John Dinkelman Where do they go? Well, evacuations are important, of course. Whether it’s for something as temporary as a tornado or a hurricane hitting a country, or something long-term like the war that we’re presently experiencing, the State Department needs a way to remove its non-essential people and family members from places that are in danger. They are theoretically and usually moved back to the United States, which we refer to in that terminology as a safe haven, where we wait for determination as to whether and when we can return. The strange situation about this evacuation is that it is so broad for a large region, it was so unexpected with all of these people not being evacuated before we initiated hostilities. And with the indeterminate nature of what’s going on.

Terry Gerton It’s one thing to pack up your suitcase and move somewhere else for a week, but in this case, they’ve been gone for months. They’ve left behind their belongings. We’re in August. Kids are getting ready to go back to school. Pets are in limbo. How do they take care of all of those kinds of things?

John Dinkelman Well, in the same way that we often have been told to have go bags ready to go in case there’s an emergency here in the United States, it is part of the Foreign Service mentality that you must always be ready at a moment’s notice to leave and prioritize everything that you have in such a way that if you need to go with only one suitcase or two suitcases or perhaps a pack out of a few hundred pounds, that you’re able to measure and react quickly. In this case, of course, these people were given no notification whatsoever.

Terry Gerton And now this decision and these evacuations are approaching the department’s 180-day limit. What decisions are they still waiting for?

John Dinkelman Well the big decision of course is whether or not the actual locations will revert to their prior accompanied status. That looks increasingly unlikely given the situation and the on-again/off-again nature of hostilities. And so what we’re seeing is a lot of frustration on the part of these people who are not being told that the kids are not going to be going home, or at least back to their assignment, and rather need to start school in some places in the United States this week. And so that leads to a lot of desperation on the part of these people who are innocent victims from our side of the war.

Terry Gerton You mentioned families and family decisions. In most cases, are the families evacuated, but the Foreign Service member themselves remains on station?

John Dinkelman Yes, in most cases the individual who is working at the embassy is essential. I mean, let’s face it, if somebody’s job can be done by the United States, why are we putting them there anyway? So the family members, of course, those people are the ones who are separated and sent to a location where they feel they can best be supported. While many of those families do come to the Washington D.C. area, anticipating that if the employee ever gets back, it will be to Washington. Many others simply go home to grandma and grandpa or to where there’s a family network to support them throughout the United States.

Terry Gerton John Dinkelman is president of the American Foreign Service Association. John, AFSA recently issued a statement expressing concerns about the current situation we’re describing here. What’s at the top of AFSA’s list? What are you most worried about here?

John Dinkelman Oh, the safety of our people, unquestionably, particularly the employees who are still in harm’s way. It seems evident that, unlike most other hostilities we’ve ever engaged in, that our embassies and consulates overseas are increasingly becoming a target of choice of our enemy. And so, to send individuals back to these locations, much less family members, would be essentially putting them in the crosshairs of a target that the enemy is going to utilize. The people who are there, of course, it opens an entirely different question as to why you would be putting diplomats in the middle of a war zone. We usually, when we saber-rattle and we send in fleets, the next step is to remove our diplomats, much less their families. But that was entirely ignored back in February and March.

Terry Gerton Does this have the potential to become like military assignments that are unaccompanied and that’s the standard assignment?

John Dinkelman Well, the State Department has always had unaccompanied positions, and we fill those readily with individuals who are willing to go. At some point, though, we’re going to run out of places that we designate as unaccompanied and will soon become a foreign service to single people.

Terry Gerton So what does a situation like this mean for the effectiveness of the State Department’s diplomatic mission? You’ve got Foreign Service officers who are worried about their families, who are in danger themselves. What are you hearing from the State department, and what are you seeing on the ground in terms of the effectiveness of the folks who are left on station?

John Dinkelman Unfortunately, we on the employee association, collective bargaining side of the house are hearing absolutely nothing from the State Department, for they refuse to even acknowledge our existence, which is a sad state of affairs. What we are hearing on the ground from our people, of course, is that these skeletal staffs there at post are burdened with a trifecta. They need to first and foremost see to the needs of any American citizens who themselves in harm’s way, serving the consular needs of our own people. They need to liaise with the host government. If we have allies, we need to work with them and we’ll do that in their capitals. And finally, they need to secure the facilities, which increasingly are becoming targets.

Terry Gerton What about the long-term effects of something like this on the State Department’s workforce? Does this mean that people are more likely to seek more peaceful assignments, to return home, leave the Foreign Service altogether?

John Dinkelman More the latter, as I sat there at Dulles Airport greeting the scores of the plane loads of people being evacuated in March, the words I repeatedly heard from people were ‘decoy’ or ‘pawn,’ that we were basically set up to sit in a war zone of our own making. It’s long been an understanding that the Department of State would get you, and more importantly your family, out of harm’s way before anything happened. And unlike the situations of the early 1990s, where Saddam Hussein attacks Kuwait and our people at the embassy in Kuwait find themselves to be sitting ducks, this all was our own doing. And why in the world the State Department was not allowed to remove its people, or chose not to remove it’s people, is something that will stick in the craw of the workforce for a long time to come.

Terry Gerton The State Department is attempting to open new recruitments for Foreign Service officers. What impact do you think these kinds of situations will have there?

John Dinkelman I think it will cause a lot of people to rethink those who prioritize their family’s safety and well-being and unity will have to take that into consideration. We are in desperate need of patriotic Americans who will serve our nation and exercise the diplomatic element of our national power. Unfortunately and paradoxically, I think the administration is constricting the lens by which they’re going to hire people in the future because of their own actions.

Terry Gerton Do you think with families who have returned to the states with kids in tow and they’re looking at the beginning of a school year, are they more likely to say, we’re just gonna stay here, we’re gonna get the kids enrolled, we’re going to settle, we’re go to see this out and then we’ll take up what comes next?

John Dinkelman Exactly. Individuals after six months are saying the kids have had enough. We’ll just stay here in Fresno or Seattle or wherever they might be and see this one through and try to rebuild their lives after this tremendous thing has been thrown in their way.

Terry Gerton And at this point, what does a good solution look like from AFSA’s perspective, both in this current situation with families who’ve been evacked from the Middle East? And longer term, for the Foreign Service workforce, what would you hope to see in future policies?

John Dinkelman I would hope the department would follow existing policies of basically determining that individuals who came to a post with an understanding that their families could go with them and that they could do so in relative safety could choose to break the assignment. In normal times, there’s usually a plethora of individuals who are willing to go in and replace them. Of course, the Department of State made the mistake of firing over 1,300 people last year. They depleted the resources at the very ranks that they would use to bolster up these posts. And so now we’re in this challenge.