true of our eight-year interventionin Afghanistan. We began it with simple andstraightforward goals — the apprehension of al-Qaida andthe chastisement of its Afghan hosts. But these goals havebeen buried in a barrage of competing ideological and special-interestobjectives. The result is combat in a politicalvacuum — a war whose only apparent theme is now Westernhostility to militant Islam. This has destabilized Pakistanand nurtured a particularly virulent form of terrorismthere and in the Pakistani diaspora. It has spurred a recentsurge in financial contributions to the Taliban as an apparentlyheroic resistance to infidel trespasses on Islam.What then to do about Afghanistan, where everyone admitsthe most likely outcome is now failure? If you ask a religiousscholar or ideologue, you will hear a sermon. Froman economist, expect a development scheme. Ask a nongovernmentalorganization, and prepare to receive a programproposal. Ask a general what must be done, and youwill get a crisp salute and the best campaign plan militaryscience can devise. People come up with the solutions theyknow how to put together.The Obama administration briefly showed signs that itwas taking charge of policy rather than — in a strange evasionof civilian control of the military— delegating its formulation to thegenerals. It did not follow through.It ended up adopting yet anothermilitary-proposed campaign plan.This one features a pacification effortextending over as much as anotherdecade. But al-Qaida hasrelocated to Pakistan from Afghanistan.Neither the Taliban leadership nor anyone else inAfghanistan seems to want it to come back.The proposed pacification campaign is called a “strategy,”but it is not. It strains to find a military way to transformAfghanistan, even though its authors — who are verysmart soldiers — recognize there is none. We are still lookingfor a strategy backed by force. In the meantime, wecontinue the use of force as a very inadequate substitutefor strategy.Iranian GainsThis brings me, at last, to Iran. Tehran had nothing todo with the assault on America on 9/11, but no nation hasbenefited more from the American reaction to it than theIslamic Republic. Its revolution seemed to be flickeringout when 9/11 happened. In short order, its greatestenemy, the United States, then eliminated its other enemiesin both Kabul and Baghdad and embarked on a militaryrampage through the Islamic world that estrangedAmericans from our traditional allies there. But wait! Itgets even better from the Iranian point of view.In Afghanistan, the Iranians have been able to sit on thesidelines and watch us exhaust ourselves in inconclusivewarfare. In Iraq, Iran is the dominant foreign influence inthe country’s newly sectarian politics. (Of course, no onecan say whether Baghdad will continue its de facto alliancewith Tehran after the United States withdraws.) Israel andthe United States brushed aside efforts by Damascus to diluteits longstanding dependence on Tehran, thus cementingrather than eroding Iran’s influence in Syria.The 2006 Israeli savaging of Lebanon drove Iran’s clientmovement, Hezbollah, onto the commanding heights ofLebanese politics. This reduced Tehran’s need to go throughDamascus to affect events in Lebanon or to reach northernIsrael. Meanwhile, Israeli and American efforts to ostracizeand overthrow the elected Hamas government in Palestineleft it nowhere to go but into the arms of Iran. AssertivelyShiite Iran has, for the first time, acquired the Sunni ArabMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 41

F OCUSfollowing it had long sought. CurrentAmerican policy seems clueless abouthow to reverse these Iranian gains.Meanwhile, Tehran seems on trackto acquire the ability to field its owndeterrent to the threats of nuclear attackIranians have serially heard fromSaddam’s Iraq, successive Israeli governmentsand George W. Bush’sAmerica. David Ben-Gurion wrotethe book on how to build a clandestinenuclear weapons capability. He skillfully appeasedPresident John F. Kennedy’s passion for nonproliferationeven as his government subverted and circumvented it.The ayatollahs have read and absorbed the Israeli playbook,minus — one hopes — the bit about Masada. Israelis, betterthan anyone, know how this script ends — not in a warthat secures their nuclear monopoly in the region. It is timeto start thinking about how to mitigate the undeniable dangersof an Iranian, as well as an Israeli, nuclear arsenal.I must not close without a brief mention of the longstandingArab friends of the United States and the West inthe Persian Gulf and Red Sea regions. Despite welcomenew activism on the part of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and thecountries of the Gulf Cooperation Council have to a greatextent been bystanders as a strange combination of Americandiplomatic default and military activism has dismantledthe regional order that once protected them. Iraq no longerbalances Iran. The United States no longer constrains Israel,which has never behaved more belligerently. Iran hasacquired unprecedented prestige and influence amongArabs and Muslims. The next stage of nuclear proliferationis upon the region. For the first time ever, Shiism dominatesthe politics of Arab states traditionally ruled by Sunnis. Islamistterrorism menaces Egyptian and Gulf Arab domestictranquility, as well as that of the West. The United States,once attentive to Arab security and other concerns, is nowobsessed with its own issues and objectives in the region.The Persian Gulf Arabs have the financial resources butneither the institutions nor the will to mount the unifiedeffort needed to cope with these challenges. They areadrift, not sailing to a new strategic strong point. The driftis taking them away from their traditional reliance onAmerica and toward new partners. These are mainly theso-called BRIC countries of Brazil, Russia, India andChina, plus South Africa. But Egypt and the Gulf Arabstates seem destined to remain on the strategic sidelines,In Afghanistan, theIranians have been able tosit on the sidelines andwatch us exhaust ourselvesin inconclusive warfare.not in the game. They will not stepforward to take the lead in addressingthe disputes of which I have beenspeaking. Hence the need for continuingAmerican leadership.Iraq and the RegionSo what is to be done? In the caseof Israel and Palestine, a failure to decideis, in fact, a fateful decision. Theavoidance of choice risks futuretragedy for America, as well as for Israel and the Arabs.The best thing the United States could do for Iraq nowis to engage Baghdad’s neighbors. All should share our interestin supporting non-violent Iraqi solutions to Iraqiproblems. We need to work with Turkey and Arab allies toenlist Syria, Iran and others in this task and hold them to it.In the region as a whole, the American effort to build acoalition of opposition to Iran has failed. We must now joinour allies and friends in offering those who have come todepend on Tehran alternatives to doing so. Iran is a proudcountry that will not surrender to threats. Its people remainobsessed with the affront they believe we pose to theirnational identity, independence and honor among nations.Without a parallel normalization of U.S.-Iranian relations,there is no hope of resolving the nuclear issue in a way thatmitigates its menace. Pres. Obama’s several messages tothe Iranian people have opened a path to respectful Iranian-Americandialogue that might lead to this. We mustpersist in inviting Tehran to walk this path with us.Finally, in Afghanistan, we continue to lack a comprehensivestrategy. We must leverage religious and tribal realitiesrather than seeking to overturn them. Our objectiveshould be to consolidate the exclusion of al-Qaida fromAfghan territory. To do this, we must work with Pakistanand in partnership with friendly Arab and Muslim countries,not at cross-purposes with them; and we must support, notundercut, the Pashtun tribes. This, not a Western militarypresence on Afghan soil, is how we helped Afghans expelthe Soviets from their homeland. This, ratified by a reconvenedloya jirga and supported with generous economic assistance,is how we can keep al-Qaida out of Afghanistanwhile we work to expel it from Pakistan.Pres. Obama’s message to the world’s Muslims in Cairolast June illuminated a different way forward than the roadwe appear to be on. We can yet take that path. It is time todo so. ■42 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

DIPLOMACY REBOOTED: MAKINGDIGITAL STATECRAFT A REALITYTHE STATE DEPARTMENT IS NOW IN A POSITION TO BUILD NOVELAPPLICATIONS TO SUPPORT THE MISSION OF DIPLOMACY.BY CHRIS BRONKIncredibly heartening is the news that at the closeof this decade, the State Department’s top leadershipis once again taking a serious look at the role ofinformation technology in the mission of diplomacy.But the challenges will be very different than 10years ago, when making the department a “wired”organization involved the deployment of digital infrastructure— mostly computer and networking hardware.The new thrust of digitized diplomacy will primarily involvesoftware, which will likely stand at odds with State’s currentprocesses and culture.New applications and structures are now changing the faceof IT. Cloud and mobile computing, browser-based applications,weblogs and social media will change the way almost allinformation workers (including diplomats) do their jobs, andmay challenge the method by which the entire departmentfunctions.State is now connected, but must take stock and determinethe best avenues for building on the digital foundation constructednearly a decade ago. The most significant change indiplomacy since the advent of the telegram is at hand.A Foreign Service officer from 2002 to 2006, Chris Bronk is afellow at Rice University’s James A. Baker III Institute for PublicPolicy. He also teaches in Rice’s computer science department.He served in the State Department Office of eDiplomacy,where he participated in the development of Diplopedia.Opening the NetWiring State was a project given highest priority by formerSecretary of State Colin Powell, who doggedly pursued thegoal of getting Internet computers on the desktop of each employeeand deploying OpenNet Plus, not only inside the HarryS Truman Building but also in the hundreds of missionsaround the globe. Admirably, the project was completed inroughly 18 months and deepened linkages between MainState and overseas posts, as well as digitally connecting the departmentto the world.Fernando Burbano, State’s first chief information officer,prepared the foundation for what the late USIA-hand WilsonDizard Jr. had begun to illuminate in his Meganet (WestviewPress, 1998) and fleshed out in Digital Diplomacy — U.S. ForeignPolicy in the Information Age (Praeger, 2001). As Dizardopined, “Digital diplomacy issues and techniques have had tobe shoehorned into a policymaking system run by officials whowere initially uninterested in and often suspicious of the subject.”Nonetheless, Sec. Powell recognized that foreign affairswould have to go digital, and ordered that the infrastructurefor making that transition be constructed at breakneck speed.Thanks to this executive interest, Burbano got the Internetonto the department’s desktops, and did it quickly.State is now in a position to build novel applications to supportthe mission of diplomacy. It does so in interesting times.After a few years of post–Internet bubble reflection, the paceof change and development in the IT sector is once again surging.While some technologies will fall into what IT consultancyGartner, Inc., labels “the trough of disillusionment,”many will thrive, becoming de facto standards for organizationalcommunications and productivity. The department willneed to make wise bets on what standards it can accept andwhich ones it should ignore.In doing so, its leadership must stay focused on the informationpiece of IT, adopting technologies that more effectivelyaccommodate the complexity of international affairs and man-MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 43

age the “information tsunami” thatflows through the organization daily,threatening to swamp those chargedwith crafting our nation’s foreign policy.The most significantchange in diplomacy sincethe advent of the telegramis likely at hand.IT and the Missionof DiplomacyWe live at a time when half theplanet is able to log on to a communicationsmedium where there are almostno barriers to international exchangeof information — the Internet.This connectivity, of course, has alreadychanged the practice of diplomacy.For nearly a century we reliedupon trusted envoys to serve the nationalinterest in distant foreign capitals,employing the telegraph to stay intouch with the mother country, usuallyvia the briefest of messages. Today,communications may flow from aBlackBerry to Berlin, Bamako orBaghdad instantaneously.Yet though the department is connected,wired and wirelessly, by fiberand satellite, its official communicationchannel remains the same telegraphically-basedcable format that GeorgeKennan used to send his prescientanalysis from Moscow in 1946. E-mailhas replaced the telegraph, of course;but the organizational process builtaround it has yet to leave the building.For all the discussion of technology, ultimatelyits adoption and use are largelydependent upon how well it fits an organization’sprocess.Organizational change rarely comeseasily, and is often prompted by crisis.In industry, if companies fail to innovateor adapt, they soon decline andfade away, but government is different.Without a balance sheet by which tomeasure effectiveness, identifying metricsto evaluate the performance of anagency can prove elusive.At the IRS or U.S. Postal Service,benchmarking efficiency can be asstraightforward as counting tax returnsor pieces of mail. And at NASA and theNational Institutes of Health, successcan be identified by scientific or technicalbreakthroughs.Diplomacy is harder to categorize ina spreadsheet or win-loss columns. Weknow that diplomacy is an informationintensivebusiness, but we have not entirelyfigured out how to apply technologyto meet the mission of statecraft,an area populated by an ever-increasingnumber of actors, many of whomare not states.Getting the Balance RightToday, IT is the State Department’selectronic nervous system. Where itwas once viewed as a career-enhancingskill to learn how paper moved aroundthe department, it is probably moreuseful today to understand where thebits flow. E-mail is the overwhelminglydominant form of communication,likely making up more than half of thedigital traffic across the department’snetwork. Entrusted with delivery andstorage of the bits is State’s IT organ,the Bureau of Information ResourceManagement, which runs the enterprisenetwork that delivers cables ande-mail, accesses Web pages and completestelephone calls. IRM is thephysical apparatus of the department’sdigital nervous system, its interconnectedsystem of links and nodes. Butthere’s a lot of IT at State that’s not inIRM; perhaps as much as half of thedepartment’s $1.2 billion IT budget residesin other bureaus.Across the department, informationtechnology is employed to transmit,process, digest and disseminate information.IT facilitates political and economicreporting, is key to visa adjudication,and delivers new media for publicdiplomacy. Nearly a decade later, thewords of former Director General ofthe Foreign Service and Under Secretaryof State for Political Affairs MarcGrossman at the Net Diplomacy conferencein 2001 remain true: “Vital toour ability to achieve [our diplomatic]goals will be an ability to create and, ifwe are lucky, lead a diplomacy for the21st century. The ability to manage andmaster information technology will bevital if we are to succeed.”So how well has State done at meetingGrossman’s mandate? I wouldargue that it has achieved what mostgovernment organizations have, inroughly the same period of time. It hasimplemented an IT strategic plan, withthe emphasis on the capital T. That hasbrought a rise in data traffic and theneed for larger digital “pipes” connectingWashington to the world.Day-to-day expectations of big “T,”which falls under the auspices of thedeputy chief information officer foroperations, are straightforward, butdaunting: keep the networks up andrunning 24/7, year-round; make sure nodata are lost or corrupted; and strive forincreased efficiency and declining cost.The other side of IT in the missionof diplomacy is the big “I,” or information.As hard as IRM’s operations jobmay be, the information or knowledgepiece requires not only an eye for efficiency,but a vision for the future ofdiplomacy. “Will Twitter be a goodpublic diplomacy tool?” “Can blogssupplement cables?” “Is e-mail overloadingdesk officers?” These are justsome of the many questions to be considered.An organization can spend all themoney in the world on hardware, butwithout ideas on how to adopt and harnessgame-changing technologies todistill a more useful information pictureor manage relationships, that investmentwill produce scant returns.44 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

As a key component of the nation’s“soft power,” diplomacy will need toharness the potential of big “I” technologiesif Secretary of State HillaryRodham Clinton’s vision of “smartpower” is to be realized. We knowthere is no reason for U.S. diplomatsnot to be the best-informed on theplanet. The challenge is in finding newapplications, ways of working and skillsets to do that. For the department,the information resources availablemust not only facilitate communication,but intense and rapid learning.Getting the Size RightIn computing, government hasbeen present from the beginning. In1946, the same year that Kennan transmittedhis famous “Long Telegram,”the University of Pennsylvania builtENIAC, the world’s first true digitalcomputer, for the United States Army.For every large mainframe that IBMor the Digital Equipment Corp. designed,Uncle Sam could be countedon as a major customer. From the1950s through the 1980s, the U.S. governmentbought big systems, usuallycomposed of large computing coresconnected to large numbers of “dumb”terminals.State was no different than the Departmentof Defense or the FederalAviation Administration in seeingmerit in automation. It rolled out theForeign Affairs Information ManagementEffort, the first of many informationmanagement plans, in 1964.FAIME was an interagency effort,aimed at modernizing “the flow andhandling of information within andamong the Department of State, theAgency for International Development,the United States InformationAgency, and the Arms Control andDisarmament Agency.” Though wellintended, it died quietly a few yearslater.After significant investment in Wanghardware and software, the departmenteventually made its way to the sameMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 45

