Kenneth M. Quinn, the only three-time winner of an AFSA dissent award, spent 32 years in the Foreign Service and served as ambassador to Cambodia from 1996 to 1999. He has been president of the World Food Prize Foundation since 2000. In the September issue of the Foreign Service Journal, he writes about integrity and openness as requirements for an effective Foreign Service. Except below:
I can attest to the fact that challenging U.S. policy from within is never popular, no matter how good one’s reasons are for doing so. In some cases, dissent can cost you a job—or even end a career. And even when there are no repercussions, speaking out may not succeed in changing policy.
Yet as I reflect on my 32 years in the Foreign Service, I am more convinced than ever how critically important honest reporting and unvarnished recommendations are. And that being the case, ambassadors and senior policy officials should treasure those who offer different views and ensure that their input receives thoughtful consideration, no matter how much they might disagree with it.
In the years that we’ve blogged about the State Department and the Foreign Service, we’ve covered the Office of Inspector General (OIG) quite a bit. The complaints that reports to the OIG were ignored or forwarded to other parts of the bureaucracy are not new. We have readers bending our ears about that specific issue for years.
Recently, we had a Burn Bag submission saying “The OIG can’t and won’t save us. They stress, the Bureaus, not the OIG, should be the “bad leadership police.”
That is troubling, yes? To paraphrase the Dalai Lama, if people lose hope, that’s your real disaster. If employees start thinking and feeling that their institution do not care about them, how soon before the employees stop caring about their institution?
So we sent the following questions to the Office of Inspector General:
Is it true that complaints or allegations of bad leadership or mismanagement are forwarded by the OIG to the bureaus to handle?
Do you think that the bureaus are equipped to police their own ranks?
Who do you go to if you have complaints about mismanagement at the bureau level?
If top officials are not accountable for their bad leadership or mismanagement and as these officials are reassigned from one post to the next, doesn’t this build a negative impact on morale and ultimately on the institution?
I am trying to understand why the OIG, which is often, the last resort in many of these cases, does not think effective management and leadership is a priority as he embarks on his new tenure at State?
Yesterday, we received the following response:
Oops, excuse me, that’s Hutch’s 1977 smash-hit single. If you don’t remember him, that’s because I’m officially an oldster protected by ADEA. And he’s that fellow from the original Starsky and Hutch.
Here’s the official OIG response, republished below in full:
Leadership and management are challenges for the Department and an oversight priority for the Office of Inspector General (OIG). IG Linick has discussed leadership and management issues directly with the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources. Each of the divisions within OIG play a role, often collaborating to hold the Department accountable for ineffective leadership and mismanagement.
OIG’s Office of Investigations (INV) learns of ineffective leadership or management through Hotline reports, from our Office of Inspections (ISP), and in the course of its own investigations. INV addresses complaints about Department leadership and management in a number of different ways. OIG investigators conduct initial reviews of mismanagement involving fraud, waste, abuse, administrative misconduct, or retaliation against whistleblowers, for example, and refer matters to the Department of Justice when there is evidence of possible criminal or civil violations.
There are, however, circumstances that prompt OIG to refer leadership and management concerns to the Department. If, for instance, a complainant’s allegations relate to a personnel matter, such as allegations that an official used abusive language with subordinates, OIG may notify appropriate Department officials about the alleged perpetrator so that they may take action. Thus, if such a complaint were about a COM or DCM, OIG would notify the relevant Assistant Secretary and Director General. Matters referred to the Department are monitored for appropriate follow-up. In other circumstances, when warranted, OIG will send investigators to look into the allegations directly.
OIG’s Office of Investigations notifies OIG inspectors of allegations or complaints about leadership and management at posts and bureaus to help ISP prioritize its work and to identify areas that should be assessed during formal inspections. OIG monitors compliance with its recommendations and brings them to the attention of Congress through formal and informal means. ISP evaluates the effectiveness of leadership and management in the course of its inspections, and it may move up scheduling of a post’s inspection when these types of concerns surface in survey results or by other means.
