During the early years one of the most exciting, challenging, and remote places in the Peace Corps world was the country of Afghanistan. The first contingent of volunteers entered the country in 1962 with many of them admitting they had to look it up on a world map to find out where they were heading. The last contingent left in 1978 as a 30-plus-year period of violent military, political, and religious turmoil began. As everyone who pays the slightest attention to current events knows, that situation remains unchanged – although some of the players have changed – and Afghanistan desperately needs a ‘fix.’
How very different that is from the situation volunteers encountered during the 60s and 70s. Based on the ‘official’ visits I made as Regional Director and Deputy Director and the extended visit my family and I made on our way back from the Philippines ( like most Peace Corps folks we took the long way home) Afghanistan not only tested volunteers’ resolve and but it also rewarded them with an eye-opening and heart-warming experience.
For virtually all of the volunteers and staff this was their first encounter with a Muslim culture, let alone a very traditional one. And it was an encounter, unlike today, where few had ever given any serious thought to what being a Muslim might mean. Couple that with the rather dramatic changes that were occurring in American culture as the sixties progressed – think sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll – and the term ‘culture clash’ takes on a much more profound meaning.
Almost all of us were fooled by the ‘modernity’ of Kabul. Many men wore coats and ties, women were in the workforce and dressed as an American would expect, cars and trucks plied the roadways, alcoholic drinks could be found, hundreds of young WT’s – which stood for ‘world travelers’ – roamed the streets looking for readily available marijuana and stronger stuff if one wished, and electricity was in abundance. One could even keep up with fashion trends at the local markets where used American-made clothing was sold.
A provincial gathering spot; not a woman in sight
Of course all of that changed when we ventured beyond the city limits. Western dress disappeared; women were uniformly covered from head to foot, if they were seen at all; motorized transport was replaced by animal power; and those of us ‘from away’ learned to pay special attention to the ‘don’t drink the water, don’t eat the food’ advice we had been given by the old hands. One of the most memorable ‘tricks’ we learned was to start out each day with a large supply of the ubiquitous cucumbers, which could be peeled and eaten without worry as a source of water.
In time what was so exotic in the beginning became ordinary. Volunteers soon learned to cherish the famed Afghani hospitality. Local friends could be counted on to help out when things got tough, communication became easier as language skills improved, and the recognition of similarities replaced the emphasis on differences. One day several of us were hiking along a path that paralleled a steep cliff in which there were several caves. We were startled to see that families made their homes in the caves. I couldn’t resist the thought, ‘How primitive.’ Then, while we exchanged smiles with a young mother holding her infant, the child began to cry. Without a moment’s hesitation the mother reached into her bodice, pulled out a plastic pacifier, and popped it into the baby’s mouth. Obviously ‘primitive’ was the wrong word.
Much of the Afghani landscape is austere, arid, even frightening. These days we often hear news people and commentators refer to it as being like a ‘moonscape,’ and that is fitting. On one of my trips to Afghanistan the American Embassy kindly provided an aging DC3 to ferry me about while visiting volunteer sites. On the way back to Kabul we ‘lost’ one of the plane’s two engines. Looking out the window I could see two things: a propeller holding shockingly still, and a pock-marked, mountainous terrain below. All I could think was “We’re going down into that wasteland never to be found again!” Not to worry. The pilot, knowing that DC3s can fly on one engine, had purposely cut off the silent engine when it overheated, and we landed safely. (I have always wondered if the Embassy provided the plane, as an embassy earlier had done in Africa, because it wanted a cover for an aerial mapping operation of an increasingly important part of the world. Who knows?)
For a wonderful collection of memories of the Peace Corps in Afghanistan go to http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/2016140.html and read Walter Blass’s account of his time there as Country Director. The stories are uniquely Afghani while simultaneously being typical Peace Corps narratives.
The Peace Corps program in Afghanistan was a good one. Like all programs it had its successes and its failures but on balance it did what the Peace Corps does best: it provided meaningful assistance to a country and people in need; it created goodwill among peoples of different cultures; and, it gave some Americans a life-changing experience from which they and the country that sent them abroad still benefit. I was genuinely troubled when I learned in 1978 that the program had been cancelled because of volunteer safety concerns. Surely, I thought, we – Peace Corps folks never stop using the word ‘we’ – could have stuck it out. Thirty-plus years of experience show how wrong I was, but still . . . ?
Today Afghanistan starts and ends every newscast. I wish I believed that some of the reporters had the deeper understanding of the country and its people that RPCVs have. I fear that they don’t. Maybe as a start we could help the radio and TV reporters learn how to pronounce ‘Kabul.’ We were taught to think of the word ‘cobble’ (as in ‘cobblestone’). Is that right? Let’s hear from some of the people who made PC/A a reality!
7 Comments So Far»
Dear David, I have secured your book “The Peace Corps Experience’ and found it excellent. I have much on which to comment. while I was preparing those comments, I reread Walter Blass’s recollection to which you referred in this posting. I do not share your enthusiasm for Mr. Blass. and his “wonderful collection of memories.” I feel compelled to comment on this, before going on to your book.