SMART will probably bethe last big IT project ofits kind undertaken at thedepartment, and the lastto cater to the networkedpersonal computer.Windows-based personal computersjust about everyone else in America wasbuying in the 1990s. This did not meanthat State’s big-project mindset hadbeen relegated to the dustbin, however.Indeed, for most of the past decade,IRM has put considerable effort intoSMART — the Department of State’sMessaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset.SMART represents an increasinglyobsolescent orthodoxy of computer-drivenproductivity designed around applicationson each user’s PC andservers. When complete, SMART willprobably be the last big IT project of itskind to be undertaken at the department,and probably the last one tocater to the networked personal computer,as well.Three “Cs” conspire against suchfuture projects: collaboration software,cybersecurity concerns and, finally, thepotential of the computing cloud. Collaborationsoftware is a necessity forwork with other agencies, nongovernmentalorganizations, industry and academia,but it is confounded by manybarriers to use, such as large on-computersoftware downloads or licensecosts. The vehicle for collaboration isthe Internet browser, not somethingthat comes in a box. Cybersecurity, forits part, will require more robust networkcontrols, increased simplicity andlimited functionality in which thebrowser replaces many client programson each desktop PC.The third “C” — the “cloud” — is alabel for always-on networked resources,from spreadsheets and wordprocessors to storage and e-mail.Cloud computing — what we thoughtof a few years back as “service-orientedarchitecture” — will exert a powerfulforce on government IT. It is back tothe future, with massive server farms,the new mainframes of the day, supportingWeb-connected smartphones,BlackBerrys and, the latest rage, netbooks,as well as desktops and laptops.While State employees will probablystill want computers and monitorsback at the office, the expectation isthat wherever they go, their data willgo with them. As anyone who has settleda trivia debate with an iPhone cantell you, we are moving toward a timeof device-based augmented cognition(and distraction). In this environment,tools that quickly connect users to valuableinformation with minimal sortingand sifting are desirable. Users wantprograms that will tell them what theymay want to read or watch based onprior-usage behavior and interests —which Amazon is already doing with itscustomer data. For the desk officer orpress attaché, wouldn’t it be nice tohave machines doing some of the readingand flagging before messages hitthe inbox?An Information PlanNews of the creation of innovationadviser positions at State is heartening,as well. It is already working with socialmedia — Facebook, Twitter andYouTube — and strategies for engagingin many-to-many dialogue with foreignpublics, revolutionizing the businessof public diplomacy.Also vital is adoption of this technologyby the department’s entire workforce. IT is no longer simply the domainof the embassy communicator,toiling in some vault somewhere tosend and receive the day’s cable traffic.All department employees should seetheir responsibilities and capabilitieschange due to the continuing march ofprogress, if they haven’t already. If thismeans that each FS member should bea blogger for the department at onepoint or another, so much the better.While State has made significantstrides in the adoption of IT to performthe mission of diplomacy, they aremodest in comparison with the investmentthe Pentagon has made in applyinginformation technology to itsmissions under the “Revolution in MilitaryAffairs” banner. An IT-drivenoverhaul of diplomacy will require stillgreater investment, outreach and acceptanceof culture change.On that last point, the stark realityremains that the transition at Statefrom a Cold War posture to one ableto cope with the multilayered contemporaryinternational system is incomplete.The department will need tolook more closely at multilateral diplomacyand the value of “intermestic” relations,where allegiance to country ison a relatively low rung.To tackle this, a bulking-up of thedepartment’s big “I,” little “t” componentsis needed. A revitalized informationskunkworks built on the modelof IRM’s Office of eDiplomacy —preferably reporting high up the administrativechain, perhaps directly tothe Deputy Secretary of State —would send an important message onefforts to infuse innovation into thepractice of diplomacy. In addition, thedepartment’s CIO needs to become atrue chief, not just the person at thehelm of IRM.Finally, career tracks that rewardIT-savvy generalists and recruitmentefforts designed to draw more technicaland engineering graduates into the thedepartment ought to be considered.Tempering any vision for IT atState, we must recognize that scienceand technology have a somewhat tarnishedhistory there. James E. Webb,46 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

We must recognize thatscience and technologyhave a somewhattarnished history at State.who served as under secretary of Stateunder Dean Acheson, devoted considerableeffort to allocating additional resourcesto science and technology indiplomacy. But those pursuits took aback seat to the Cold War. Outmaneuveredby Paul Nitze, Webb abandonedthis work and stepped down, eventuallybecoming President John F. Kennedy’spick to lead NASA through the run-upto the Apollo moon landings.Now we are again at a pivotal pointfor diplomacy. The leaders of State andDefense recognize that soft power, engagementand options other than forceare all vital to the U.S. position in theworld. Sec. Clinton is not only firmlyengaged in the business of diplomacybut attentive to the needs of the department.She has, in the words ofDavid Rothkopf, “defined a role forherself in the Obamaverse: often badcop to his good cop, spine stiffenerwhen it comes to tough adversaries andnurturer of new strategies.”The department’s IT leaders shoulddo everything possible to see that advancesin State’s digital domain get aprominent place under the “new strategies”heading.To meet its most important strategicgoals — on global warming, the continuingeconomic crisis, nonproliferationand a host of regional issues — thedepartment will require a practical,pragmatic digital strategy of the sortthat Barack Obama employed to winthe presidency. ■MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 47

AFSAANNUAL REPORTAmerican Foreign Service AssociationWorking for a Stronger AFSABY SUSAN R. JOHNSON, PRESIDENT2009The past year marked the 85th anniversaryof AFSA’s creation as a professionalassociation. Overall, it was aneventful year. AFSA’s longstanding effortto close the overseas pay gap for entry andmid-level Foreign Service employees, energeticallypursued by former AFSA PresidentsTony Holmes and John Naland, State VicePresident Steve Kashkett and AFSA professionalstaff, finally met with at least temporarysuccess, supported by Secretary ofState Hillary Rodham Clinton. With thehelp of key members of Congress, thisinequity should be eliminated by 2011through three successive pay increases. Stateand USAID implemented the pay-gap fiximmediately and were soon joined by FASand FCS. IBB needed extra “encouragement”but the issue is largely resolved there,as well.This success demonstrates how the interestsof the Foreign Service are best servedAFSA State VP Steve Kashkett (right) officially welcomes SecretaryClinton on her first day at the State Department, Jan. 22, 2009,while AFSA President John Naland (left) and audio technician TravisLightfoot look on.when management and laborwork together, across all FSagencies, to improve policiesand promote equity for all.The project to renovateAFSA’s long-neglected headquarterswas successfully completedand the displaced professionalstaff moved back lastspring. The modernizedoffice space now offers new facilities toexpand outreach, build alliances, improveoperations and better serve and support ourmembers and their families. Our upgradedbuilding provides a strong foundationfor bringing our Web site and IT infrastructureinto line with the times — aGoverning Board priority. AFSA’s formerlegislative director, Ian Houston, whose dedicatedwork on the overseas comparabilitypay issue contributed directly to our success,was selected as our new executive directorand is working to improveinternal structure and operations.The 2009 AFSA GoverningBoard elections were stronglycontested and highlighted thepressing need for reform of ourelection procedures — particularlyas they relate to candidates’means of communicationwith voters. Voters electeda mix of the two competingMICHAEL LAIACONAslates, and the new GoverningBoard quickly came together towork for the interests of AFSAand the Foreign Service.Several candidates filedcomplaints with the AFSAElections Committee, whichdetermined that violations hadoccurred, but lacked theresources to determine whetherthe violations affected the outcomeof the election. Thecommittee certified the resultsof the election and advised thecomplainants that they had theright to file a complaint with the Departmentof Labor. Several did so.AFSA is working with the Departmentof Labor to clarify and streamline our electionprocedures.The Governing Board held a strategicplanning retreat in early November andidentified four overarching goals, with keydeliverables under each: (1) securingresources, improving operations and protectingbenefits; (2) increasing cooperationwith management and presence in policydevelopment; (3) improving the image andoutreach of the Foreign Service; and (4)improving internal AFSA organization. Fordetails, refer to the January issue of AFSANews.AFSA is reaching out to managementacross all five Foreign Service agencies. Atthe State Department we are talking to theOffice of Policy Planning about how torevive the Open Forum and encourage productiveuse of the Dissent Channel. Withthe Human Resources Bureau, we havestressed the value of AFSA participation inimportant processes such as the QuadrennialDiplomacy and Development Reviewand Secretary Clinton’s Diplomacy 3.0 program.Beyond the foreign affairs agencies,AUSTIN TRACYMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 49

AFSA is also seeking a more institutionalized role in the preparation of studies and reportssuch as “A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future,” the joint American Academy of Diplomacy-Stimson Center study that paved the way to increased resources for the five foreign affairsagencies, and the Academy of American Diplomacy’s proposed analysis of the training andprofessional development needed by the Foreign Service of the 21st century.Demand for the services of AFSA’s grievance attorneys has grown steadily in recent yearsand we continue to seek constructive engagement with management.Key committees in the House and Senate invited AFSA to testify in hearings concerningGovernment Accountability Office reports, addressing issues such as mid-level staffinggaps and up-stretches, especially in hard-to-fill posts; deficiencies in language capability andtraining capacity; the exponential growth in requirements for diplomatic security; and gapsin benefits for civilian federal employees deployed in conflict zones. Testimony is postedon our Web site (www.afsa.org).2010 promises to be a year of opportunities. Your Governing Board is committed tostrengthening AFSA’s capacity, seeking more productive cooperation with management inall five of our agencies and fostering a culture of excellence, teamwork and professionalism.We want to make our Foreign Service the effective agent of U.S. international leadershipthat our nation requires, by working to make it better supported, more respected and a moresatisfying career choice. Please let us hear from you during this coming year. Engaged membersmake AFSA’s voice stronger. ❏Life in theForeignServiceBY BRIAN AGGELERA Message fromExecutive DirectorIan HoustonThe AFSA Annual Report keepsyou, our “shareholders,” informedof our overall activities, membershiptrends and financial health. Ourintent is to spotlight key matters of interestto you.2009 marked the return of AFSAstaff, at long last, to the freshly renovatedheadquarters. Soon after, AFSA saidfarewell to an excellent GoverningBoard under the leadership of JohnNaland, and we welcomed a newly electedand vibrant board under the directionof Susan Johnson.Throughout the changes, our leadership(both the former and the new)and the AFSA staff remained extraordinarilydedicated to serving our uniquemembership. This spirit of commitmentand volunteerism extends to the manystanding committees of AFSA, as well.As always, we are very grateful for ourmembers’ support on many levels, andthe staff looks forward to serving you in2010. Please feel free to contact me athouston@afsa.org anytime. ❏How to Contact Us:AFSA HEADQUARTERS:(202) 338-4045; Fax: (202) 338-6820STATE DEPARTMENT AFSA OFFICE:(202) 647-8160; Fax: (202) 647-0265USAID AFSA OFFICE:(202) 712-1941; Fax: (202) 216-3710FCS AFSA OFFICE:(202) 482-9088; Fax: (202) 482-9087AFSA WEB SITE: www.afsa.orgFSJ: journal@afsa.orgPRESIDENT: johnson@afsa.orgSTATE VP: hirschdm@state.govRETIREE VP: rghoudek@aol.comUSAID VP: fzamora@usaid.govFAS VP: henry.schmick@fas.usda.govFCS VP: keith.curtis@mail.doc.govAFSA NewsEditor Francesca Kelly: kelly@afsa.org(202) 338-4045, ext. 516;Fax: (202) 338-8244On the Web:www.afsa.org/fsj and www.fsjournal.orgStaff:Executive Director Ian Houston: houston@afsa.orgBusiness DepartmentController Kalpna Srimal: srimal@afsa.orgAssistant Controller Cory Nishi: cnishi@afsa.orgLabor ManagementGeneral Counsel Sharon Papp: papps@state.govDeputy General Counsel Zlatana Badrich: badrichz@state.govLabor Management Specialist James Yorke: yorkej@state.govSenior Staff Attorney Neera Parikh: parikhna@state.govStaff Attorney Michael Willats: willatsmr@state.govOffice Manager Christine Warren: warrenc@state.govUSAID Senior Labor Management Adviser Douglas Broome: dbroome@usaid.govUSAID Staff Assistant Patrick Bradley: bradley@afsa.orgMember ServicesMember Services Director Janet Hedrick: hedrick@afsa.orgMember Services Representative Michael Laiacona: laiacona@afsa.orgAdministrative Assistant and Office Manager Ana Lopez: lopez@afsa.orgCommunications, Marketing and OutreachRetiree Counseling & Legislation Coordinator Bonnie Brown: brown@afsa.orgDirector of Communications Thomas Switzer: switzer@afsa.orgLegislative Director Casey Frary: frary@afsa.orgExecutive Assistant to the President Austin Tracy: tracy@afsa.orgScholarship Director Lori Dec: dec@afsa.orgScholarship Program Assistant Jonathan Crawford: crawford@afsa.orgExploritas Administrator Bernard Alter: alter@afsa.orgMarketing & Outreach Manager Asgeir Sigfusson: sigfusson@afsa.orgSpecial Awards & Outreach Coordinator Perri Green: green@afsa.orgGoverning Board:PRESIDENT: Susan R. JohnsonSTATE VP: Daniel HirschUSAID VP: Francisco ZamoraFAS VP: Henry SchmickFCS VP: Keith CurtisRETIREE VP: Robert HoudekSECRETARY: F.A. “Tex” HarrisTREASURER: Andrew WinterSTATE REPS: Carleton Bulkin, Jorge Delfin,Mary Glantz, Les Hickman, Joyce Namde,Julia Stewart, Mike Unglesbee, Sharon White,Teresa YataUSAID REPS: Michael Henning, Glenn RogersFCS REP: Rebecca BaloghFAS REP: Melinda SallyardsIBB REP: Al PessinRETIREE REPS:Janice Bay, Robert (Bill) Farrand,David Passage, Molly Williamson50 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

AFSA Annual Report 2009 YEAR IN REVIEWLabor Management:Steady Representation and Far-Reaching VictoriesIn 2009, the AFSA Labor Managementoffice provided timely guidance, assistanceand representation on a vast arrayof employment and retirement-relatedissues to literally thousands of our State,USAID, Commerce, Agriculture, IBB andretiree members.AFSA scored an important victory inJune, when the Foreign Service GrievanceBoard found that the Department of Statehad violated the Foreign Affairs Manual byfailing to consider 68 recently promotedmembers of the Senior Foreign Service forperformance pay in 2007. The FSGBordered State to convene performancereview boards to determine whether thegrievants would have been awarded performancepay had they been properlyreviewed. The department will review allSFS members who should have been eligiblefor performance pay (not just the 68 partiesto the grievance) for the years 2007 and2008.Another success came in April, when theGrievance Board found that the ForeignAgricultural Service had assigned three CivilService employees abroad without properlyadvertising the position to FS employees,in violation of the AFSA/FAS collective bargainingagreement. FAS appealed the rulingto the Foreign Service Labor RelationsBoard. In December, the FSLRB denied theappeal and upheld the Grievance Board’sdecision.In addition to these far-reaching cases,AFSA assisted hundreds of employeeswith grievances over false and prejudicialevaluations, denial of tenure or promotion,low ranking and referral to the PerformanceStandards Board; disciplinary actions rangingfrom reprimands and suspensions withoutpay to separation for cause; entry-levelsalaries, skill code changes, allowances,Rehabilitation Act violations and manyother issues.Two significant victories involved theForeign Commercial Service. In one case,the Grievance Board ordered FCS to pay anemployee a Residence Transaction Allowancecovering closing costs and fees thatcould amount to as much as $25,000. Inanother case, the board ordered FCS to issuea language incentive payment that the grievantwas entitled to for service between 2001and 2004. The employee received a checkfor more than $25,000.In another important development,AFSA’s Legal Defense Fund provided$5,000 to an FCS employee for retention ofa private attorney (an expert in security clearances)in an appeal of the revocation of hissecurity clearance. The Office of Securityalleged that the employee had made inconsistentstatements to Commerce Departmentsecurity agents during several interviewsyet denied the employee access to theagents’ reports of those interviews, thusdepriving him of due process. At press time,a decision had not been made.Labor Management attorneys and otherprofessional staff also assisted hundreds ofmembers with assignment issues, includingappealing Diplomatic Security Bureauassignment restrictions; security and cybersecurityinfractions and violations; DS, Officeof the Inspector General and Office of CivilRights investigations, including the investigationof scores of FS employees for allegedPassport Information Electronic RecordsSystem violations; congressional staff inquiries;and many other issues, includingcredit for prior military service, in-statetuition rates for children of FS members, languageincentive pay, R&R, allowances andreimbursement of medical expenses. Wewere handed a favorable ruling for two DScandidates facing expulsion, after ourattorneys traveled to the Federal LawEnforcement Training Center in Georgia torepresent them.In addition to our representation of individualemployees, AFSA negotiated or consultedwith the Department of State on awide variety of issues, including caps on thenumber of linked onward assignments at170 for employees volunteering for Iraq andAfghanistan in 2010; basic special agentcourse training requirements and fitness-fordutyexamination regulations for DSagents; new foreign contact reporting andintent-to-marry regulations extending certainbenefits to domestic partners; and annualpromotion precepts.— Sharon Papp, General CounselMember Services:Reaching Outin 2009AFSA welcomed 1,193 new membersin 2009. Twenty-seven of thoseinvested in the association as lifetimemembers, and an additional 32 existingmembers converted to lifetime membership.AFSA continues its tradition of welcomingincoming officers and specialists tolunch to inform them of the benefits ofmembership, and the association’s history,achievements and goals. In 2009, AFSAhosted 1,326 students in 18 A-100, specialistand Development Leadership Initiativeclasses. Additionally, AFSA hosted threehail-and-farewell receptions for employeesparticipating in the retirement seminars atFSI.More than 1,900 members participatedin AFSA’s six insurance plans in 2009.— Janet Hedrick, Director,Member ServicesMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 51