Over the years, ISP has made recommendations to the Department aimed at improving Department-wide leadership and management issues, such as recommendations that the Department develop directives on leadership or management principles, conduct 360-degree surveys on its leaders, enhance First And Second Tour (FAST) mentoring, and be more innovative in providing sustained leadership and management training to Foreign Service Officers throughout their careers. The Department has already adopted some of OIG’s major recommendations, such as updating the Foreign Affairs Manual to address leadership. It has also begun to conduct its first 360-degree survey of COMs.
We appreciate State/OIG’s effort to address our questions. We hope this is helpful to our readers. We will have a follow-up post later on.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry uncorks a bottle of champagne en route from Andrews Air Force Base to Stockholm, Sweden as he celebrates the first press briefing at the U.S. Department of State Department by his new Spokesperson, Jen Psaki, on May 13, 2013. [State Department photo / Public Domain]
QUESTION: It does seem as if – well, that the airport is – continue to be shelled, most of the planes even are damaged, I don’t – and the Embassy is near the airport, I mean, and it doesn’t seem as if there’s been any movement on any type of evacuation. So I’m just wondering what’s going on.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re obviously deeply concerned about the level of violence in Libya and some of the incidents you referred to. Every day, we make assessments about the level of violence and the impact on our personnel there, but I don’t have anything to predict for you or outline in terms of any changes to our security posture or level of staffing on the ground.
QUESTION: I mean, it seems as if there wouldn’t be any way for those employees to get out unless you had some kind of airlift because the airport is inoperable right now.
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, Elise, I think it’s safe to say that we evaluate every single factor when we’re making determinations about our staff. There’s nothing more important than the safety, almost nothing more important than the safety and security of our staff, but we do that in private and I have nothing to outline for you here from – publicly.
QUESTION: Is Ambassador Satterfield in Libya now or here?
MS. PSAKI: I know – I’m not sure, actually, where he is. We can check and see if we can get that information to you.
Meanwhile in the “why are we still in Tripoli edition?”our ambassador tweets this:
Rumor control: the US has no/no lethal drones in Libyan airspace. We are not engaged in this fighting, just trying to stay safe under fire.
“Please Human Resources, we beg of you, control your colleagues in HR/CDA and stop the madness. These untenured walking talking EEO violations responsible for the “career development” of other officers are a contradiction to what officers expect from HR. Hazing? Bullying? Or just plain incompetence? Where are the HR professionals at State?”
Here is Doug Frantz, the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs via nextgov.com:
“Social media is an interactive platform, so if you wait to come back to the State Department to get clearance on how to respond to a question over Twitter it will take days if not weeks and the conversation will be over,” Frantz said. “So you want people to be engaged. You want them to be willing and able to take responsible risks…Don’t take a big crazy risk and try to change our policy on Iran, but if you’re behaving responsibly, we can expect small mistakes.”
In many ways, the department is vulnerable to those risks whether or not officials are actively engaging on social media.
Frantz cited the case of a diplomatic security officer and his wife who were expelled from India after making derogatory comments about the country on their personal Facebook pages. “I tell people never tweet anything you don’t want to see on the front page of the Washington Post,” Frantz said.
We should be impressed at this enlightened approach of employees being allowed to afford small mistakes. Except that elements of the State Department continue to harass Foreign Service bloggers who write in their private capacity on blogs and other social media sites. Remember my Conversation with Self About Serial Blog Killers and the 21st Century Statecraft? Different folks get on and off the bus, but this is just as real today.
Harassment, as always, is conducted without a paper trail unless, it’s a PR nightmare like Peter Van Buren, in which case, there is a paper trail. So an FSO-blogger’s difficulties in obtaining an onward assignment has nothing to do with his/her blog, or his/her tweets. Just bad luck of the draw, see? Oh, stop doing that winky wink stuff with your eyes!
Anybody know if there is an SOP on how to intimidate diplo-bloggers into going back into writing in their diaries and hiding those under their pillows until the year 2065? Dammit! No SOP needed?
So, no witnesses, no paper trail and no bruises, just nasty impressive stuff done under the table. Baby, we need a hero —
Prudence Bushnell | U.S. Ambassador—Nairobi 1998 via:
“I would advise anyone going overseas to take our security training very seriously, to participate in the crises management exercises that are held at post every two years and if possible to volunteer, if you’re in Washington, to serve on a crisis task force, so that you get a sense of what happens from a Washington perspective – as you can get a sense of what happens overseas from participating in crisis management exercises. I would then say, “Go out and enjoy yourself, because there is absolutely no point in worrying about what is going to happen to you – because what is going to happen is going to happen.” Worrying doesn’t make any difference. And if you have joined a community and if you have put your energies into participating in a community, and if you have gone through training about what to do during a crisis, just depend on yourself and one another, and you can get through it.”
