-- Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, staffing demands on the Foreign Service have soared: 300 positions in Iraq, 150 positions in Afghanistan, 40 positions in the State Department’s office to coordinate reconstruction efforts, 100+ training positions to increase the number of Arabic speakers, and 280 new positions in areas of emerging importance such as China and India.

-- Despite those urgent staffing needs, Congress since 2003 has turned down all State Department requests for additional positions (totaling 709 positions), except those earmarked for consular affairs and diplomatic security.

-- As a result, literally hundreds of Foreign Service positions are vacant. Some 12 percent of overseas Foreign Service positions (excluding Iraq and Afghanistan) are now vacant, as are 33 percent of domestic Foreign Service positions. Furthermore, 19 percent of the filled slots are held by employees “stretched” into a position designated for a more experienced person.

-- To add insult to injury, the dollar's sharp decline has left U.S. embassies and consulates (whose expenses are in local currency) limping along with insufficient operational funding.

-- The State Department calculates that the Foreign Service is short 1,015 positions for overseas and domestic assignments and is short 1,079 positions for training and temporary needs -- this out of a total staffing of just 11,500.

-- These shortfalls in staffing and operating expenses are reducing the effectiveness of U.S. diplomacy in building and sustaining a more democratic, secure and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and international community.

-- The diplomatic staffing gaps stand in stark contrast to the situation at the Department of Defense, which is proceeding to expand the armed forces’ permanent rolls by 92,000 by 2011. The State Department’s deficits amount to little more than a rounding error when compared to the additional resources being dedicated to the Pentagon.

-- A growing chorus of voices is urging that the Administration and Congress act to strengthen the diplomatic element of national power. For example, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in a November 26, 2007 speech at Kansas State University, said:

"The Department of Defense has taken on many…burdens that might have been assumed by civilian agencies in the past… [The military has] done an admirable job … but it is no replacement for the real thing - civilian involvement and expertise… Funding for non-military foreign-affairs programs … remains disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the military… There is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security - diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development… We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military… Indeed, having robust civilian capabilities available could make it less likely that military force will have to be used in the first place, as local problems might be dealt with before they become crises."

-- Despite all of that, the President’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget request to narrow the staffing gaps appears to be going nowhere given the likelihood that Congress will defer budget decisions to the next Administration. That is unfortunate. The next president will undoubtedly want a strong diplomatic corps to work hand-in-hand with our nation’s strong military. Yet, if Congress misses the opportunity to boost funding for diplomacy this year, it would be 2010 before the first additional Foreign Service new-hires could finish their initial training. Waiting two more years for diplomatic reinforcements is too long in view of the challenges facing America overseas.

-- Few people realize that two thirds of the Foreign Service is deployed overseas at all times and that 70 percent of them are at hardship posts (meaning locations with difficult living conditions due to terrorist threats, violent crime, harsh climate, or other factors). Over half of the Foreign Service has served at a hardship post within the past five years. The number of posts that are too dangerous to permit employees to bring their families has quadrupled since 2001 -- to 905 such positions today. Over 20 percent of Foreign Service members have served in an unaccompanied position within the past five years. By this summer, 15 percent have served in war zone Iraq.

-- Yet, incredibly, Foreign Service members suffer from an ever-growing financial disincentive to serve abroad. The pay disparity caused by the exclusion of overseas Foreign Service members from receiving the “locality pay” salary adjustment given to other federal employees now causes U.S. diplomats to take a 20.89-percent cut in base pay when transferring abroad. In effect, Foreign Service members take a pay cut to serve at all 20-percent and below hardship differential posts -- 183 of 268 overseas posts. Losing the equivalent of one year’s salary for every five served abroad has serious long-term financial consequences -- especially for families already suffering the loss of income from a spouse who cannot find employment overseas. It also contributes to a growing feeling that the Foreign Service has become less “family-friendly.”

-- Inadequate staffing, expanding commitments, insufficient budgets, and poor management have left the Foreign Service a career out of balance. Anyone probing behind the headlines of the fall 2007 media flap over State Department staffing in Iraq would have seen a Foreign Service that is increasingly concerned that their loyalty is not being sufficiently reciprocated by their employer. In a survey that the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) conducted last fall of Foreign Service members worldwide, the overwhelming majority of the 4,311 respondents faulted their employer for not supporting them with adequate resources and benefits.

-- There will inevitably come a point when this imbalance between burdens and rewards starts to hurt Foreign Service recruitment and increase attrition. That point may be approaching. Some 44 percent of the respondents to AFSA’s fall 2007 survey said that recent developments have made it less likely that they will remain in the Foreign Service for a full career. Recent State Department data show attrition rates trending up slightly over the past few years. Recruiting trends may also be in flux as the number of people taking the Foreign Service Written Exam is down noticeably since just a few years ago.