AFSA Annual Report 2009 YEAR IN REVIEWLegislative Affairs: A Rewarding YearThe year began on an upbeat note. TheState Department and USAID budgetscalled for a significant increasein both personnel and funding. AFSA wasable to achieve, for all branches that we represent,many of our long-sought legislativegoals, including comparability pay, fundingand equality for members of the ForeignService.Overseas Comparability PayAFSA’s long-term fight to end theForeign Service overseas pay gap took amajor step forward with inclusion of keylanguage in the Fiscal Year 2009 SupplementalAppropriations bill, signed into lawin June (P.L. 111-32). Additional languagewas included that ended the gap for FY 2010,in a provision signed into law as part of theFY 2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill (P.L.111-117) in December. AFSA made specialefforts to be certain that these fixesapplied to all FS agencies. We thank ourmembers, key supporters on Capitol Hill,and many colleagues at the State Departmentand other agencies who helpedmake this long-term goal possible. We willcontinue to advocate a permanent fix.FundingThe Foreign Service agencies all saw anincrease in funding this year, which will helpbring our diplomatic corps to full capacity,after many years of insufficient resources.Only the Agriculture Appropriations Bill(P.L. 111-80) was passed and signed intolaw on its own; all other funding increaseswere part of the FY 2010 omnibus appropriationsbill.The diplomatic and consular programsfor State received funding to hire more than700 new Foreign Service personnel. USAIDreceived funding for operating expenses andto hire 300 additional Foreign Serviceemployees.The Foreign Commercial Service, theForeign Agricultural Service and the InternationalBroadcasting Bureau receivedadditional funding, as well, to supportincreases of American and locally-engagedstaff and FS comparability costs.Unused Sick LeaveOn Oct. 28, President Obama signed theNational Defense Authorization Act (P.L.111-84). This contained provisions that willbenefit federal employees in several ways, twoof which are particularly important for theForeign Service. First, the bill permitsemployees in the Federal Employee RetirementSystem and Foreign Service PensionSystem to count unused sick leave towardyears of service when calculating their annuities.Second, employees who had previouslyretired under FERS and FSPS, and hadwaived retirement credit for their years offederal service, can now, upon re-employmentwith the federal government, redepositthe annuity contributions they had withdrawn,plus interest.First-Time Homebuyer Tax CreditAFSA worked with Congress to helpbring about another victory, ensuring thatthe Foreign Service community is treatedAFSA President Susan R. Johnson (right) and Amb. Ron Neumannprepare to testify before the Senate on Sept. 24.fairly and equally under the law. On Nov.6, the president signed into law the UnemploymentCompensation ExtensionAct of 2009 (P.L. 111-92), allowing membersof the Foreign Service to take advantageof the $8,000 first-time homebuyer taxcredit.Domestic PartnersFollowing a June 17 announcement byPresident Barack Obama extending certainfederal benefits to same-sex domesticpartners, Sec. Clinton announced an additionallist of benefits that would be extendedto the same-sex partners of members ofthe Foreign Service. These include diplomaticpassports, inclusion on employeetravel orders, use of medical facilities andother benefits. Although this did notrequire a change in federal law, severalmembers of Congress were key in forgingdiscussions with the Secretary on this longoverduechange.AFSA on Capitol HillAFSA continued to have a strongpresence on Capitol Hill during 2009, meetingwith key members and congressionalstaff to brief them on issues critical to theForeign Service. AFSA was also invited totestify at several congressionalhearings. Former PresidentJohn Naland appeared beforethe House Appropriations Subcommitteeon State/ForeignOperations to speak aboutresources needed to build thework force, as well as FY 2010funding. Current PresidentSusan Johnson testified severaltimes before congressionalAUSTIN TRACYsubcommittees on diplomaticreadiness and security.— Casey Frary,Legislative Director52 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

AFSA Annual Report 2009 YEAR IN REVIEWOutreach and Media: Getting the Word OutAFSA’s 2009 outreach initiatives promotedthree important goals: broadeningthe Foreign Service constituency;enhancing public awareness ofglobal affairs and of the key role of theForeign Service and diplomacy; and activatingthe AFSA retiree constituency byinvolving it in significant programs thatdraw on retirees’ backgrounds and skills intelling our story to audiences nationwide.Speakers ProgramOne of AFSA’s most effective outreachelements is our Speakers Program, whichdeployed nearly 500 Foreign Service retireespeakers during the year to explain theimportance of U.S. diplomacy for Americannational interests to more than 30,000 attendeesin 44 states and Washington, D.C.Audiences ranged from world affairs councilsand universities to civic organizations,“town meetings” and high schools.Of particular note: former DirectorGeneral of the Foreign Service and UnderSecretary of State for Political AffairsAmbassador Marc Grossman enthralledsome 400 faculty and students at AmericanUniversity’s annual Caroline and AmbassadorCharles Adair Memorial Lecture, sponsoredby AFSA, on “The Challenges Facingthe Foreign Service” on Sept. 2.Speakers were provided with issueupdates from AFSA, and were also encouragedto exhort audience members to contacttheir congressional representatives torequest sustained funding for U.S. diplomaticreadiness.JENNIFER DURINAAmb. Marc Grossman, left, delivers Adair lecture while AFSA Communications Director Tom Switzer andA.U. Washington Semester Program Dean David Brown (right) look on.MediaAFSA’s media outreach efforts remainedintensive in 2009. Either directly or throughAFSA retirees, we placed 62 interviews, lettersto the editor, articles and press releasesadvocating increased public and congressionalsupport for U.S. diplomacy in leadingmedia entities including the WashingtonPost, the New York Times, the AssociatedPress, NPR and CNN, among others.AFSA’s Memorial Plaque Ceremonydrew the heaviest media coverage in its history.Held at the State Department onForeign Affairs Day (May 1), and featuringSecretary of State Hillary RodhamClinton, it was covered by five network TVcameras and some 10 journalists frommajor media. The result was in-depth treatmentof this event via some 33 media outletsnationwide, including NBC, CNN,ABC, the Associated Press and NPR.OutreachAFSA expanded its outreach efforts in2009 in an ever-evolving strategy to tell thestory of the Foreign Service to the Americanpublic. The Fund for American Diplomacyis our primary vehicle for public outreach,and continues to support such outstandingprograms as the AFSA dissent awardsand memorial plaques; our book, Inside aU.S. Embassy; and our minority intern program.One of these initiatives, the AFSA/Thursday Lunch Group internship program,inspired 2005 intern Stacy Sessionsto take the Foreign Service exam. She beganher diplomatic career in June as one of 98individuals in the 146th A-100 class.We also revived a corporate relationsinitiative that aims to engage the private sectorin supporting AFSA programs aroundthe country. This effort is already taking off,and AFSA members will see an increase inprograms in 2010 as a result of newly forgedpartnerships.Another highlight from among ourexpanded outreach programs is AFSA’srecently established presence on Facebook(www.facebook.com/afsapage), which todate has garnered more than 1,200 fans.We urge you to become a Facebook fan ofAFSA if you have not done so already.ExploritasThe year saw big changes in theElderhostel program, most notably its adoptionof a new name — Exploritas — andthe opening of enrollment to anyone overthe age of 21. The AFSA Exploritas programalso came under new leadership, asretired FSO Bernie Alter took over the portfoliofrom Janice Bay. The AFSA programsremain highly popular, following thetime-tested model of using retired FSOs toexplain current issues in foreign policy froma Foreign Service perspective. More than700 people participated in AFSA’s programsin 2009, which took place in Washington,D.C., Chautauqua, N.Y., St. Petersburg, Fla.and Tucson, Ariz.— Tom Switzer, CommunicationsDirector, and Asgeir Sigfusson,Marketing/Outreach ManagerMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 53

AFSA Annual Report 2009 YEAR IN REVIEWForeign Service Journal :A More Accessible Web PresenceDespite operating withoutoffice space or access to itsarchives for the first threemonths of the year, the ForeignService Journal continued to producemonthly issues withoutinterruption.The Journal took a significantstep forward in upgrading its Web presenceby contracting with a local company,Texterity, to put each issue in a format thatis much easier to use and search, and is alsomore attractive. Partly as a result of ourenhanced digital capabilities, we more thandoubled the amount of online advertisingwe had projected for 2009, a trend we hopeto build on in the new year.During 2009, 18,773 unique visitors, oran average of 1,800 per issue, sought outthe new-format FSJ online. They read, onaverage, 11 pages per visitor. Given that,in general, 15 percent of the visitors eachmonth were returnees, we estimate that theJournal has a core online readership ofbetween 250 and 300.Among e-readers, the mostpopular issue, by far, was theMarch issue on coping withunaccompanied assignments,with 2,826 unique visitors. Nextin popularity was the July-Augustissue featuring summer fiction,with 2,658 viewers, followed bythe May issue on FAS and FCS with 2,352.The April focus on “NATO at 60” and theOctober issue on public diplomacy eachhad more than 2,000 viewers.One goal in upgrading our online presenceis to make the FSJ’s resources on theForeign Service and the practice ofAmerican diplomacy more accessible to thebroader public. So we are happy to notethat by the end of the year, approximately17 percent of our e-readers came to theFSJ via the major search engines — lookingfor information on “USAID foreign service”or “foreign service,” to cite two of thetop search terms. We look forward to pushingthat number up in 2010.— Steven Alan Honley, EditorForeign Service Books:Inside a U.S. EmbassySales of AFSA’s popular introduction to the Foreign Service, Inside a U.S. Embassy, werestrong in 2009. Rising interest in Foreign Service careers, coupled with renewed enthusiasmfor public service sparked by President Barack Obama’s election, has boostedbook sales for the year to 6,400. This brings the total number of books sold since its 2003debut to about 73,000. Inside a U.S. Embassy has been adopted for more than 40 universitycourses, and a Chinese publisher is translating the book into Simple Chinese.An all-new edition of Inside a U.S. Embassy, subtitled Diplomacy at Work, will be publishedin the fall of 2010. AFSA received four offers from publishers for the new edition,but determined that the best path was to maintain our own role as the publisher. In connectionwith this decision, this year AFSA has partnered with Potomac Books for distributionof Inside a U.S. Embassy and established Foreign Service Books as the book publishingdivision of the association.— Shawn Dorman, Editor/Publisher, Foreign Service BooksFRANCESCA KELLYAFSA student merit award winners at the ForeignAffairs Day merit awards reception, AFSA HQ, May1. Back row (left to right): Amb. C. Edward Dillery,Chairman of AFSA Committee on Education; AdamScott, Zachary Charles, Joshua Downes, Arjun Dheer,Christopher Wilson, Joseph Kenny and AFSAPresident John Naland. Front row (left to right):Stephanie Hunt, Rachel Midura, Megan Tribble,Torrin Marquardt, Katherine Neitzke and Anna LeahBerstein-Simpson.ScholarshipProgram HighlightsUnder the oversight of the AFSACommittee on Education, theScholarship Program bestowed$35,700 in Academic and Art MeritAwards to 25 Foreign Service high schoolseniors in 2009.Meanwhile, 74 children of ForeignService employees received AFSA needbasedFinancial Aid Scholarships forundergraduate college study in the 2009-2010 school year, totaling $160,050.Between these two programs, AFSA hasbeen privileged to assist 99 students in 2009with aid totaling $195,750 — the mostAFSA has ever bestowed.In 2009, Ambassador Rozanne L.(Roz) Ridgway established a PerpetualFinancial Aid scholarship, and Mr. StephenHubler renewed his scholarship. Mr.Norton W. Bell added to his scholarship,and Mr. Eric Melby increased a scholarshiphonoring his parents.DACOR increased its Financial AidScholarship support by $5,000 to offer atotal of $40,000 in scholarships in its name.Finally, AFSA continues to participate inthe Combined Federal Campaign andUnited Way.— Lori Dec, Scholarship Director54 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

AFSA Annual Report 2009 YEAR IN REVIEWAFSA Plays Crucial Role in Landmark AAD Report:“A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future”AFSA Headquarters Ribbon-Cutting CeremonyLeft to right: AFSAPresident JohnNaland, formerPresident TonyHolmes, ExecutiveDirector Ian Houston,Treasurer AndrewWinter and formerPresident JohnLimbert cut the ribbonto officially markAFSA headquarters’reopening, May 28.AFSA was a primary collaborator in acritical study, first launched in the fallof 2008, and then promoted and utilizedthroughout 2009, by the AmericanAcademy of Diplomacy and the Henry L.Stimson Center in Washington, D.C.The report, “A Foreign Affairs Budgetfor the Future: Fixing the Crisis inDiplomatic Readiness,” found that the StateDepartment, USAID and the other foreignaffairs agencies will continue to lack the toolsto meet today’s complex global challengesunless major increases in resources and personneloccur over the next five years. Itcalled for substantial investments in diplomaticand development assistance torebuild America’s foreign affairs capability,including a nearly 50-percent increase inForeign Service personnel.A failure to act on these urgent needs,according to the study, would leave ournation ill-equipped to carry out a global leadershiprole or respond to problems such asterrorism, natural disasters and other situationsthat demand a U.S. presence.The report made recommendations inthe four major categories of foreign affairsactivity — core diplomacy, public diplomacy,economic assistance and reconstruction/stabilization— and providedCongress and the new president with a blueprintfor fixing the human capital crisis thathas hobbled diplomacy worldwide, crippledits response to emergencies and inappropriatelythrown additional foreign policyburdens onto the military in recent years.In 2009, then-AFSA President JohnNaland joined study leaders such as Amb.Thomas Boyatt, Amb. Ronald Neumann,Amb. Thomas Pickering and others, inbringing the study’s message to lawmakers,prominent civic leaders and the general public,with positive results: additional resources,including new positions, have been allocatedto the foreign affairs agencies.“This historic study made a genuine differencein shaping views and bringing aboutreal change,” says AFSA Executive DirectorIan Houston.Pushing for ResultsAFSA facilitated the AAD/StimsonCenter’s efforts through the followingactions:• AFSA President John Naland providedinput and helped introduce the reportat its public and congressional launch, beginningin the fall of 2008 and continuingCHRISTINE WARRENthrough 2009.• AFSA arranged press releases and articleplacements for the report’s rollout inleading media, including the WashingtonPost, and facilitated follow-on discussionswith other media nationwide.• After the report’s release, the AmericanAcademy of Diplomacy conducted anationwide public education program toexplain the realities of the Foreign Servicetoday, and how those institutions can bestrengthened to make our diplomacy moreeffective. One part of that effort was toorganize small groups of FS retirees to meetwith key lawmakers in their home districts.AFSA provided the names of (and mailedinvitations to) Foreign Service retireeactivists around the U.S. Many of themcontacted their members of Congressadvocating support for this critical resourceincrease, and they also participated inAAD’s outreach programs.Project Chairman Amb. Thomas Boyattpoints to two things that distinguished the“FAB” project from the beginning. “First,we saw the publication of the report as thestart, not the end, of the process. We spentas much money, sweat and tears lobbyingfor our recommendations within the executiveand legislative branches as we did producingthe report.”“Second,” Boyatt continues, “we did notengage in pre-emptive capitulation. Whenour recommendation for the addition of4,735 new positions was published, mostcolleagues reacted along the lines of ‘nonstarter,’‘no way’ and ‘ridiculous.’ But in thelast 15 months about 3,500 of those positionshave been authorized and funded.”The report can be found at www.academyofdiplomacy.org/programs/fab_project.html— Tom Switzer,Communications DirectorMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 55