The State Department’s Daily Press Briefing remains the best reality show online, hands down. Today, we bring you, Marie Harf, State’s Deputy Spokesperson and Matt Lee, the Associated Press correspondent at the State Department for over six years. The two sparred over the word “transparent.” Ms. Harf says that “we” can use “whatever definition of transparent we want.” Mr. Lee disagreed pointing out that he thinks that word only has one definition. Reminds us of the utter confusion and rhetorical gymnastics employed on whether or not there was a coup d’état in Egypt last July. Sounds bad to our ears, you, too?
Below is an excerpt from the DPB transcript:
QUESTION: So then my last one is: When this current President came into office, he and his first Secretary of State spent a lot of time doing what they said was trying to repair what they said was damage done to the U.S. image and reputation abroad during the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency. Are you concerned at all that the weight of these revelations, coming as they are with increasing – seemingly increasing frequency, is negating the – that effort to improve your – the image of the United States abroad? Because it certainly appears that many countries, whether they’re warranted and are justified in feeling this or not, are looking at the United States now as some kind of Orwellian big brother-type outfit.
MS. HARF: Well, I think I’d make a few points. The first is that whether it’s on these alleged intelligence activities, on counterterrorism operations, on a number of issues, this Administration has taken steps to increase the transparency, not as much as I’m sure everybody would like in this room, but certainly whether it’s the President giving speeches about counterterrorism, giving speeches just recently about our intelligence gathering and how we’re reviewing that. We’ve actually taken steps to be more transparent, both to our people but to other countries around the world. So I think that people do look at that as a positive step in the right direction.
But when it comes to specific intelligence matters, we also, I would underscore here, share intelligence with a number of our partners and allies. Intelligence is collected, broadly speaking, to protect our citizens, to protect their citizens as well. So people understand the value of intelligence gathering around the world, right? It’s where the balance lies between privacy and security, and those are the conversations we’re having right now.
QUESTION: Yeah, but people don’t like – when you say that you’re being more transparent, people don’t like what they see when they are being – so just being more – coming out and saying —
MS. HARF: Well, I would disagree a little bit with your notion there. I think people appreciate when the President or the Secretary or other folks come out and say: I know there have been a lot of allegations out there. Here’s what we can say we’re doing, here’s how we’re looking at it. And when we have a path forward, we’ll let you know that as well.
QUESTION: Okay. But you claim to be being more transparent, but in fact you’re not. You’re not at all being transparent. You’re saying that —
MS. HARF: Well, I would take issue with your characterization.
QUESTION: Oh, really? Well, you’re not confirming any of these reports, whether they’re true or not.
MS. HARF: That —
QUESTION: How is that transparent?
MS. HARF: Well, I think we can use whatever definition of transparent we want —
QUESTION: I think there’s only one definition.
MS. HARF: What I would say is that the President has gotten – has stood up. Whether it’s on counterterrorism, he stood at the National Defense University and said: I’m going to talk to you about how we make decisions on counterterrorism operations —
QUESTION: Yeah, but —
MS. HARF: — for the first time.
QUESTION: — it’s either transparent or it’s not. It’s either transparent or it’s opaque.
MS. HARF: Matt, that’s —
MS. HARF: No, this isn’t a black-and-white issue.
QUESTION: You can’t have —
MS. HARF: That’s not – that’s absolutely not the case.
Perhaps Ms. Harf is referring to the use of “transparent” in computing, where it means “(of a process or interface) functioning without the user being aware of its presence.” Which actually kind of fits given the subject of the tussle.
