Being a Foreign Service Officer Became Much, Much Harder After 9/11

The recent death of Anne Smedinghoff revealed the challenges diplomats face as they aim to rebuild countries where militants are actively trying to kill them.
cairo embassy storming banner 3490823.jpg
Egyptian protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo during a demonstration on September 11th, 2012. (Amr Dalsh/Reuters)

Anne Smedinghoff, the 25-year-old diplomat killed in Afghanistan over the weekend, joined the Foreign Service straight out of college and eagerly volunteered for the Kabul assignment in July. She longed to be out among the Afghan people, helping them rebuild their lives.

While out on a delegation that was delivering books to a new school on Saturday, Smedinghoff and four other Americans were killed in a suicide bombing in the deadliest day for Americans in Afghanistan this year.

"A brave American was determined to brighten the light of learning through books written in the native tongue of the students that she had never met, but whom she felt compelled to help," said Secretary of State John Kerry. "And she was met by cowardly terrorists determined to bring darkness and death to total strangers."

Smedinghoff's death, along with that of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and the three other Americans who were killed in Benghazi on Sept. 11, cast a spotlight on the difficulties of modern diplomacy in volatile areas.

AOA thumb.jpg

Today's Foreign Service is a multifaceted force of 13,000 professionals who do everything from helping Americans abroad with their problems, to approving visas, to rebuilding war-torn countries. They are simultaneously the faces of America and members of their host communities, always striving to maintain the delicate balance between having enough security to be protected, but not so much that they can't interact with ordinary citizens. They aim to help their host nations and their people, all the while striving to keep Americans safe from terrorists.

For his recent book, America's Other Army, former Washington Times journalist Nicholas Kralev visited 52 embassies and consulates and interviewed 600 diplomats and the last seven secretaries of state. The book offers a thorough picture of how the Foreign Service has changed since the start of the War on Terror, as well as where it might be headed from here.

Here is an edited transcript of a recent conversation with Kralev:

What would you say are some of the primary ways U.S. diplomacy has changed since September 11, 2001?

9/11 had a profound impact on American diplomacy and the U.S. Foreign Service, both conceptually and practically, in terms of what diplomats do every day. The most significant shift in how Washington thought about the role of diplomacy came in the realization that it's directly linked to national security -- and more importantly, to homeland security. Until then, diplomacy's mission was seen mostly as protecting and promoting U.S. interests abroad, but not as protecting the homeland and the security of Americans at home.

In fact, soon after the end of the Cold War, President George H.W. Bush's 1990 National Security Strategy said that "our first priority in foreign policy remains solidarity with our allies and friends." Why? Because "we have been blessed with large oceans east and west, and friendly neighbors north and south," but "many of our closest friends and allies" were not so lucky. Well, 9/11 proved that those oceans don't really protect the homeland.

How has that affected what American diplomats do around the world?

Traditional diplomacy -- managing foreign relations or taking care of the business of the United States abroad -- is still alive and well. But since 9/11, the Foreign Service has been also tasked with helping to prevent conditions that allow for terrorists to be recruited, trained, and sent to attack the United States. In other words, helping to create conditions that foster modern human and societal development -- meaning that every country should provide basic services and economic opportunities to its people, so they don't have a need to turn to terrorism or other criminal activities to feed their families.

Specifically, they work in the areas of organizing free elections, building and reforming democratic institutions, infrastructure, education and health care systems, promoting entrepreneurship, creating independent media and many others. Even more specifically, American diplomats help to reform judicial systems, improve child nutrition, modernize child adoption, set up and manage antiterrorism programs, recover from natural disasters, fight corruption -- and the list goes on and on.

How is that different from the U.S. nation-building efforts before 9/11?

According to that 1990 Bush strategy I mentioned earlier, nation-building in the period between the end of the Cold War and 9/11 was done largely for humanitarian reasons, and because the U.S. had a "responsibility" to "do our part." In Central and Eastern Europe in particular, Washington wanted those countries to become NATO allies and also join the European Union -- after all, they are in the backyard of longtime U.S. allies in Western Europe. President Bill Clinton's 1996 National Security Strategy was similar in that respect. The reason it provided for nation-building was to "alleviate human suffering and pave the way for progress." Neither strategy cited a direct link to U.S. national security, which is why those efforts weren't nearly as global, ambitious, and costly as they are today.

"I have no doubt that the single most important skill to rise to the top in the Service is knowing how to work the bureaucracy and having the right connections."

Another major difference after 9/11 is that the Foreign Service has been operating in war zones, which is not only very dangerous but also makes the job of bringing about good and effective governance extremely difficult. American diplomats hadn't served in a war zone since Vietnam, and those who had done that were no longer in the service after 9/11, so that led to an identity crisis of sorts.

Presented by

Olga Khazan is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where she covers health.

The Case for Napping at Work

Most Americans don't get enough sleep. More and more employers are trying to help address that.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

The Case for Napping at Work

Most Americans don't get enough sleep. More and more employers are trying to help address that.

Video

A Four-Dimensional Tour of Boston

In this groundbreaking video, time moves at multiple speeds within a single frame.

Video

Who Made Pop Music So Repetitive? You Did.

If pop music is too homogenous, that's because listeners want it that way.

Video

Playing An Actual Keyboard Cat

A music video transforms food, pets, and objects into extraordinary instruments.

Video

Stunning GoPro Footage of a Wildfire

In the field with America’s elite Native American firefighting crew

Video

The Man Who Built a Forest Larger Than Central Park

Since 1979, he has planted more than 1,300 acres of trees.

More in Global

Just In