AFSA Annual Report 2009 YEAR IN REVIEWAFSA Awards:A Unique TraditionNational High SchoolEssay ContestOn June 14, Secretary of State Hillary RodhamClinton presented the first-place award forAFSA’s 2009 National High School Essay Contestto Brian Parker. Parker, a 12th-grader at Springbrook HighSchool in Silver Spring, Md., wrote his winning essay on“Challenges to the U.S. Foreign Service: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Thirty finalists received honorablemention certificates for their essays. An AFSA advisorypanel of judges selected the winner and finalists, deemingParker’s essay one of the most outstanding submissionsin the history of the contest.The AFSA award winners get to know each otherbefore the June 18 ceremony at the StateDepartment. Left to right: Ken Kero-Mentz, LilyHightower, Megan Gallardo, Barron Rosen, JeffCollins and Michael Gonzales. (Absent: Erica Krug.)The annual awards ceremony tookplace at the State Department on June18. Senator Sam Nunn, the recipientof AFSA’s Lifetime Contributions toAmerican Diplomacy Award, was introducedby the 2005 winner, Senator RichardLugar, R-Ind.Three members of the Foreign Servicetook home awards for constructive dissent:Barron Rosen (the Tex Harris Award foran FS specialist), Jeffrey Collins (theWilliam R. Rivkin Award for a mid-levelofficer) and Michael Gonzales (the WilliamR. Rivkin Award for a mid-level officer).The AFSA Constructive Dissent Awardsare unique in the U.S. government; no otherorganization recognizes its federal employeesfor voicing a dissenting opinion. Yetit is constructive dissent that causes foreignpolicy to be reworked and improved. Soit is no coincidence that the award ceremonyat State is held in the BenjaminFranklin Room, where participants are surroundedby paintings of America’s originalconstructive dissenters: the FoundingFathers.At the same annual ceremony, AFSApresents awards for outstanding performance.In 2009, the winners of theseawards were: Erica Krug (the Avis BohlenAward for a Foreign Service Family Member),Lily Hightower (the M. Juanita GuessAward for a Community Liaison Officer)and Megan Gallardo (the Delavan AwardSecretary of State Hillary RodhamClinton (left) presents the first-place2009 National High School EssayContest award to Brian Parker, onJune 14. AFSA President SusanJohnson is at right.The goal of AFSA’s High School Essay Contest, now entering its 11th year, is to stimulateinterest in a Foreign Service career among high school students nationwide. (ForeignService dependents are not eligible to enter.) The winner receives a check for $2,500.To read this year’s winning essay, please go to www.afsa.org/essaycontest.— Tom Switzer, Communications DirectorMICHAEL GROSS MIKKELA THOMPSONfor a Foreign Service Office ManagementSpecialist). In addition, Ken Kero-Mentzwas named AFSA Representative of theYear.AFSA also presents other awardsthroughout the year, such as the SinclaireLanguage Awards, an AFSA programbased on a bequest from Matilda W. Sinclaire,a former Foreign Service officer. Lastyear, 11 foreign language students werehonored for outstanding accomplishmentin the study of a “hard” language and itsassociated culture.The 2009 winners were Anthony Baird(Albanian), Monica Boduszynksi (Vietnamese),Candace Lynn Faber (Polish),Sandrine Goffard (Mandarin Chinese),Timothy Kraemer (Korean), Patrick Mc-Neil (Estonian), Dewey Moore (Korean),Rachel Lucille Mueller (Vietnamese),Lindsey L. Rothenberg (Arabic), BrookeSpelman (Mandarin Chinese) and GaryWestfall (Tagalog).AFSA also sponsors the George KennanWriting Award, given each year in honorof the best paper by a State Departmentemployee enrolled at the National WarCollege. This year’s winner was PatriciaMahoney, writing on “The SerbianOrthodox Church and Serb Identity.”— Francesca Kelly, AFSA News EditorAFSA’s NiftyAmbassador TrackerAnew presidential administrationcame to town in 2009, and we allknow what that means: a slew ofnew ambassadorial nominations. AFSAkeeps a close eye on these appointmentswith our online Ambassador Tracker atwww.afsa.org/ambassadorlist.cfm. Youcan find out who’s been nominated and/orconfirmed, and see the percentage ofpolitical versus career appointments. Thelist is updated on the first day of each month.Please send nomination news toMarketing and Outreach Manager AsgeirSigfusson at sigfusson@afsa.org.56 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

AFSA Annual Report 2009 CONSTITUENCY SUMMARIESState Department: A Year of TransitionLast year was a time of transition for AFSA, for the departmentand for our country. It began with the inaugurationof a president committed to expanding the role of the ForeignService in both national security and policy initiatives, and the namingof a new Secretary of State with a management philosophy favoringgreater communication with, and support for, the people whoperform State’s many functions. Both brought an appreciable surgein Foreign Service morale, and with it, high expectations for a revitalizedForeign Service. AFSA was proactive in briefing Secretaryof State Hillary Rodham Clinton early and working with the transitionteam to share our members’ views.The outgoing administration had left a number of issues pending,particularly with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan, so much ofthe first half of the year was spent working with management onthese issues: staffing of our embassies, offices and provincial reconstructionteams; incentives for service at those posts that did notprejudice other members in promotions or assignments; departmentalfollow-through on linked assignments, training and treatment(both administrative and medical) afforded to returnees; thesafety of FS members at those posts; and the balance between protectingemployees’ well-being and allowing those employees thefreedom necessary to perform their duties.During this period, AFSA continued to lobby heavily on issuesrelated to funding and salaries, with particular attention to the overseaspay gap. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 2010and 2011, containing language enabling State to address this inequity,passed in June — culminating years of AFSA effort.New InitiativesJune also brought the announcement by Secretary Clintonof a significant extension of benefits to same-sex partners ofForeign Service members, including status as Eligible FamilyMembers and all benefits offered to EFMs, except pension andhealth-care beneficiary rights constrained by law. AFSA hasworked for years with the organization Gays and Lesbians inForeign Affairs Agencies to support more equal treatment forsame-sex partners of FS personnel.A new AFSA Governing Board took office in July, with a clearmandate to increase communication and dialogue with our members,to increase transparency in operations and to be more responsiveto the full range of Foreign Service members.To facilitate that communication, AFSA revived the StateStanding Committee and established advisory committeesaddressing issues of particular concern to large segments of ourmembership.The summer rotation cycle continued the transition, bringingnew directors into nearly every office with which AFSA’s LaborManagement team interacts. Most significant: the early Augustswearing-in of a dynamic and experienced front office in the Bureauof Human Resources — Director General of the Foreign ServiceAmbassador Nancy Powell, Principal Deputy Assistant SecretarySteven Browning and Deputy Assistant Secretary Robert Manzanares— brought deeper and broader management experienceto those positions than we’ve seen in many years.A Range of Issues on the TableDuring this year of transition, AFSA’s State Labor ManagementOffice, in addition to constantly promoting greater fairness andtransparency in assignment/promotion processes and disciplinarydecisions, advanced the following issues:• Developing maternity and paternity leave procedures that donot involve annual or sick leave.• Ensuring that Washington assignments of untenured officersinclude opportunities to display all skills necessary to obtain tenure.• Improving coordination of the many factors affecting the abilityof employees with disabilities to perform at full potential, includingtimely placement of required accommodation materials, appropriateconsideration in the assignments process and equal accessto career-enhancing positions.• Urging implementation of a Home Marketing IncentiveProgram to reduce employee losses due to the sale of a residenceforced by a change in domestic assignments.• Increasing career mobility options for specialists, and promotingopportunities for specialist-to-generalist or generalist-tospecialistconversions that do not imply a loss of seniority.• Ensuring FS employees unimpeded access to AFSA whenadvice, counsel or representation might be required.• Weighing in on new MED policies regarding medical clearances,housing while in Washington, D.C. following medical evacuation,payment of insurance deductibles and distribution of H1N1vaccines.• Promoting greater quality control of investigations, and compliancewith governmentwide norms in adverse-action security clearanceadjudications.• Addressing issues related to state or local residence, in-statetuition, housing loans and other issues where overseas service canbe a negative factor.AFSA’s mission is to serve and represent the members of theForeign Service. We urge you to weigh in with issues of importanceto you, and to join the State Standing Committee or an advisorycommittee when you are posted to Washington.— Daniel M. Hirsch, State VPMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 57

AFSA Annual Report 2009 CONSTITUENCY SUMMARIESUSAID VP: Achievements, Big and SmallIt was a pleasure to work for you last year.Many members visited me at the USAIDAFSA office, and I came to know more ofyou personally. We achieved many successes,but the one major accomplishment we are mostproud of is, of course, obtaining overseas comparabilitypay. This is now being phased in, atlast, to end a longstanding unfair burden on ourofficers. Many people from the AFSA staff, aswell as Governing Board members past andpresent, deserve credit for lobbying Congressand building support from various organizationsto accomplish this.I am delighted that, in addition to Michael Henning, we now havea second USAID representative, Glenn Rogers, on the AFSA GoverningBoard as a result of reaching the 1,000 mark in AFSA members.Solving problems, both serious and routine, for hundreds of ourmembers does not get wide publicity due to the personal nature ofthe cases, but it is as valuable as our more prominent achievements.For example, we helped acquire donated annual leave for severalmembers facing critical family problems, allowing them to extendtheir sick leave significantly. Likewise, our counseling and advice haveAFSA USAID VP Francisco Zamora (left) welcomesSec. Clinton (center), as USAID Acting AdministratorKent Hill (right) looks on.YEAR IN REVIEWUSAID FILE PHOTOassisted several junior officers in obtainingtenure, as well as fair performance evaluations.We have also worked with management to createassignments that are in the best interest ofparticular members.We have successfully resolved multiple formaldisciplinary cases with lesser penalties thanproposed — in some cases winning total absolution.Numerous potential grievances wereresolved without filing formal litigation at theagency level. For the small number of grievancesthat were appealed to the GrievanceBoard, the satisfactory resolution rate was, on average, about 85 percent.We believe our interventions on your behalf have positively affectedeveryone from entry-level officers to members of the Senior ForeignService. We eagerly anticipate working with new USAID AdministratorDr. Rajiv Shah, who will hear, through AFSA representativesand leadership, your major concerns as expressed in our recent membersurvey. We are listening to you, and we look forward to hearingmore from you.— Francisco Zamora, USAID VPThe MemorialPlaquesThe first AFSA Memorial Plaque wasunveiled in 1933 by Secretary of StateHenry Stimson. There are now twoplaques in the C Street lobby of the StateDepartment honoring 231 members of theForeign Service who have died in the lineof duty.New names were unveiled during anemotional ceremony on May 1, at whichSec. Clinton eulogized Brian Daniel Adkins,a 25-year-old first-tour officer murdered inhis home in Addis Ababa. The other namesadded were of diplomats from the past: FelixRussell Engdahl died in a Japanese prisonerof-warcamp in Hong Kong in 1942;Thomas W. Waldron, the first U.S. consulto Hong Kong, died of cholera while onan official visit to Macau in 1844; andEdmund Roberts, a special envoy sent byPresident Andrew Jackson in 1832 to negotiatetreaties in Asia, died in Macau of dysenterywhile en route from Siam to Japan.Secretary Hillary Clinton speaks at the AFSA Memorial Plaque Ceremony, flanked by the U.S. Armed ForcesColor Guard (right), as AFSA President John Naland looks on, May 1.MIKKELA THOMPSON58 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

AFSA Annual Report 2009 CONSTITUENCY SUMMARIESForeign Commercial Service:Welcome EngagementThe focus for our efforts in 2009 was first on rescuing theCommercial Service from fiscal disaster, and then on restoringits strength. This involved extensive lobbying on theHill, “in the building” and with our friends. We contacted everylegislator on our appropriations committee and organized lettersof support from the National Association of Manufacturers,For the first time in our history, AFSA PresidentJohn Naland met with the Secretary of Commerce,welcoming him to the new job, introducing theimportance of our activities and pushingfor more resources.the Business Council for International Understanding, the U.S.Chamber of Commerce and other allies. Officers overseas didtheir part to brief visitors, and our ambassadors also weighed inon our behalf.We did not get the immediate boost from the incoming administrationthat our State colleagues did, but we now feel thatCommerce management is fully engaged, especially Secretary ofCommerce Gary Locke and our congressional liaison offices. Oursenior officials have put their hearts into it, testifying on the Hilland “shaking the trees” in the building. AFSA lobbying powerhas been especially effective under new President Susan Johnson.And, for the first time in our history, an AFSA president (JohnNaland) met with the Secretary of Commerce, welcoming himto the new job, introducing the importance of our activities andpushing for more resources.On other fronts, we helped secure and implement locality payand same-sex partner benefits, made progress in streamliningsenior pay processing, and turned back unwise changes in drugtesting and Senior Foreign Service promotions. We are still workingto effect change in the broken-down seven-year rule — sofar without success.Finally, the AFSA Political Action Committee and its connectionshave been very valuable. We were finally able to obtainan additional $10 million in funding in Fiscal Year 2010 and,thanks to the support of our management, it looks as though wewill have a substantial request for FY 2011, as well. This is goodnews, indeed.— Keith Curtis, FCS VPForeign Agricultural Service: Into a New DecadeIt has been a tough decade for many U.S. companies,employees and the economy. AFSA/FAS is also happy to see the end of the 2000-2009 decade, and to launch into a new one withmany educational, new and ongoing opportunitiesto address our dual personnel systems.Contract: Despite our best AFSA teamefforts, we did not make any real progress revisingour contract in 2009. Now that the new FASmanagement team is (mostly) in place, we willmake a concentrated effort, starting with ourcore concern: Article 25 on performance management.Washington Placement Plan: The WPPmust focus on finding good jobs for returningForeign Service officers. Meanwhile, our colleaguesof the American Federation of State,FAS VP Henry Schmick updates board memberson the Foreign Agricultural Service atthe Governing Board retreat on Nov. 7.AUSTIN TRACYCounty and Municipal Employees are interestedin a Civil Service promotion process. So trilateralinterest-based bargaining looms — providingan opportunity for the new FAS administratorsand AFSA/FAS to relearn the “whys” and“hows” of the Foreign Service personnel system.ATO Grievance: The Foreign Service LaborRelations Board gave us a great holiday presentby upholding the findings of the Foreign ServiceGrievance Board that the 2008 assignment ofthree Civil Service employees to AgriculturalTrade Office positions in the first bidding roundwas inconsistent with the Foreign Service Act andour contract. Thanks to all the hard work of theAFSA legal staff, we may be able to negotiate asolution.— Henry Schmick, FAS VPMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 59

AFSA Annual Report 2009 CONSTITUENCY SUMMARIESRetirees: Serving Our Membersça change, plus c’est la même chose” best encapsulatesactivity on the retiree account in 2009. Members“Pluscalled on the services of Retiree Coordinator Bonnie Brownfor help more than 400 times in the past year, anincrease of more than 15 percent over 2008. Themost common concerns were Federal EmployeesHealth Benefits Program benefits, annuities,Medicare B and, increasingly, When ActuallyEmployed caps on hours and pay.The almost-daily changes to the health carereform legislation have required constant monitoring,as well as frequent consultation with other public employeeassociations and unions. The alert sent to members at the end ofthe year regarding the implications of the potential 40-percent excisetax is an example of our efforts to keep abreast of this issue for ourmembers.The Retiree Task Force meets each month to coordinate the retireeperspective on issues appearing on the Governing Board agenda.We will launch a telephone campaign soon to reach out to ourcolleagues whose memberships need updating. (By the way, I ampleased to report that there is no dues increase for AFSA membershipin 2010.)The retiree survey provedthat you are moreInternet-savvy thanwe had realized.International Broadcasting Bureau:Closing the Pay GapDuring 2009 we co-sponsored, along with DACOR, three jobtransition seminars for retirees at the National Foreign Affairs TrainingCenter. We also conducted lunchtime programs during the seminars.Susan Johnson has addressed retiree groupsin San Diego and San Francisco, as has retiree GBmember Molly Williamson in Nebraska, in conjunctionwith private travel to the area.WAE restrictions have become a major issue.Retiree Reps Bill Farrand and Janice Bay sent aletter to Under Secretary for Management andResources Jacob Lew in June on the issue, including suggestions fora legislative fix, but have received no response to date. Susan Johnsonand I have followed up with the director general’s office, but beyondpromises to look into it, there has been no action so far. This is anissue from which we will not back off, as lifting the caps is so clearlyin the interest of both the Department of State and our retirees.Finally, the retiree survey we conducted in the fall proved thatyou are more Internet-savvy than we had realized, and are closelywatching what we are doing. Serving such an active and engagedretiree community is a pleasure and challenge.— Robert Houdek, Retiree VPAFSA’s main concern for IBB members last year was to ensure that the agency providedthe first third of overseas comparability pay, as other agencies began to doaround Oct. 1. After some frustration in the fall, we believe at this writing (January)that IBB will improve its offer to start OCP in April. This is being made possible byAFSA and IBB lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill, which led to funding in the omnibusspending bill signed by the president in December, and specific language in the conferencereport calling for the funds to be used for this purpose. I want to thank the AFSAGoverning Board and staff for their help and support throughout this process. Withthat issue hopefully behind us, we plan to raise others in the coming year, including thestalled expansion of the FS correspondent corps.The agency launched monthly labor-management meetings, which I attend alongwith other IBB union reps. This has proved to be a good channel for raising issues ofmutual concern, such as staff morale, employee evaluation procedures, and time andattendance concerns, among others. Again this year, there were no group issues involvingthe FS technicians. As always, I stand ready to help with individual or group concerns.Please contact me at apessin@voanews.com.— Al Pessin, IBB RepresentativeBagpiper Tim Carey sets the tone for the annualboard and staff holiday lunch, Dec. 18, at AFSAheadquarters.FRANCESCA KELLY60 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