Following our publication of Raymond Maxwell’s poem in this blog, we received an unsolicited note from a veteran FSO we know from Post X. The FSO knows Raymond Maxwell well, all the way back to A-100 and notes that Mr. Maxwell spent 14 years in the United States Navy before joining the Foreign Service. The FSO added that Mr. Maxwell was “definitely the first one to become a DAS” [deputy assistant secretary] from his A-100 class, and the first one to make it to Senior Foreign Service. Excerpt below:
For years, I have told a story about Ray to junior officers that I thought showed that there was justice in the “system,” and which I thought had a happy ending (until now). Ray has always been a stand-up guy. On his first tour, he went as a General Services Officer to a small West African post. He had a boss (Admin Officer) who did not play by the rules, and Ray refused to go along with unethical or illegal practices in the execution of his duties. He hadn’t left the Navy just to sell out his principles in the Foreign Service. For a first tour officer, that put him in a precarious position and made tenure (and a career) less than a sure thing. Fortunately, Ray’s next tour went well, as did every tour after that. Not only did he set the standard in every position he ever held, he also took the hardest jobs — a couple of them in Iraq back when nobody else wanted to go there.
When I first learned that Ray was going to be a scapegoat for our most recent 9/11, I felt that this story no longer had a happy ending. He was a victim of “damage control,” which in government tries to push accountability down to the lowest level possible. But in a sense, the happy ending is that Ray remained the stand-up guy, the man of principle that he has always been, in service to our country for over 35 years in the United States Navy and in the Foreign Service of the United States, despite the fact that the “system” does not work. His service has been a great gift to our nation.
I do hope that a generation of officers who worked with Ray, were mentored by Ray, or who hear the stories about him, are themselves inspired to a higher standard of public service than is currently the accepted norm in our beloved Department of State. Is there hope for the future? Actually, I don’t know.
The FSO who wrote this is in active service, so there will be no other details on that. Mr. Maxwell remains in administrative leave status and defers all press inquiries to the State Department spokesperson and State Department Public Affairs.
Been working on a draft of a fictional story set at Earth Embassy Ganymede. It’ll be like any diplomatic mission complete with intrigues, gossip, romance, and all the deadly sins. Anyway, this is part of the story where the embassy in Ganymede is suffering from some bad press and low morale. So the embassy’s senior management adviser released the following admin notice.
English: Image of Jupiter and Ganymede (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
It has come to management’s attention that there has been a lot of chatter and hyperspace email about morale and safety at this outpost. This notice serves as a reminder to everyone under Ganymede outpost authority that discussion about morale is an unproductive use of work time. Morale is self-esteem in action; individuals who perceived that morale is lacking may need help in improving their self-esteem. Please make every effort to schedule an appointment to see the quadrant psychiatrist.
Ganymede management fully believes, like the 34th American President Dwight Eisenhower, that the best morale exist when you never hear the word mentioned. In that sprit, management formally informs all departments and employees that morale is not/not an issue and is not/not a subject to be discussed in hypermail, text, video, radio, verbal or any alternate manner of communication within and outside the mission. Anyone caught peddling these stories will be subject to disciplinary action, including but not limited to curtailment of current assignment or a lengthy TDY to the outermost prograde moon of Carpo.
In an effort to be responsive to all concerns, below are some FAQs that the section had the pleasure of addressing the last 12 moons. We hope that the answers are useful to you and your families and help alleviate persistent concerns.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Is Ganymede a family-friendly post?
Absolutely. It is the most family-friendly assignment in the quadrant with excellent schools and some of the best apartments available in the sector. Living conditions are approximated to be similar to the home planet and the quality of life is super-excellent. Consistent demand for assignments to this outpost has repeatedly resulted in a long wait list at every rotation cycle.
I’ve been thinking of asking for a transfer to Ganymede. But I heard that life there is a big joke … I don’t get what’s the joke.
Life in Ganymede is not/not a big joke. Once you understand that Ganymede is too big to fail, you’ll find your groove. This is the place where you want to be. No other outpost will afford you the challenges and opportunities to excel and earn a fast-tracked promotion.
How safe is Ganymede given that riots are breaking out in all parts of the hostplanet:
Safe. Very safe, if you’re careful.
Ganymedeans breached the outpost walls, they can do it again, should I worry?
There’s no reason to worry. Ganymedeans are not/not anti-Earthlings, anti-humans or what have you. They were blowing off steam. Period. Now that they have, things should return to normal. If you think things have not returned to normal, give it time; things should return to normal. Soon.