AFSA Annual Report 2009 AFSA Board of GovernorsBack row (left to right): Tex Harris,Henry Schmick, Andrew Winter.Middle row (left to right):Mike Unglesbee, Sharon White,Keith Curtis, Julia Stewart, Daniel Hirsch,Francisco Zamora, Glenn Rogers,Les Hickman.Front row (left to right): Carleton Bulkin,Bill Farrand, Susan R. Johnson,Janice Bay, Mary E. Glantz andTeresa Yata.FRANCESCA KELLY(Not pictured: Rebecca Balogh, Jorge Delfin, Robert Houdek, Joyce Namde, David Passage, Melinda Sallyards and Molly Williamson.)www.afsa.orgAFSA ON THE WEBThe AFSA Web site (www.afsa.org) continues to be one ofthe most effective ways of increasing AFSA’s visibility and outreach.2009 saw almost 857,000 unique visitors to the site,with readers’ page visits increasing by 13 percent over 2008.As in previous years, our most popular pages include theNational High School Essay Contest, Inside a U.S. Embassy,scholarships, the Foreign Service Journal, the annual Tax Guideand the constituency pages. This year a new favorite emerged:the re-energized Ambassador Project pages.Our AFSAnet listserv, which had 9,635 subscribers at year’send, also continues to be a vital avenue of communicationwith our members. To that end, we sent 68 AFSAnet messagesin 2009.We are planning big changes to the AFSA Web site in2010, and we look forward to sharing a new online experiencewith our membership later in the year. Stay tuned!— Asgeir Sigfusson, Marketing/Outreach ManagerFRANCESCA KELLYTheForeign Service JournalEditorial BoardLeft to right, back row: Chairman Ted Wilkinson, George Jones, Jeff Giauque;Front row: Stephen W. Buck, May G. Baptista, Lynn W. Roche,Rima J. Vydmantas, Julie Gianelloni Connor, D. Ian Hopper and Joseph Bruns.(Not pictured: Mary E. Glantz.)MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 61

AFSA Annual Report 2009 StaffExecutive DirectorMarketing & Outreach ProgramsAUSTIN TRACYFinance- Accounting- Financial ManagementIan HoustonFRANCESCA KELLY- Speakers Bureau- Exploritas- Memorial Plaques- Foreign Service Day- AFSA Awards- AFSA Web site- National High SchoolEssay ContestLOTTE REIJMERLeft to right: Controller Kalpna Srimal, Accounting Assistant Cory Nishi,Accounting & Administration Assistant Alicia Campi.Foreign Service Journal- Editing- Writing- Design- Advertising- Subscriptionsand Sales- Inside a U.S.EmbassyLeft to right: Editor Steven Alan Honley, Associate Editor Shawn Dorman,AFSA News Editor Francesca Kelly, Senior Editor Susan B. Maitra.Inset photos: Advertising and Circulation Manager Ed Miltenberger, left,and Art Director Caryn Suko Smith, right.Labor Management- Negotiations- Protecting Benefits- GrievanceCounseling- OIG & DSInvestigations- Member Inquiries- Informing the FieldLeft to right: Labor Management Specialist James Yorke, Senior StaffAttorney Neera Parikh, Deputy General Counsel Zlatana Badrich, GeneralCounsel Sharon Papp, Office Manager Christine Warren, Staff AttorneyMichael Willats. (Not pictured: USAID Senior Labor Management AdviserDouglas Broome.)FRANCESCA KELLYTERESA YATAFRANCESCA KELLYLeft to right: Marketing & Outreach Manager Asgeir Sigfusson, SpecialAwards & Outreach Coordinator Perri Green, Director of CommunicationsThomas Switzer. (Not pictured: Exploritas Administrator Bernard Alter.)Member Services- Member Recruitment- Post Reps- Insurance Programs- Address Changes- AFSAnet Listserv- Member Inquiries- Member Records- FundraisingLeft to right: Administrative Assistant and Office Manager Ana Lopez,Member Services Representative Michael Laiacona, Member ServicesDirector Janet Hedrick.Professional Programs and Executive SupportLeft to right:Scholarship Director Lori Dec- Financial Aid, Merit and Art ScholarshipsCoordinator for Retiree Counseling & Legislation Bonnie Brown- Retiree Services,- Retiree Newsletter- Retiree DirectoryLegislative Director Casey Frary- Lobbying- Tracking Legislation- Hill TestimonyExecutive Assistant to the President Austin Tracy- Governing Board & Executive Support- Special ProjectsFRANCESCA KELLY62 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

AFSA Annual Report 2009 Membership by ConstituencyDecember 2009IBB 0%USAID 8%FAS 1%100Membership Participation by ConstituencyDecember 200980% of Membership Participation84%Retiree 26%6063%70%76%40State 63%FCS 1%Associate 1%20024%34%Retiree IBB FCS FAS State USAIDTotal Membership 1989 to 200915,00014,000Record High14,606 Members13,00012,00011,50011,00010,50010,0009,5009,0008,5001989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20092009 Budget in Brief *INCOME ........................................$Dues..............................................................2,881,000Foreign Service Journal Advertising................511,000Insurance Programs ..........................................22,000Legislative Action Fund......................................34,000Other..................................................................25,500Professional Programs and Outreach..............280,705Scholarships ....................................................476,725TOTAL ..........................................................4,230,930EXPENSES ....................................$Membership Programs ................................1,484,444Foreign Service Journal ..................................942,922Legislative Affairs ............................................169,970Professional Programs and Outreach..............476,333Scholarships ....................................................477,657Administration ................................................586,984Contributions to Endowment and Reserves ......92,620TOTAL ..........................................................4,230,930* Approved figures. Actual audited financial statements for 2009 will be available on the AFSA Web site (www.afsa.org) in May.MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 63

AFSA Annual Report 2009 AFSA BY THE NUMBERS: What Happened in 2009?13 AFSA press releases went out17 major TV-radio-print journalists covered Foreign Affairs Day44 states hosted AFSA speakers49 AFSA-related letters, interviews and articles appeared in U.S. media80 percent of overseas posts have an AFSA representative99 students received AFSA scholarship aid300 people are regular online readers of the Foreign Service Journal473 FS community members are AFSA lifetime members480 AFSA speaker events took place across the country850 people attended AFSA Exploritas programs1,000 is the number of USAID members, leading to a second AFSA board rep1,232 fans joined AFSA’s Facebook page by year’s end2,293 people read FSJ’s October “Public Diplomacy” issue online9,635 members subscribe to AFSAnet, regularly receiving news updates14,606 individuals are AFSA members30,000 citizens attended Speakers Program events nationwide195, 750 dollars were bestowed in AFSA student awards and scholarshipsBenefits of AFSA MembershipLabor Management Relations: AFSAnegotiates the regulations affecting employees’careers. We work to make the Foreign Servicea better place in which to work, live and raisea family. Our network of AFSA post representativesprovides on-site assistance to overseasmembers.Congressional Advocacy: AFSA is youradvocate before Congress on issues affecting thecareers of active members and the annuities ofretired members.Ombudsman: We work to resolve memberproblems with pay, allowances, claims, annuities,health care and many other issues.Voice of the Foreign Service: As theprofessional association of the Foreign Servicesince 1924, AFSA works to strengthen our professionand is ever vigilant for threats to the careerForeign Service.Grievance Representation: AFSA’s legalstaff provides hands-on assistance with grievanceproceedings when your rights are violated.Outreach: AFSA communicates the viewsof the Foreign Service on professional issues tothe news media and directly to the general public.Foreign Service Journal: Our monthlymagazine offers provocative articles that willkeep you current on developments in the foreignaffairs profession.AFSA News: AFSA’s monthly newsletter,inside the Foreign Service Journal, highlights issuesaffecting your daily life.AFSA Web Site: Our online member areaincludes a member directory and memberforums.AFSAnet: Regular e-mail updates keep youcurrent on issues of importance to the ForeignService community.Legal Services: We offer free legal adviceand representation on employment issues,including security and OIG investigations, disciplinecases and security clearance proceedings.Insurance Programs: You can chooseamong competitively priced insurance programsdesigned for the Foreign Service community,including professional liability, long-term care,accident, dental and personal property/transit.AFSA Scholarships: Approximately 100merit-based and financial-need scholarships aregranted every year to Foreign Service familymembers. Since 1926, AFSA has awarded nearly$5,000,000 in scholarships.AFSA Awards: This unique awards programhonors constructive dissent and outstandingperformance.Retiree Newsletter: This bimonthlynewsletter is exclusively for retired members.Directory of Retired Members: Thisinvaluable annual listing, by state, of contactinformation for retired members is provided toall retired AFSA members.Magazine Discounts: AFSA members areeligible for special discounts on subscriptions tomajor foreign affairs journals.Esprit de Corps: We work to build a senseof common cause and professional prideamong all Foreign Service members: active-dutyand retired; generalist and specialist; entry-level,mid-level and senior.AFSA Memorial Plaques: Established in1933, and maintained by AFSA, these plaquesin the Truman Building lobby honor membersof the Foreign Service who lost their lives overseasin the line of duty.AFSA Core ValuesTHE AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICEASSOCIATIONEstablished in 1924.MISSIONTo make the Foreign Service a more effectiveagent of United States internationalleadership.VISIONWe work to make the Foreign Service abetter-supported, more respected, moresatisfying place in which to spend a careerand raise a family.— RESPONSIVENESS: We listen to ourmembers and actively promote theirinterests.— EFFECTIVENESS: We act with a sense ofurgency, get results and make a difference.— INTEGRITY: We demonstrate openness,honesty and fairness in everything we do.— EFFICIENCY: We carefully expend ourresources where they can have maximumimpact.— COMMUNITY: We foster teamwork,respect each other and enjoy our timetogether.— COURAGE: We encourage responsiblerisk-taking in order to achieve results.— PATRIOTISM: We are faithful to thegrand and enduring ideals that gave ournation birth.— EMPOWERMENT: We trust each otherto give our best efforts guided by these corevalues.64 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

CLASSIFIEDSLEGAL SERVICESTAX & FINANCIAL SERVICESTEMPORARY HOUSINGATTORNEY WITH 30 years’ successfulexperience SPECIALIZING FULL-TIME IN FSGRIEVANCES will more than double yourchance of winning: 30% of grievants win beforethe Grievance Board; 85% of my clients win.Only a private attorney can adequately developand present your case, including necessaryregs, arcane legal doctrines, precedentsand rules.Call Bridget R. Mugane atTel: (301) 596-0175 or (202) 387-4383.E-mail: fsatty@comcast.netFree initial telephone consultation.WILLS/ESTATE PLANNING by attorneywho is a former FSO. Have your will reviewedand updated, or new one prepared: No chargefor initial consultation.M. Bruce Hirshorn, Boring & Pilger, P.C.307 Maple Ave. W, Suite D, Vienna, VA 22180.Tel: (703) 281-2161. Fax: (703) 281-9464.E-mail: mbhirshorn@boringandpilger.comEXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS REPRE-SENTING FS officers in grievances, performance,promotion and tenure, financial claims,discrimination and disciplinary actions. We representFS officers at all stages of the proceedingsfrom an investigation, issuance of proposeddiscipline or the initiation of a grievance,through to a hearing before the FSGB. We provideexperienced, timely and knowledgeableadvice to employees from junior untenured officersthrough the Senior FS, and often workclosely with AFSA. Kalijarvi, Chuzi & Newman.Tel: (202) 331-9260.E-mail: attorneys@kcnlaw.comTAX & FINANCIAL SERVICESFREE TAX CONSULTATION for overseaspersonnel. We process returns as received, withoutdelay. Preparation and representation byEnrolled Agents. Federal and all states prepared.Includes “TAX TRAX” unique mini-financial planningreview with recommendations. Full planningavailable. Get the most from your financialdollar! Financial Forecasts Inc., Barry B.De Marr, CFP, EA, 3918 Prosperity Ave. #230,Fairfax, VA 22031. Tel: (703) 289-1167.Fax: (703) 289-1178. E-mail: finfore@aol.comATTORNEY, FORMER FOREIGN SER-VICE OFFICER: Extensive experience with taxproblems unique to the Foreign Service.Available for consultation, tax planning andpreparation of returns:M. Bruce Hirshorn, Boring & Pilger, P.C.307 Maple Ave. W, Suite D, Vienna, VA 22180.Tel: (703) 281-2161.Fax: (703) 281-9464.E-mail: mbhirshorn@boringandpilger.comROLAND S. HEARD, CPA• U.S. income tax services• Practiced before the IRSFIRST CONSULTATION FREE1091 Chaddwyck Dr.Athens, GA 30606Cell: (706) 207-8300.E-mail: RSHEARDCPA@bellsouth.netWWW.ROLANDSHEARDCPA.COMPROFESSIONAL TAX RETURN PREP-ARATION: Forty years in public tax practice.Arthur A. Granberg, EA, ATA, ATP. Our chargesare $95 per hour. Most FS returns take 3 to 4hours. Our office is 100 feet from VirginiaSquare Metro Station. Tax Matters AssociatesPC, 3601 North Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA22201. Tel: (703) 522-3828.Fax: (703) 522-5726.E-mail: aag8686@aol.comSCHOLARSHIPSSTATE DEPARTMENT FEDERALCREDIT UNION’S scholarship competitionhas begun! Pick up an application at anySDFCU branch office or print one out onlineat www.sdfcu.org. All application materialsmust be received by Friday, April 9, 2010.EDUCATION ASSESSMENTLEARNING DISABILITY ASSESSMENT.Reading, writing, math, speed/fluency, executivefunctioning, attention. Comparing abilityto achievement. Evaluation, diagnosis andrecommendations for services and accommodationsin school and standardized testing(SAT, ACT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT, etc). Preschoolthrough graduate school. Weekend/weekdayappointments. Offices in McLean & Middleburg,Va. Will also travel to evaluate.Dr. Suzie Muir.Tel: (703) 728-8676.URL: www.testingld.comSHORT-TERM RENTALSTEMPORARY HOUSINGWASHINGTON, D.C. or NFATC TOUR?EXECUTIVE HOUSING CONSULTANTSoffers Metropolitan Washington, D.C.’s finestportfolio of short-term, fully furnished andequipped apartments, townhomes and single-familyresidences in Maryland, D.C. andVirginia.In Virginia: “River Place’s Finest” is stepsto Rosslyn Metro and Georgetown, and 15minutes on Metro bus or State Departmentshuttle to NFATC. For more info, please call(301) 951-4111, or visit our Web site atwww.executivehousing.com.COMFORTABLE GUEST ROOMS rentedto DACOR members for $99/night/single or$109/night/double, all taxes and continentalbreakfast included. Contact:Tel: (202) 682-0500, ext. 11.E-mail: dacor@dacorbacon.orgWeb site: www.dacorbacon.orgCAPITOL HILL, FURNISHED housing:1-3 blocks to Capitol. Nice places, great location.Well below per diem. Short term OK.GSA small business and veteran-owned.Tel: (202) 544-4419.Web site: www.capitolhillstay.comFIND PERFECT HOUSING by usingthe free Reservation Service Agency,Accommodations 4 U. Tel: (843) 238-2490.E-mail: vicki@accommodations4u.netWeb site: www.accommodations4u.netPIED-A-TERRE PROPERTIES, LTD:Select from our unique inventory of completelyfurnished & tastefully decorated apartments &townhouses, all located in D.C.’s best in-townneighborhoods: Dupont, Georgetown, FoggyBottom & the West End. Two-month minimum.Mother-Daughter Owned and Operated.Tel: (202) 462-0200. Fax: (202) 332-1406.E-mail: info@piedaterredc.comWeb site: www.piedaterredc.comSERVING FOREIGN SERVICE personnelfor 23 years, especially those with PETS.Selection of condos, townhouses and singlefamilyhomes accommodates most breeds andsizes. All within a short walk of Metro stationsin Arlington. Fully furnished and equipped 1-4 bedrooms, within per diem rates. EXECUTIVELODGING ALTERNATIVES.Finder5@ix.netcom.comMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 65