There are assaults reported daily, it sounds like traveling around the hostplanet has become extremely dangerous. Is that perception correct?
Ganymede is the largest moon in this sector. Like any large, densely inhabited city on Earth (e.g. New York City, New Delhi, Bogota, Buenos Aires), crime is ever present. This is not/not unique to this outpost. Travel in pairs if needed, and bring your stun gun, if necessary.
The Manager for Planetary Services reportedly quit over extreme bureaucratic bullying, is this true?
Absolutely not. The manager quit because the official got too old for the job. Other employers in this sector throw old officials out the airlock. Fortunately, EaEmbassy Ganymede has a generous separation package specifically for older workers traveling back to the home planet.
There are rumors and allegations that some of the top Ganymede officials have, on several occasions, pushed and bossed around subordinates and threatened them with penalties. How accurate are these stories?
Have you ever heard of American poet, Robert Frost? He said that the reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work. Isn’t that an excellent point? Stop listening to rumors. Stop worrying. All our top Ganymede officials were handpicked and subjected to a battery of reviews and 360 feedbacks from friends, peers, and colleagues. All with spectacular results. They are all as lovable and huggable as Alaskan polar bears.
I used to have an open mind, then I got to Ganymede and my brains kept falling out. What am I doing wrong?
To keep an open mind, a person needs only two tools: WD-40 and duct tape. If it doesn’t move and it should, use WD-40. If it moves and shouldn’t, use the tape. This works even in Ganymede.
I am terribly upset that my concerns have not been taken seriously. How do I set a laser printer to stun?
The management office works hard to address all of your concerns and aims to make every assignment to Ganymede a satisfying one. Unfortunately, all laser printer at post at this time do not have a stun setting. However, the procurement section is exploring the possibility of adding a stun setting to all laser printers with end of year funding.
Note that this is from a work in progress. Names, characters, places, and incidents are the product of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events, locales, or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.
Morale is self-esteem in action, is a quote by Avery Weisman; WD-40 and laser printer quips are found items around the net.
I was, by the way, thinking of writing a complete set of Space Affairs Manual (SAM) and Space Affairs Handbook (SAH) for my fictional diplomatic service, but that sounded crazy, even to me. So I may stick with writing a collection of admin notices and cables that can be interspersed with the story. Hey, if I write a story using admin notices alone, would that fall under an epistolary novel category?
Ugh! Just saw that the Russians are interested on Ganymede, now. Well, dammit, I am not changing my fictional embassy’s name again, so don’t write to complain about that.
In the early morning this past Sunday, a day after Anne Smedinghoff and four others were killed in Zabul, Afghanistan, I received an untraceable anonymous note that she was walking, and was not in a vehicle when she was killed. The four-sentence tip alleged that she was with Ambassador Jonathan Addleton, the American Senior Civilian Representative (RC-South) in Kandahar and asked a rhetorical question, “Will anyone be held accountable? doubtful.”
Ambassador Addelton was formerly the U.S. ambassador to Mongolia. The Senior Civilian Representative, in the embassy’s view is “the co-equal of the military commander of that region rather than a member of his staff” (for more of that, see this).
So, what do you do with something like that? Do you ignore it or chase it down the rabbit hole? Does it really matter whether they were walking in a red zone or were inside a vehicle? They’re still dead.
But it’s been bugging me quite a bit.
So I sent out emails asking questions. On Sunday, I sent an email to the top accountable civilian official in Afghanistan, Ambassador James Cunningham, and another to the embassy press office for comment. I never heard anything back.
But one email did come back. One source in Kabul would not confirm or deny the circumstances surrounding Ms. Smedinghoff’s death. The individual declined to provide details of the the attack (which may or may not mean anything, of course). There was a concern that this could become political given what happened in Benghazi. But more telling perhaps was what my source pointed out — that Ms. Smedinghoff would not have had the authority to make the decision about her movements. No one gets to make those decisions unilaterally at US Mission Afghanistan.
While I could not confirmed that she was walking in a red zone when the attacked occurred, she was a second tour junior officer with three years under her belt. I can’t imagine a JO telling the MRAP team to let her out because she’s going to walk, can you?
What we know from news report:
The attack occurred on Saturday, April 6 at around 11:00 in the morning in Qalat, in the Zabul province of Afghanistan.
The attack was carried out by a suicide bomber in a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) and one bomber with a suicide vest.
Three U.S. service members killed: Staff Sgt. Christopher M. Ward, 24, of Oak Ridge, Tenn., Spc. Wilbel A. Robles-Santa, 25, of Juncos, Puerto Rico, and Spc. Deflin M. Santos Jr., 24, of San Jose, Calif.
Two U.S civilians killed: Anne Smedinghoff, FSO, a still unidentified DOD civilian
Four State Department staff wounded, one critically: Kelly Hunt, FSO (assigned in Kandahar) three still unidentified staffer.
Smedinghoff and Ward’s remains arrived at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware on Monday afternoon.
The official story:
Via The Guardian: The attacker detonated a vehicle full of explosives in the centre of Qalat just as a US military convoy passed the provincial governor and his entourage. The blast killed and seriously injured several people from both groups.
Via WSJ: A senior provincial official in Zabul said insurgents targeted a convoy carrying Gov. Ashraf Nasari, who was on his way to the ceremony at the local school. Zabul provincial police chief Ghulam Sakhi Rogh Liwanai said a bomb-laden Suzuki automobile was parked outside the provincial hospital to target the governor’s convoy. Around the same time the car bomb went off, the police chief said, a suicide bomber detonated an explosive vest.
Via USAToday: Officials said the explosion Saturday came just as a coalition convoy drove past a caravan of vehicles carrying the governor of Zabul province to the event at the school.
Via WaPo: There is no greater contradiction, Kerry said, between Smedinghoff’s zeal to “change the world” and help others and a bomber who he said drove a car into their vehicle.
“And someone somehow persuaded that taking her – his life was a wiser course and somehow constructive, drives into their vehicle and we lose five lives – two Foreign Service, three military, large number wounded, one Foreign Service officer still in critical condition in the Kandahar hospital because they’re trying to provide people with a future and with opportunity.”
“She was well-protected, so the lesson here is there is no ‘zero risk,’ ” said Daniel P. Serwer, a retired Foreign Service officer in Bosnia and Kosovo and now a professor of conflict management at SAIS.
But what if she wasn’t well-protected? Now, I understand this is a war zone and they must make calculated risks. But …
What we don’t know:
Was she walking with others when they were hit? No one in an official capacity is willing to answer that question (I missed this one – but, knoxnews.com reported that ” Family members have said [Kelly] Hunt was walking with Smedinghoff when the bomb went off.” – thanks TSB!)
Why is the State Department saying that they were killed when their vehicle was hit if they were not inside the vehicle?
If true that they were walking, who gave the order that they should walked in a red zone?
What is considered acceptable risk in a red zone if you’re conducting public diplomacy work?
What happened to the Afghan journalists who were reportedly being escorted to Qalat?
If they were inside an MRAP when they were attacked — does that mean an MRAP and a suicide vest together can kill a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) which apparently is the vehicle of choice in Qalat? I’m sure somebody who knows more than I do about the types of MRAPs used in the south will pipe in. Here is one type, not sure this is the kind used in Qalat on April 6.
Were there debris of the convoy in the immediate aftermath of the attack? The AP had a brief video online, and pics — how many disabled MRAPs can you see there?
Wired Magazine once had this piece about the MRAP talking about its virtues:
One of the main virtues of the MRAP lies in its hull. Shaped like the letter V, it disperses the blast from homemade bombs that other trucks absorb — and which kill and wound the troops inside. Soldiers and Marines who rode in them in Iraq and Afghanistan reported that sometimes they didn’t even realize they had rolled over one of the bombs.
And do you remember General Frank Helmick?
Accordingto Military Times, on August 24, 2008 Helmick survived a suicide bombing of the MRAP vehicle he was riding in near Forward Operating Base Marez in Mosul. The suicide car bomb attack killed the attacker and damaged the International MaxxPro Plus vehicle, but Helmick, Brigadier General Raymond “Tony” Thomas, an Iraqi general and others inside the vehicle were not seriously injured.
Something doesn’t add up, see?
So, is there a story here somewhere or should we ignore it because anonymous sources don’t count, and because people die in the war zone all the time?