CLASSIFIEDSTEMPORARY HOUSINGDC FURNISHED EXTENDED STAY in PennQuarter/Chinatown. The Lansburgh, 425 8thStreet, NW. 1-BR and 2-BR apartments w/fullyequipped kitchens, CAC & heat, high-speedInternet, digital cable TV w/ HBO, fitness centerw/indoor pool, resident business center, 24-hour reception desk, full concierge service,secure parking available, controlled-entrybuilding, 30-day minimum stay. Walk to Metro,FBI, DOJ, EPA, IRS, DOE, DHH, U.S. Capitol.Rates within government per diem. Discountfor government, diplomats. Visit our Web siteat: www.TheLansburgh.com or call the leasingoffice at (888) 313-6240.HOUSING IS AVAILABLE in a remodeled4-unit townhouse, about a block and a half fromthe Dupont Circle Metro station (Red Line).Each unit is furnished with a full-size washer anddryer, fully equipped kitchen with cherry cabinets,granite counter and stainless steel appliances,cable, wireless Internet, security systemand a shared, private, enclosed backyard.Utilities included. Garage parking available.Specializing in renting to government employeeson detail, we work with per diem.E-mail: signman73@hotmail.com.ARLINGTON FLATS: 1-BR, 2-BR, and 4-BR flats in a beautiful building 3 blks toClarendon Metro. Newly renovated, completelyfurnished, incl. all utilities/internet/HDTVw/DVR. Parking, maid service, gym, rental caravailable. Rates start at $2,500/mo. Per diemOK. Min. 30 days.E-mail: ClaireWaters826@gmail.comTel: (571) 235-4289. See 2-BR athttp://www.postlets.com/rts/1909065FURNISHED LUXURY APARTMENTS:Short/long-term. Best locations: Dupont Circle,Georgetown. Utilities included. All price ranges/sizes. Parking available.Tel: (202) 296-4989.E-mail: michaelsussman@starpower.netREAL ESTATENORTH CAROLINA: Expertise in the purchaseor sale of homes (including investmentproperty) provided by Buffie Webber, KellerWilliams Realty. Relocation support available.Tel: (919) 428-3218.E-mail: Buffie@kw.comWeb site: www.hometocarolina.comFLORIDA’S FIRST COASTReal Estate, Relocation, ResidencyExpert Counselor Consultant (SFSO, ret.)Herb@HerbSchulz.comTel: (904) 207-8199.Web site: www.FirstCoastRealtor.comREAL ESTATESARASOTA, FL. PAUL BYRNES, FSOretired, and Loretta Friedman, Coldwell Banker,offer vast real estate experience in assistingdiplomats. Enjoy gracious living, no stateincome tax, and a current “buyer’s market.”Tel: (941) 377-8181.E-mail: byrnes68@gmail.com (Paul)or lorbfried@msn.com (Loretta).Get The MOST HOME For Your $$$Take advantage of the Real Estate Market.Now Is The Time To Buy! Utilize my knowledgeand expertise to find your home inNorthern Virginia. Get The Facts.TONY FEIJOO Realtor ® Weichert RealtorsTel: (571) 246-2406.E-Mail: tony@usgovrelo.comWeb site: www.usgovrelo.comPROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE servicesprovided by John Kozyn of Coldwell BankerResidential Brokerage in Arlington. Need tobuy, sell or rent? My expertise will serve yourspecific needs and time frame. FSO referencesgladly provided. Licensed in VA andDC. Tel: (202) 288-6026.E-mail: jkozyn@cbmove.comWeb site: www.cbmove.com/johnkozynLOOKING TO BUY, sell or rent propertyin Northern Virginia? This former FSO understandsyour needs and can help.David Olinger, GRI Long & Foster, RealtorsTel: (703) 864-3196. Fax: (703) 960-1305.E-mail: david.olinger@longandfoster.comMORTGAGEBUYING OR REFINANCING A HOME?Jeff Stoddard has specialized in homefinance for FSOs for over seven years.Working with various lenders, he is able toprovide FSO-specific financing in all 50 states.Contact him at (703) 725-2455 or via e-mail atstoddardhoya@gmail.com.HOME REPAIRSPRING IS THE perfect time to get yourhome in NORTHERN VIRGINIA ready to occupyor put on the market. Whether it’s a freshcoat of paint or a bathroom and/or kitchen renovation,Door2Door Designs can do the workfor you while you’re away. We specialize inworking with Foreign Service and military familiesliving abroad. For more information, contactNancy Sheehy at (703) 244-3843 orNancy.Sheehy@verizon.net. Or visit us atWWW.DOOR2DOORDESIGNS.COMSHOPPINGSHOP IN AN AMERICANDRUG STORE BY MAIL!Morgan Pharmacy3001 P St NWWashington, DC 20007Tel: (202) 337-4100. Fax: (202) 337-4102.E-mail: care@morganRx.comwww.carepharmacies.comEMBASSY 220-VOLT transformers,office supplies and furniture. 5810 SeminaryRd., Falls Church, VA 22041.Tel: (703) 845-0800.E-mail: embassy@embassy-usa.comWeb site: www.shopembassyusa.comSELLING YOUR VEHICLE?BUYING A VEHICLE?Since 1979, Steve Hart has been assistingmembers of the Foreign Service with theirautomotive needs.AUTO BUYING SERVICEBUYS and SELLSALL MAKES AND MODELSSteve Hart, Auto Buying Service2971 Prosperity Ave, Fairfax, VA 22031Tel: (703) 849-0080. Fax: (703) 849-9248.E-mail: Steve@autobuyingservice.comReduce your stress; use the best.U.S. AUTOMOBILE PARTS WORLDWIDE:Express Parts has over 30 years’ experienceshipping original and aftermarket parts for U.S.specification vehicles. Give us the year, make,model and serial number of your car and we willsupply the parts you need.Tel: (440) 234-8381. Fax: (440) 234-2660.E-mail: dastanley@expresspartsinc.comWeb site: www.expresspartsinc.comCRAVING GROCERIES FROM HOME? Weship non-perishable groceries to you via theDulles mail-sorting facility or your choice ofU.S. shipping facility.www.lowesfoodstogo.com• Choose the Reynolda Rd store inWinston-Salem, NC• Choose Delivery• Pay through PayPal66 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

CLASSIFIEDSVACATIONVacation Rental Rockland, Maine. Idealplace for your home leave/R&R. Furnishedrental sleeps four beside Penobscot Bay.Walk/bike to museums, art camp, sailingschool, coffee roaster, lighthouses, kayakrental and restaurants. $1,150/week. AvailableAug./Sept. 2010.E-mail: Mimi: jimimi83@gmail.comWeb site: http://sites.google.com/site/9suffolk/TRANSPORTATIONPET MOVING MADE EASY. Club PetInternational is a full-service animal shipper specializingin domestic and international trips.Club Pet is the ultimate pet-care boarding facilityin the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.Tel: (703) 471-7818 or (800) 871-2535.E-mail: dogman@clubpet.comWANTEDPUBLIC DIPLOMACY ALUMNIASSOCIATION welcomes PD professionalsboth STATE and private sector. Newsletters,luncheons with noted communicators, directory.Annual dues $30, lifetime $300. Pleasevisit www.publicdiplomacy.org.SEEKINGDEPARTMENT OF STATE BiographicRegister for 1975, 1976, or 1977. Willing topay top dollar.E-mail me at FrenchTJ@state.gov.PLACE A CLASSIFIED AD: $1.40/word(10-word min). First 3 words bolded free,additional bold text 85¢/word. Header orbox-shading $11 each. Deadline: 5 wksahead of publication.Adv. Mgr. Tel: (202) 944-5507.Fax: (202) 338-8244.E-mail: miltenberger@afsa.orgBOOKSORDER COPIES OF AFSA’s popularbook, Inside a U.S. Embassy, for anyone who’sever said, “The Foreign what?” A must-readfor students of diplomacy and for anyone consideringa Foreign Service career. Adopted forover 40 university courses worldwide.Only $16.95 (before discount). Go towww.afsa.org/inside for more informationand to order, or call (800) 775-2518, or fax (703)661-1547. Discounts available for quantityorders.Send questions to embassybook@afsa.org.A MODEST SILENCE by Sheila CoralGrimes — a short novel with a Foreign Servicebackdrop. Cost: $12.95. Author proceedsdonated to Fisher House.See: www.SheilaCoralGrimes.com.MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 67

BOOKSTehran IncognitaUnderstanding Iran: EverythingYou Need to Know, From Persiato the Islamic Republic, FromCyrus to AhmadinejadWilliam R. Polk, PalgraveMacmillan, 2009, $25, hardcover,272 pages.REVIEWED BY ROBERT V. KEELEYWilliam R. Polk is a prolific writeron international affairs, diplomacy anddomestic politics. In the past five yearsalone, he has published four books thatcould constitute a graduate course onthe contemporary and historical MiddleEast (two of which I have previouslyreviewed for the Foreign ServiceJournal):Understanding Iraq: The WholeSweep of Iraqi History, from GenghisKhan’s Mongols to the Ottoman Turksto the British Mandate to the AmericanOccupation (Harper Collins, 2005)Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan forWithdrawal Now, with George Mc-Govern (Simon & Schuster, 2006)Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency,Terrorism & Guerrilla War,from the American Revolution to Iraq(Harper Collins, 2007)And now, Understanding Iran. Ihave just checked with Amazon.com,and your total tuition will be a mere$51.85 (plus shipping and handling).Understanding Iranfully lives up to thepromise of its title.In addition to a long career as a historian,much of it spent as a professorof Middle Eastern studies at the Universityof Chicago, Polk was a memberof the State Department’s Policy PlanningOffice responsible for the MiddleEast and Central Asia during the Kennedyadministration. He was also onthe Crisis Management Committeeduring the Cuban Missile Crisis.This kind of background permitshim to understand the perspectives ofpolicymakers and those who implementtheir decisions.Understanding Iran fully lives up tothe promise of its title, giving us a thoroughyet lively survey of a society thatis moving quickly toward becoming thedominant power in the region. Polkreminds us that as much as Iranianschafe under the yoke of their currentleaders, they still have bitter memoriesof generations of British, Russian andAmerican espionage, invasion anddominance.There are important lessons to belearned from the mistakes of the past,and Polk teases them out of Iran’s long,rich history. In the process, he makesa strong case that it is not just now, butfor decades to come that a true understandingof Iran will be essential.Back in 2006, I attempted to persuadethe management of the ForeignService Institute to give all employeesreceiving training en route to Baghdada copy of Polk’s Understanding Iraq. Isuggested that they could at least readsome of its 213 pages during the flightthere. My effort was predictably futile,but I stand by the suggestion.Similarly, while there is no imminentprospect of a resumption of diplomaticrelations, I would still urge FSIto buy copies of Understanding Iranfor all employees who have any connectionwith U.S. policy towardTehran.A final note: Your graduate courseabout the Middle East will not be completeuntil you have also coveredAfghanistan and South Asia. Fortuitously,William Polk is currently workingon a book on that subject, tentativelytitled Understanding Afghanistan,set for publication later this year.Three-time ambassador and retiredForeign Service officer Robert V. Keeleyoperates Five and Ten Press, an independentpublishing company hefounded to bring out original articles,essays and other short works of fictionand nonfiction that have been rejectedor ignored by mainstream outlets.68 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

B OOKSAn EyewitnessAccountThe Other War: Winningand Losing in AfghanistanRonald E. Neumann, PotomacBooks, 2009, $27.50, hardcover,270 pages.REVIEWED BY ROGER DANKERTIn the spring of 2005, just beforeIraq imploded, virtually compelling aU.S. military surge, the senior U.S.diplomat for political-military affairs inthe country, Ambassador Ronald Neumann,was asked to become ambassadorto Kabul. He took charge therejust as that country, too, began descendinginto a spiral of stronger insurgencyand failing central governmentcontrol. Until that point,Afghanistan had been “the other war”of his book’s title — largely ignoredand conducted with the minimum possibleU.S. military effort.As former National Security CouncilNear East Affairs Director BruceRiedel reminds us in his foreword,Washington supported the mujahedeenas they liberated their countryfrom the Soviet Union in the 1980s —but then walked away, allowing a Talibantakeover. Now, after being toppledfor their role in allowing al-Qaidato foment 9/11, Taliban leaders exiledin Pakistan are striving to push theU.S.-led International Security AssistanceForce out of Afghanistan. Thus,the current crisis could represent thesecond time in the last quarter-centurythat the U.S. has squandered victoryin Afghanistan by failing to followthrough.In this account, Neumann — nowpresident of the American Academy ofDiplomacy — records his observationsIn the book, Neumannrecalls his efforts tomanage a host ofcomplex issues that stillplague Afghanistan.from August 2005 to April 2007, as theproblems for the ISAF and AfghanPresident Hamid Karzai’s governmentcame into focus.Neumann brought 40 years of experienceto his posting, starting withthree months of rambling all overAfghanistan in 1967 when his fatherwas ambassador. After joining the ForeignService, he studied Persian andArabic, and later served as a deputy assistantsecretary for Near Eastern affairsand as ambassador to Algeria andBahrain.In the book, Neumann recalls hisefforts to manage a host of complex issuesthat still plague Afghanistan: civilian-militaryrelations, counternarcoticsprograms, unity of command, rules ofengagement for U.S. and NATOforces, civilian casualties, staffing andmanagement of provincial reconstructionteams, coordination of internationalaid, and trilateral ISAF-Afghanistan-Pakistancoordination.As the ambassador worked his waythrough “the fourth war he had experiencedup close,” he came to a new appreciationof the frequent disconnectbetween policy formulation and implementation.(In particular, decisionmakersrepeatedly fail to secure theresources necessary to carry out theirobjectives.) However, he notes thatthis lapse is neither partisan nor ideological,but generally stems from a lackof information and experience. Healso cites many examples where Washingtondid not act with appropriatetiming or flexibility.In that regard, the author creditsAnthony Cordesman with the term“armed nationbuilding,” which he sayscaptures what the U.S. is doing inAfghanistan far better than “counterinsurgency”or “nationbuilding.”For instance, Pres. Karzai repeatedlyraised the idea of rearming tribalforces, as have many other Afghans.But Neumann and Coalition ForcesCommander General Karl Eikenberry(now ambassador to Kabul) resistedthis approach on the grounds that evenif it worked, the U.S. would bestrengthening forces inimical to centralgovernment. Since then, police forcecreation has lagged and, remarkably,the idea of local militias is still on thetable in 2010.Amb. Neumann notes that the U.S.has established armies in many countries,but building a competent policeforce on the ruins of a destroyed countryin the middle of an escalating insurgencywas new to everyone. Thefailure he saw in Iraq — training onlylow-level members of a corrupt force— helped him to understand similarproblems in Afghanistan. Regrettably,the resources directed to Baghdadwere unavailable to Kabul.When the ambassador departedKabul in April 2007, his final reportsaid the U.S. was “on solid policygrounds, but we are still on a very, verythin margin. We do not need new policies;we need the resources and supportto implement effectively what wehave decided to do.”MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 69

B OOKSAmb. Neumann’s perspective as adistinguished statesman with multiplelayers of political-military experiencemakes this book one that should be onthe list for all assignees to the Afghanistan-Pakistantheater. “Read this book,learn the lessons therein, or fail inAfghanistan,” concludes former DeputySecretary of State Richard Armitage.Roger Dankert, a Foreign Service officerfrom 1970 to 1996, is a formermember of the AFSA GoverningBoard. In retirement, he has workedas a When Actually Employed annuitantfor the State Department in variouscapacities.Close CallThe Dead Hand: The UntoldStory of the Cold War ArmsRace and Its Dangerous LegacyDavid E. Hoffman, Doubleday,2009, $35, hardcover, 577 pages.REVIEWED BY KEMPTON JENKINSDavid E. Hoffman, a former WashingtonPost correspondent, has producedan eye-opening account of alittle-known piece of unfinished businessfrom the Cold War that threatenedto turn our planet into an unpopulateddesert.The Soviet Union’s super-secret biologicalweapons program, approvedby Premier Leonid Brezhnev, produceda terrifying inventory of toxinsin direct violation of the 1975 BiologicalWeapons Convention. The Kremlininsisted that it had no choice but tomatch a parallel U.S. program that predatedthe treaty, but failed to acknowledgethat Washington was windingdown its research, even as Moscowramped up its own initiative. Moreover,while the U.S. research (based atFort Dietrich, Md.) remained largelywithin the scope of the BWC, the Sovietsconducted their program at secretsites in what is now Ukraine,producing and stockpiling weaponizedbiological ingredients of devastatingpotential.Hoffman has conducted outstandingresearch, interviewing several topSoviet officials, largely chemists, wholed the program. His efforts to uncovera convincing rationale for thework are fascinating but for the mostpart unsatisfying. They reminded thisreader of the “following orders” excuseoffered by the many Nazi officials whofelt obliged to participate in Hitler’s“Final Solution.”His title references the fact thatat about the same time, Soviet leadersinvented a doomsday programdubbed the “Dead Hand.” If communistofficials were killed in a firstnuclear strike by the United States,then a “small crew of duty officerssurviving deep underground” wouldstill be able to retaliate. A similarcommitment to mutual assured destructionand disproportionate responseunderlay the USSR’s biologicalweapons program.The first serious evidence of theprogram appeared in 1979, when amajor accident at the Sverdlovsk anthraxplant in the Ural Mountainskilled 64 workers and residents andhospitalized 30 more. At the time,Moscow blamed the incident ontainted meat, but the explanation wasnot persuasive.Over time, Soviet scientists beganto awaken to the insanity of their work.Once Premier Mikhail Gorbachev’s“glasnost” reforms took hold in the1980s, more and more researchers cooperatedin opening up their records toAmerican and British inspectors. Butthe key breakthrough came in 1989,when Vladimir Pasechnik defected andrevealed the scope of the biologicalweapons program. The next year, Gorbachevshut it down.The collapse of the Soviet Unionposed the question: How could Moscowdestroy the weapons that posedsuch a terrifying threat to civilization?The U.S.-led effort to help do just thatis at the heart of Hoffman’s book.The Dead Hand celebrates many heroeson both sides, ranging from PresidentRonald Reagan and PremierMikhail Gorbachev to Senators SamNunn, D-Ga., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind. — who took the lead within Congressto pass what would become the1992 Nunn-Lugar Cooperative ThreatReduction program. Equally important,if less well known, was AndyWeber, who led the U.S.-British teamthat, with Russian President BorisYeltsin’s support, searched for anthraxspores and other biological agents at facilitiesthroughout the former SovietUnion.The Cold War resulted, of course, ina dramatic victory for the free world,and nearly 20 years later, we are right tocelebrate that achievement. But it ischilling to reflect on the dimensions ofthe threat from the nuclear, chemicaland biological weapons that each partyto that global conflict accumulated. Itis also sobering that such weapons stillpose harrowing dangers in the hands ofnot just a few nations but countless terrorists,as well. ■Kempton Jenkins was a Foreign Serviceofficer for 30 years, serving in Bangkok,Berlin, Moscow, Caracas and Washington,D.C. His memoir, Cold War Saga,will be published later this year.70 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

IN MEMORYWilliam Belton, 95, a retired FSOand accomplished ornithologist, diedon Oct. 25 at his home in Great Cacapon,W. Va., from congestive heartfailure.Mr. Belton was born in Portland,Ore., and graduated from StanfordUniversity in 1935. He joined the ForeignService in 1938 and, during a 32-year career, served in Cuba, the DominicanRepublic, Canada, Chile, Australia,Panama and Brazil.Among other positions in Washington,D.C., he served as the officer incharge of Mexican affairs, deputy directorof the Office of South AmericanAffairs and deputy Foreign Service inspectorfor missions in 12 North African,European and Middle Easterncountries.In 1958, Mr. Belton was detailed tothe National War College. Five yearslater, he was assigned as political adviserto the commander-in-chief of theU.S. Southern Command in Panama,with the rank of minister. He thenserved as deputy chief of mission inSantiago and Canberra, retiring in1970 as DCM in Rio de Janeiro.In retirement, Mr. Belton turnedhis hobby of birdwatching into a morethan 30-year second career, becomingan internationally recognized ornithologist.He was responsible — almostsinglehandedly — for the current bodyof knowledge regarding the bird life ofsouthern Brazil.Completely self-taught, Mr. Beltontraveled during the 1970s in a Jeepwith a small house trailer attached, takingnotes that he developed into a twovolumereport, Birds of Rio Grande doSul, Brazil (1984). Carrying a heavyreel-to-reel tape recorder and directionalmicrophone, he made fieldrecordings over a period of 20 years ofmore than 1,000 birds, mostly in RioGrande do Sul. These are now housedin the Macaulay Library at CornellUniversity’s ornithology lab.Mr. Belton’s work was particularlynoteworthy for its methodical approach,its comprehensiveness and thesheer length of time he devoted to it,his associates told the New York Times.Each recording was the product ofhours of standing stock-still in the wildat dawn, with swarms of biting insectsfor company. But over the years, Mr.Belton captured many bird songs thathad never before been documented.Besides his own book, which remainsa standard text, he prepared apocket-size Portuguese-language versionwith 100 color photos, Aves Silvestresdo Rio Grande do Sul, which isin its fourth printing. He also translatedthe foundational Ornitologia Brasileira,by ornithologist Helmut Sick, from Portugueseinto English (Birds in Brazil,Princeton University Press, 1993).The American Bird Conservancy,which Mr. Belton helped found, hasnamed its grants program in his honor.Mr. Belton’s first wife, the formerJulia Hyslop, whom he married in1939, died in 2003. He is survived byhis second wife, Cornelia BrouwerLett Belton of Great Cacapon, W. Va.;three children from his first marriage,Barbara Yngvesson of Amherst, Mass.,Hugh Belton of McLean, Va., andTimothy Belton of Sheridan, Wyo.;eight grandchildren; and a greatgrandchild.Helen B. Eilts, 87, wife of the lateFSO Hermann Frederick Eilts, diedon Nov. 23 in Benton, Kan., followinga long illness.Mrs. Eilts was born in New YorkCity, N.Y., on Nov. 20, 1922, the daughterof Josephine (Freund) Richards andstepdaughter of Theodore Richards.She was a 1944 graduate of WellesleyCollege and received a master’s degreein 1947 from The Johns Hopkins Uni-MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 71

I NM EMORYversity’s School of Advanced InternationalStudies in Washington, D.C.During World War II, she joinedthe U.S. Navy WAVES and served asan officer from 1944 to 1946. On June12, 1948, she married FSO HermannFrederick Eilts in Tehran. For the following30 years, Mr. and Mrs. Eiltsrepresented the United States aroundthe world: in Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia(twice), Iraq, England, Libya andEgypt, in addition to tours in Washington,D.C.When Mr. Eilts retired from theForeign Service in 1979, Mrs. Eilt’sservice on behalf of the country wasalso noted by then-U.S. Secretary ofState Cyrus Vance, who stated: “Herquiet, gracious warmth, her fluency inArabic and profound interest in theMiddle East earned her the respect,admiration and confidence of peopleswhose cultures are far different fromour own. She exemplified the finestqualities of the American woman whoserves abroad.”After retirement, the couple settledin Wellesley, Mass., joining the BostonUniversity community.Mrs. Eilts was preceded in death byher husband, her brother, DonaldBrew, and her parents. She is survivedby her sons, Conrad M. Eilts of Bahrainand Frederick L. Eilts of Benton, Kan.,and their families.Memorial contributions may besent to the Helen Brew and HermannEilts scholarship fund at Wellesley Collegein Wellesley, Mass.Terence Flannery, a retired ForeignCommercial Service officer,passed away on Oct. 28 in Paris,France, after a short illness.Mr. Flannery was born in Baltimore,Md., and raised in Virginia. Heattended Washington and Lee Universityin Lexington, Va., and the Universityof Southern California in LosAngeles, Calif.Prior to his Foreign Service carrier,Mr. Flannery served in the Air Forceand then worked in the private sectorfor Link, a flight simulator company inBinghamton, N.Y. This companytransferred him to Paris, where he settledin 1967, subsequently working fora French engineering firm for severalyears.In 1984, Mr. Flannery joined theForeign Commercial Service. His firstoverseas posting was Paris, where heserved from 1984 to 1988. His nexttours were in Algiers, London andBrussels. He retired from the ForeignCommercial Service at the end of1997, and returned to Paris.After retirement from the ForeignService, Mr. Flannery resumed a carrierin the private sector, working firstfor a consulting firm, APCO, in Paris,and then on different projects for TheWall Street Journal Europe FutureLeadership Institute in Brussels.He is survived by his wife, LaurenceFlannery of Paris.James Wiley Habron Sr., 76, a retiredSenior Foreign Service officerwith USAID, died on Dec. 16 at hishome in Pleasantville, N.J.Mr. Habron was born and raised inPleasantville. He served in the U.S.Army as a member of the 63rd ArmyBand, reaching the rank of sergeantfirst class. Following military service,he attended Howard University, graduatingin 1958 with a degree in civil engineering.At Howard, Mr. Habronwas a member of the cross-country,track and football teams, winningchampionships in the quarter mile andpole vault. He was later selected ascaptain of the track team. He was alsoa member of the national service fraternity,Alpha Phi Omega.At Howard, he met fellow studentThelma Juanita Ray of East Orange,N.J. In 1959, the couple married,teaming up for a 50-year journey thatcriss-crossed the globe. Immediatelyafter college graduation, Mr. Habronjoined the New Jersey Highway Departmentas a location and design engineer,receiving a promotion to seniorengineer in 1964. Looking for newchallenges, he joined the U.S. Agencyfor International Development the followingyear. His first assignment wasas a highway engineering adviser inSaigon during the height of the VietnamWar.Next came postings for Mr. Habronand his family to Thailand, where heworked on rural and urban developmentprojects, and to Nicaragua,where he worked to rebuild thecountry after the 1972 earthquake. Hevolunteered to stay behind after hisfamily was evacuated to ensure thatothers also reached safety, and was onone of the last flights out of Managuaas the capital city fell to the rebels. Helater returned to assist with aid effortsunder difficult circumstances.In Grenada, he helped rebuild theinternational airport; as USAID chiefin Sierra Leone, he oversaw the distributionof food aid; and in El Salvador,he was instrumental in rehabilitatingthe country’s water system.Mr. Habron was selected for advancedtraining at the University ofPittsburgh, receiving a master of publicworks degree, and in 1980 was detailedto the National War College. Hewas promoted to the Senior Foreign72 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

I NM EMORYService in 1983. Mr. Habron won numerousawards and citations, including:the Medal for Civilian Service inVietnam, Superior Unit citations, aDistinguished Achievement Awardand several Senior Foreign Serviceperformance awards, as well as a SpecialRecognition Award from the governmentof El Salvador. He spokeThai, Vietnamese and Spanish.In 1989, Mr. Habron retired fromUSAID — six months after his sonJames joined the Foreign Service —and returned to Pleasantville, where hewas active in civic and community life,enjoying the opportunity to give backto his hometown. There he began asecond career as a project coordinatorin the Pleasantville Urban EnterpriseZone office, and was instrumental inrenovating the town bus station andbringing a new bookkeeping system tothe State of New Jersey.He also served on the board of directorsfor the “Miss Pleasantville Contest”and as a member of the PlanningCommission. He received the 2007City of Pleasantville Employee of theYear Award and the Pleasantville HighSchool PTA Alumni Recognition Award.His tenure at the UEZ was broken in2009 by the illness that ultimatelyclaimed his life.Mr. Habron’s interests were broad.He loved playing the trumpet, doublebelleuphonium, valve trombone, tuba,sousaphone and double bass, and was aham radio operator, golfer, heavyreader and history buff. An avid fishermanand boat owner, his car was alwaysfilled with fishing gear. He was amember of the American Legion, theOmega Psi Phi fraternity, the AmericanForeign Service Association and theUnited States Power Boat Squadron.Family and friends recall Mr.Habron’s love for his family, hiswarmth and charm, and his ability tointeract with people from all walks oflife — from prime ministers to theman-in-the-street — and from differentethnic and cultural backgrounds.Mr. Habron is survived by his wife,Thelma Juanita Habron, of Pleasantville;two sons, James Jr. (and hiswife, Angela Anderson), of Sewell,N.J., and Geoffrey (and his wife, KateGlynn) of East Lansing, Mich.; twograndsons, Shane and Gabriel; a sister,Pauline Thomas (and her husband,Robert) of Philadephia, Pa.; two aunts;and two godchildren.William Kenneth Hitchcock, 90,a retired FSO, died on Nov. 8 in Boulder,Colo.Mr. Hitchcock attended the Universityof Colorado, where he receivedhis bachelor’s degree in 1941. Followinga graduate fellowship at the NationalInstitute of Public Affairs inWashington and graduate work atAmerican University, Mr. Hitchcockentered the Army Air Corps duringWorld War II. He completed 34 missionsas a heavy bomber pilot out ofEngland and was decorated with theDistinguished Flying Cross. At theend of the war, while still in London,he married Maxine Miller of Glendale,Calif. They divorced in 1981.In 1947, Mr. Hitchcock joined theState Department. He served in London,Paris, Madrid, Calcutta, Saigonand Washington, D.C. Early in his career,he was in charge of the State Department’sdisarmament research program.As consul general in Calcuttafrom 1964 to 1968, he administeredone of the largest consulates in theworld, whose district included the Himalayanregions of Sikkim and Bhutan.And in Saigon, toward the end of theVietnam War, he directed the refugeeprogram and served as minister for politicalaffairs.Mr. Hitchcock’s last assignment wasas deputy assistant secretary of Statefor educational and cultural affairs. In1977, he was awarded an honorarydoctorate by the University of Colorado“in recognition of his accomplishmentsin the world of diplomaticaffairs, and for his commitment to humaneand compassionate diplomacy.”In 1978, he retired from the ForeignService and settled in Boulder,Colo., where he married Diane BartlettWeller in 1987. Mr. Hitchcockserved on Denver’s Council on ForeignRelations and World Affairs and on theUniversity of Denver’s Social ScienceFoundation. Friends and family membersrecall how he always enjoyed alively discussion of world events.Mr. Hitchcock is survived by hiswife, Diane, of Boulder; stepsons Codyand Doug Weller, and Doug’s daughter,Adee Rose, all of Boulder; a daughter,Victress Hitchcock of Crestone,Colo.; a grandson, Nick Sitko, and hiswife, Michelle, of Lusaka, Zambia; agranddaughter, Julia Sitko, of Guatemala;and a nephew, Bill Hitchcockand his wife, Rhonda, of Ft. Collins,Colo.Donations in his memory may bemade to the Social Science Foundationat the University of Denver.William E. Hutchinson, 92, a retiredFSO with the U.S. InformationAgency, died on June 20 at his home inGaithersburg, Md., of bladder cancer.Mr. Hutchinson was born in Melrose,Mass. He worked for the BostonEvening Transcript as a youth, beforeMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 73

CHANGE OF ADDRESSI NM EMORYMoving?Take AFSAWith You!Change your addressonline at:www.afsa.org/comment.cfmOrSend change of address to:AFSA MembershipDepartment2101 E Street NWWashington, DC 20037moving to Hawaii in 1933. He was anews editor at the Honolulu Advertiserthrough 1944. There he designed severalfront pages that warned of growingtension between Japan and theU.S., including the Nov. 30, 1941, editionthat reflected a wire service reportspeculating on a possible Japanesestrike in the next week. A week later,Japan attacked the U.S. Navy base atPearl Harbor.During his tenure with the Advertiser,Mr. Hutchinson served occasionallyas a war correspondent for theOverseas News Agency and the UnitedPress wire service. He was then recruitedby the Office of Strategic Servicesand sent to Calcutta to work withmembers of resistance movements inBurma, Thailand and other SoutheastAsian countries.After World War II, he joined Gen.Douglas MacArthur’s headquarterscommand in Tokyo, editing the general’smonthly reports on nonmilitaryactivities during the occupation ofJapan until 1952. He was also editor ofthe official U.S. Army history of nonmilitaryactivities during the occupation.In 1952, Mr. Hutchinson joined theForeign Service. His first posting wasto Tokyo as publications officer. Hethen returned to Washington, D.C.,where he became deputy director ofUSIA’s international press service and,later, inspector general. He also servedin Pakistan, Libya and Nigeria. In1970, when President Richard Nixonbegan planning his overture to China,Mr. Hutchinson was sent to HongKong to head the USIA office there.He retired in 1973, returning to theWashington, D.C., area.In retirement, Mr. Hutchinsonwrote his memoirs, several papers onlocal history and helped prepare a historyof Gaithersburg. He was presidentof the Appalachian Trail Club inthe early 1980s and enjoyed hiking onthat trail. He also enjoyed hiking in theUnited Kingdom, Norway, Italy, CostaRica and Eastern Europe.Mr. Hutchinson’s first wife, JeanHelen Meyasaki, died in 1939.Survivors include his wife of 68years, Kimiyo Funamori Hutchinsonof Gaithersburg, Md.; a daughter fromhis first marriage, Pamela Murphy ofOkmulgee, Okla.; three children fromhis second marriage, William E.Hutchison III of Junction City, Kan.,Penelope E. Cochran of Germantown,Md., and Harvey A. Hutchinson II ofMobile, Ala.; 16 grandchildren; and 35great-grandchildren.Michael T.F. Pistor, 79, a retiredFSO with the U.S. Information Agencyand a former ambassador, died on Dec.24 at his home in Bethesda, Md.Mr. Pistor was born in Portland,Ore., but grew up in Tucson, Ariz., andgraduated from the University of Arizonain 1952. He served in the U.S.Army from 1952 to 1954, achieving therank of first lieutenant. He began hisprofessional life in the private sector in1956, working in New York City as awriter with a consumer magazine, CarLife. Within three years he became itseditor, the position he held when hejoined USIA in 1959.In a 36-year career with USIA, Mr.Pistor rose to the position of counselor,directing many of the major elementsof the agency. In his years of governmentservice he played a key role in explainingto audiences around the worldmany of the most complicated andcontroversial events affecting Americanlife and policies in the latter half of74 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

I NM EMORYthe 20th century.His first foreign assignment, in1959, was to training positions inUganda and Iran, after which he wasmade public affairs officer in Douala,Cameroon. For the next five years(1964-1969), he filled a position inLondon that was a Kennedy-era innovation— Youth Officer. There heworked with international studentleaders in Great Britain, as well as academics,politicians and journalists, explainingthe U.S. role in Vietnam andthe civil rights struggle at home.From 1973 to 1977, he served ascounselor for public affairs in London,endeavoring to explain Americanevents and policy to mostly friendly butskeptical journalists and intellectuals.The Watergate scandal and PresidentRichard Nixon’s resignation usually ledthe discussions.In 1977, Mr. Pistor took on the jobof directing USIA’s Office of Congressionaland Public Liaison. Thatyear USIA was reorganized, incorporatingthe State Department’s Bureauof Educational and Cultural Affairs, achange that caused serious concern inCongress. Mr. Pistor immediatelyfound himself deep in the task of formulatingtestimony for top governmentofficials to give on the Hill,explaining how an educational andcultural bureau could work successfullyin the media-oriented USIA. Atthe same time, he used his new positionto launch programs in major U.S.cities explaining the role and purposeof USIA to the American public,which was largely ignorant even of itsexistence.From 1980 to 1984, Mr. Pistor wasposted overseas as minister-counselorfor public affairs in New Delhi, wherehe ran the largest USIA program inany country abroad. The agency’s facilitiesincluded prominent informationand cultural centers in New Delhi,Bombay, Calcutta and Madras.In 1985, he was back in Washington,D.C., directing USIA’s Press andPublications Service. The service providedpublic affairs material to embassiesaround the world on a dailybasis, in addition to publishing six magazinesin 12 languages and operatingproduction and printing centers inManila and Mexico City. The assignmentwas a stark change from a year ofMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 75

I NM EMORYdiscussion and theorizing about foreignaffairs with graduate students at TuftsUniversity’s Fletcher School of Lawand Diplomacy, where he had beensent as an Edward R. Murrow Fellowin 1984.From 1986 to 1988, Mr. Pistorheaded USIA’s Office of North African,Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs,overseeing the work of 21 public affairsofficers in embassies throughout theregion. In that role, he revised and reshapedthe agency’s programs to takeaccount of major developments in thearea, including Russia’s war in Afghanistan,the Iran-Iraq War and the spreadof Islamic militancy.He became USIA’s counselor in1988, a position he held until 1991,when he was named ambassador toMalawi, where he served until 1994.He was the man on the spot there incurtailing an annual $50 million aidprogram because of U.S. displeasureover what he termed the country’s“abysmal human rights record.” Withthe subsequent collapse of the country’sdictatorship, he joined internationalagencies and other donorcountries in helping Malawi move to ademocratically elected governmentwith a multiparty system.Upon his return to Washington,Ambassador Pistor spent a year assenior adviser to then-USIA DirectorJoseph Duffy, before retiring in 1995.He coordinated the agency’s role inPresident Bill Clinton’s Summit of theAmericas in Miami and directed theInternational Communication StudiesProgram at Washington’s Center forStrategic and International Studies.During retirement, Amb. Pistorcontinued working in the field of foreignaffairs. Serving as a senior inspectorin the State Department’sOffice of the Inspector General, helooked into policy, management andpersonnel issues at the American embassiesin Germany and France and atthe U.S. Mission to the Organizationfor Economic Cooperation and Developmentin Paris. He then led an inspectionteam to examine the StateDepartment’s training organization,the Foreign Service Institute.In 2003, he was diagnosed withParkinson’s disease, which over theyears increasingly crippled him butseemed unable to impair his highly activesocial life and unfailing joie devivre. Friends and family recall that healways enjoyed enormous popularityamong his government colleagues andwithin a large circle of friends in retirement.He was valued, among otherthings, for his unfailing and trenchantsense of humor, which he combinedwith a constant interest in current affairs.Amb. Pistor was predeceased by hiswife of 45 years, the former ShirleyScott, who died in 2002.He is survived by his daughter, JuliaPistor, who lives with her husband,David, and their three children in LosAngeles, Calif., and his son, William,who lives with his wife, Heather, in SanFrancisco, Calif.Eleanor Woodward Sandford,95, a retired Foreign Service officer,died on Jan. 10 in Williamsburg, Va.Ms. Sandford was born in Ware,Mass. She was a 1931 graduate ofWare High School and a 1932 postgraduateof Northhampton School forGirls. She attended Wellesley College,where she received a degree in musictheory and history in 1936. Thereafter,Ms. Sandford taught music in Massachusettsand Louisiana for five years.In 1943, she joined the Departmentof State, where she held a series of administrativepositions in Washington,D.C., and abroad, joining the ForeignService in 1955. Ms. Sandford servedoverseas in Bonn, Helsinki, Tokyo andBangkok.After retiring in 1975, Ms. Sandfordsettled in Williamsburg, Va., where shebecame active in the music community,performing regularly on the piano,recorder and flute. She was electedpresident of the Wednesday MorningMusic Club and became an accompanistfor the Women’s Community Chorus.She was also a member of BrutonParish Episcopal Church, and lovedplaying bridge and traveling withfriends.Ms. Sandford is survived by twonieces, Carolyn S. Scattergood of Gilford,N.H., and Marcia S. Wilkins ofHanover, N.H.; one grandniece, DeborahS. Clough of Acton, Mass.; andtwo grandnephews, Joseph A. Scattergoodof Derry, N.H., and Paul S.Wilkins of Weston, Mass.; and fivegreat-grandnieces and nephews.Memorial donations may be madeto the Williamsburg Landing BenevolentFund. Online condolences maybe registered at www.bucktroutfuneralhome.net.James Frederick “Jim” Smith,81, a retired FSO with USAID, diedon Dec. 27 in Tucson, Ariz.Mr. Smith grew up in Cleveland,Ohio, where he graduated fromShaker Heights High School. He thenattended the University of Michigan,where he was a four-year letter winnerin varsity wrestling and team captainunder his coach, friend and mentor,Cliff Keen. While at the University of76 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

I NM EMORYMichigan, he helped found and volunteeredon the Joint Student JudiciaryCouncil.In 1950, Mr. Smith earned his undergraduatedegree and then attendedthe University of MichiganLaw School. His law school studieswere interrupted by military servicein the U.S. Marine Corps during theKorean War. After receiving his LLBin 1954, he did post-graduate legalstudies at the London School of Economics.Later in life, he received adoctorate in education from SyracuseUniversity.After a short period in private legalpractice in Cleveland, Mr. Smithjoined the Foreign Service, where hetruly found his passion. He spent theinitial portion of his FS career workingfor the U.S. Information Agency.Later he joined the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment. Mr. Smithand his family were posted overseas toMexico, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru andMorocco. His last posting was as missiondirector in Colombia.Upon retirement from the ForeignService in 1992, Mr. Smith receivedthe USAID Administrator’s DistinguishedCareer Service Award, theagency’s highest award for career service.He then settled in Tucson, Ariz.,but continued to work on internationalmatters, teaching and consulting withthe University of Arizona, PimaCounty Community College and otherorganizations. He also became certifiedto teach in the Tucson publicschool system and taught in a variety ofschools there.Family and friends remember Mr.Smith as a consummate gentleman, aloving husband and father, and a believerin living a full life and in strivingto achieve and achieving one’s full potential.He was passionate about hiswork in international development anddedicated most of his life to this worthwhilecause.Mr. Smith was formerly married toElise Fiber Smith, who survives him,and later to Luz Marina Gomez deSmith, who predeceased him.He is survived by his wife, BeatrizMontijo Smith, of Tucson, Ariz.; hisbrother, Doug Smith of Crystal River,Fla.; his sons, Greg Smith (and hiswife, Linda) of Beaufort, S.C., and GuyMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 77

I NM EMORYWWW.FSJOURNAL.ORGClick on the Marketplace tab on the marqueeAFSA Legacywww.afsa.orgAKAstay-aka.comArlington Court Suites Hotelarlingtoncourthotel.comClements Internationalclements.comCort Furniturecort1.comDiplomatic Auto. Salesdiplosales.comFox Hillfoxhillseniorcondominium.comGeorgetown Suitessales@georgetownsuites.comHirshorn Company, Thehirshorn.comProMaxpromaxrealtors.comProperty Specialistspropertyspecialistsinc.comSDFCUsdfcu.orgStrategic Studies Quarterlyau.af.mil/au/ssqTetra Techtetratech.comWJDwjdpm.comWhen contacting an advertiser, kindlymention the Foreign Service Journal.Smith (and his wife, Alison) of Minneapolis,Minn.; two grandchildren,Molly Smith and Dillon Smith; aniece, Vicky Tourbin; and a nephew,Brian Smith.Donations in Jim Smith’s namemay be made to the University ofMichigan Wrestling Program, c/oThe Victor’s Club, 1000 South StateStreet, Ann Arbor MI 48109, or to theParkinson’s Disease Foundation, 1359Broadway, Suite 1509, New York NY10018.Wells Stabler, 90, a retired FSOand former ambassador, died on Nov.13 at Sibley Memorial Hospital inWashington, D.C., of heart failure.Mr. Stabler was born in Boston,Mass. He attended The Fay School inSouthboro, Mass., and graduated fromBrooks School in North Andover,Mass., in 1937. He then attendedHarvard University, graduating in1941 and joining the Foreign Servicelater that year.In 1942, Mr. Stabler was posted toJerusalem as a vice consul. He wasthen sent to open the first Americanmission in Amman, where he becamechargé d’affaires and a close friend ofKing Abdullah, great-grandfather ofKing Abdullah II of Jordan.Israel’s declaration of independencein 1948 had provoked turmoiland bloodshed, including the assassinationof Count Folke Bernadotte, aUnited Nations mediator, and the murderof U.S. Consul General Thomas C.Wasson. During this tense period, Mr.Stabler was praised for his heroism inprotecting American lives and property.Later in his career, Mr. Stablerwas the first American diplomat tovisit Sudan after that country won itsindependence in 1954 from Britainand Egypt.Other assignments took Mr. Stablerto Rome, Paris and posts in the EuropeanBureau of the State Departmentin Washington, D.C. In 1972, he becamethe principal deputy in the EuropeanBureau, where he carried outspecial missions for Secretary of StateHenry Kissinger, including one involvingCyprus.As a result of this, Sec. Kissingerpersuaded President Gerald Ford toname Mr. Stabler ambassador toSpain. He arrived in Madrid in 1975,a critical time for Spain, with the endof the Franco era and the transition toKing Juan Carlos. Ambassador Stablerwas instrumental in helping steerSpain toward democracy and membershipin NATO, and eventually theEuropean Union.After retiring in the fall of 1978,Amb. Stabler worked for the GermanMarshall Fund in Washington, D.C.,and carried out several important inspectionsfor the State Department.He received the prestigious WilburCarr Award from the State Department,as well as many decorationsfrom countries where he served. Hewas also a member of the Metropolitanand Chevy Chase Clubs and aKnight of Justice in The VenerableOrder of The Hospital of St. John ofJerusalem, where he also served asvice chancellor.Survivors include his wife of 56years, Emily Atkinson Stabler ofWashington, D.C.; two daughters,Elizabeth Wells Stabler of Annapolis,Md., and Susan Paneyko (and her husband,Stephen) of Princeton, N.J.; twosons, Edward (and his wife, Anne) ofManchester-by-the-Sea, Mass., andEric (and his wife, Tracy) of Summit,N.J.; and 12 grandchildren. ■78 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

MARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 79

REAL ESTATEFind State Department andAFSA Reading Lists Online atwww.afsa.org/ads/books/Buy all your travel guides, languagebooks and pleasure readingthrough the AFSA bookstore.Buy the Amazon Kindle anddownload and read firstchapters for free before youdecide to purchase that new book.When you access Amazon.comthrough our bookstore all yourpurchases will benefit AFSAat no additional cost to you.Start your purchaseon our site:www.afsa.org/ads/books/80 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

REAL ESTATELeasing and Management of Exceptional propertiesin upper Northwest DC, Chevy Chase, Bethesda,Potomac, McLean and Great FallsMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 81

REAL ESTATEADVERTISING INDEXWhen contacting one of our advertisers, kindly mention you saw their advertisement in the Foreign Service Journal.AUTOMOBILESDiplomatic Automobile / 28,Outside Back CoverCLASSIFIED ADSClassified Ads / 65, 66, 67FINANCIAL, LEGALAND TAX SERVICESLuxenberg, Johnson &Dickens, PC / 67MCG FinancialPlanning / 75Shaw, Bransford & Roth,PC / 29State Department FederalCredit Union / 21Washington RetirementPlanning Specialists / 11HOUSINGAKA, Flexible Stay HotelResidences / Inside FrontCoverArlington Court SuitesHotel / 19CAS/Corporate ApartmentSpecialists / 35Capitol Hill Stay / 77Georgetown Suites / 27Pied-à-Terre Properties,Ltd. / 77Remington, The / 36Suite America / 29Virginian Suites, The / 45INSURANCEAFSPA / 4Clements International / 1Hirshorn Company, The / 48MISCELLANEOUSBarrie School / 35Cort Furniture / 2Fearrington Village / 28Foreign Service YouthFoundation / 33Fox Hill Club andResidences / 22Hebron Academy / 45Inside A U.S. Embassy / 67Odessa College / 12St. Mary’s University / 47Strategic StudiesQuarterly / 15Tetra Tech / 6University of Illinois / 36REAL ESTATE &PROPERTYMANAGEMENTAttaché PropertyManagement LLC / 75Cabell Reid, LLC / 83Executive HousingConsultants, Inc. / 81McEnearney Associates / 82McGrath Real EstateServices / 81Meyerson Group Inc.,The / 83Peake Management, Inc. / 82ProMax ManagementInc. / 81Property Specialists, Inc. / 79Stuart & Maury / 80Washington ManagementServices / 80WJD Management / 83ANNOUNCEMENTSAFSA Book Store / 80AFSA Fund for AmericanDiplomacy / Inside BackCoverAFSA Marketplace forTax and FinancialServices / 80Change of Address / 74Foreign Affairs Day / 4Foreign Service AuthorsRoundup / 4782 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010

REAL ESTATEu COORDINATE MAINTENANCE u OVER 24 YEARS EXPERIENCE u REGULAR REPORTS uu REGULAR INSPECTIONS u ENJOY PEACE OF MIND uWho’s taking care of your homewhile you’re away?No one takes care of your home like we do!While you’re overseas, we’ll help youmanage your home without the hassles.No panicky messages, just regularreports. No unexpected surprises,just peace of mind.The Meyerson Group, Inc.Property management isour full time business.Let us take careof the details.Call us today!(301) 657-32106923 Fairfax Road u Bethesda, MD 20814email: TheMeyersonGroup@aol.comu PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FOR FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS uu RENTAL SERVICES u 24 HOUR ON-CALL SUPPORT u EXCELLENT REFERENCES uMARCH 2010/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 83

REFLECTIONSA-100, Past and PresentBY STEVEN ALAN HONLEYAs I write these words in January,I’ve been thinking a lot aboutmy A-100 class, the 25th, whichgathered in Rosslyn exactly 25 years agothis month. The temptation to seekdeeper meaning in that milestone onlygrew when I recently calculated that myexit from the Foreign Service in August1997 occurred almost precisely at themidpoint of what would otherwise havebeen a 25-year career (so far).But it is the fact that I will turn 50this summer that makes the urge to reflecton those first weeks of orientationand training well-nigh irresistible —particularly when one doesn’t resist it!AFSA hosts recruitment lunches foreach entering class of generalists andspecialists, for which I am generally oneof the charming and talented tablehosts. They’ve usually just had their“flag day” ceremony, so as part of our informaldiscussion before the presentationsget under way, I enjoy finding outwhere the six to eight folks in my groupwill be heading on their first assignment.They are almost always full of enthusiasmand idealism, qualities I hopethey never lose.Sometimes they ask me about myown FS career, which shows that they,too, have absorbed a lesson I picked upduring the Foreign Service Instituteunit on public speaking: The best wayto ingratiate yourself with contacts is toask them questions about themselves.Still, I notice that many A-100 classesprefer to talk to each other. In fact, ifthe format for the recruitment lunchesallowed table-hopping, I’m sure someInstead ofstruggling to promoteesprit de corps,I decided to put thatenergy into nurturingthe close friendshipsI had made.of them would do that.In contrast, my own A-100 cohortdid not have much esprit de corps. Ourclass motto, probably taken from the1984 film “The Adventures of BuckerooBanzai Across the 8th Dimension,” was“Wherever you go, there you are.” Butat least some of my colleagues followedanother adage: “It is not enough for meto succeed. My enemies must fail!”Unlike most other incoming classes,we never had a newsletter, and haveonly held a couple of reunions. Admittedly,e-mail was still quite exotic in1985, and of course Facebook andother social networking sites weredecades away. But somehow, I don’tthink technology was the problem.Disregarding the advice of a veteranFSO that “an action transferredis an action completed,” I seriouslyconsidered volunteering to produce anewsletter — at least until the holidayseason of 1985. That year, to test theidea, I wrote all 51 of my A-100 colleagues,asking how they were settlinginto their far-flung posts. I also letthem know I’d made it through themassive earthquake that leveled muchof Mexico City in September 1985 —during which I was the embassy’s deathsand estates officer.About half of my classmates wroteback that first year, but the number ofcorrespondents fell over the years. So Idecided to put my energy into nurturingthe close friendships I had made duringorientation (two in particular), and elsewherein the Foreign Service.Perhaps that is the most importantlesson I’ve learned from my A-100 experience.Ultimately, all members ofour profession have to look out forthemselves as they forge their careers.But if we’re lucky, at least a few treasuredfriends and colleagues will haveour backs along the way.Whenever A-100 classes ask me if Iregret my decision to leave the ForeignService relatively early, I assure themthat I don’t. Despite some disappointments,I did something that matters,and packed a lot of truly marvelous experiencesinto my 12 years as an FSO.What’s more, it paved the way for meto work for AFSA, which — like joiningthe Service all those years ago — hasproved to be one of the best decisionsI’ve ever made. ■Steven Alan Honley was a ForeignService officer from 1985 to 1997,serving in Mexico City, Wellingtonand Washington, D.C. He has beeneditor of the Foreign Service Journalsince 2001.84 FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL/MARCH 2010