To RPCVs and serving Volunteers, I do recommend that you read Blass’s article, Part I and Part II. He presents an excellent demonstration for why Volunteer service should be contractual; spelling out mutual rights and responsibilities. Blass took delight in terminating a trainee incountry, before Blass received the guidelines from PC/W on how to proceed with such a termination; he diagnosed “conversation hysteria” in four Volunteers, using the clinical expertise from his Psych 101 course, and he ridiculed the legtimate ethical concerns of Peace Corps nurses, The power to terminate at will and to deny reimbursement for travel home seems to give him particular pleasure.
Joey
As usual you make good sense. I should have read Blass’s comments more carefully. I paid attention mainly to those that described volunteer experiences rather than those that described a management style which I certainly do not endorse (and like to think I did not follow). The fact that he was called ‘Mr. Blass’ by volunteers suggests a hierarchy that has no business in the Peace Corps. The closest I got to that was to be called (with some affection, I hope) ‘Big Daddy up in Manila.’
As a country director I considered the whole question of ‘terminations’ as one that needed and deserved much closer and more sympathetic attention than the one it ususlly received during the 70s. As you will read in the book we took a very different approach to ‘qualifying’ trainees (a term we stopped using soon after my arrival) in the Philippines. One of these days I’ll address the topic of ‘early terminations’ more fully. I think it was then, and may still be, an example of ‘opportunity lost,’ for both the individuals involved, the host country and the Peace Corps itself.
Thanks for adding a needed perspective to my Afghanistan comments.
David, There are many issues in your book, The Peace Corps Experience, with which I would take exception. However, your decision to swear in Trainees as Volunteers a few days after they arrived in the Philippines was brilliant. As you document, the retention rate improved dramatically. That decision made the relationship between Volunteer and staff collaborative instead of adversative. It committed the staff to the success of the Volunteer and not his/her failure. I would hope you would revise your Memo to Director Williams to include the recommendation that Volunteers be sworn in soon after they arrive incountry, and cite your success. Peace Corps still is requiring that weeks long training period. A recent trainee from a Central America country detailed on Peace Corps Online how devastating her dismissal was. (I have not been able to find that link, yet).
Although, I believe that all Peace Corps staff should first have successfully completed a tour as a Volunteer, the training/selection process is the one area that I don’t believe RPCVs could ever have changed. The training/selection became part of the Peace Corps mythology, a rite of passage, a boot camp for “candy asses,” a way that a Trainee could prove that that he/she had the “right stuff.” Your outside perspective saw a better way.
You focus on volunteer management in your book, “the conscious, systematic and continuing effort to organize and direct volunteer activities in order to accomplish desirable objectives.” You argue that this the job of incountry staff, and is critical to the operation of Peace Corps. You assert that this function has been ignored in Peace Corps literature in favor of recollections from PC/W staff and individual Volunteers. You also acknowledge that the concept of volunteer management was anathema to most Volunteers. I believe that the problem is that successful completion of Volunteer service is not a prerequisite for staff positions in Peace Corps. Let me ask you two questions:
You are a former Marine. Suppose the Pentagon, in its infinite wisdom, decided to outsource the entire Marine command structure, above the squad level, to a private company, whose staff had never served in the Marines; where all the staff were political appointees, who had the authority to discharge any Marine, at any time, for any reason, with a dishonorable discharge; a staff who claimed an affinity with the tradition of the Marines because they really liked those John Wayne war movies and that Semper Fi whoop thing; and who had little or no experience in a war zone. My questions:
1) What do you think the reaction of an average Marine would be?
2) How effective a fighting force would the Marines be under such an organization?
Joey
Many thanks for the compliment on the early swearing-in program. I don’t remember exactly what triggered my dislike for the existing system, but I didn’t like it from day one. That system emphasized frequent closed-door shrink-led evaluations sessions, FYB exercises (if you don’t know what ‘FYB’ means, I can’t explain it in a family-friendly site), an ‘us against them’ mentality, and, if on rare occasion it wanted to be nice, it ‘counseled trainees out’ rather than simply sending them home. It all went against everything I knew about team building, human relations, theory ‘Y’ management (which was all the rage in the late 60s and early 70s), and what I had learned in my recently completed MAT degree program.
One day while reading the Peace Corps Manual (which spelled out the rules and regulations we were to live by) I read a paragraph which gave the country director the authority to decide which trainees were to be sworn in and when that was to take place. Having been given an inch, I took the mile!
I am almost embarrassed to report that no one followed my lead, although I’m told it created a lot of ‘tsk, tsk’ noises in the background. Even in the Philippines the system reverted to the ‘approved’ version once I was safely away from the scene. So much for thinking outside the box!
As for the Peace Corps staff I have to say I favor one that consists of both RPCVs and appropriately chosen men and women without Peace Corps volunteer experience. My ‘op ed’ piece on the five year rule explains why I favor a constant supply of new blood in Peace Corps administration, and much of the reasoning would apply also to my advocacy of a ‘mixed’ staff. In my time, of course, the mid-level and senior staff was all non-RPCV, because of the agency’s relative newness. I think it worked very well, all things considered. In later years the reverse mixture has been the case (except at the Peace Corps Director level) and so I’ll ask for some recent and current staff members to weigh in on the topic.
Now, for the USMC. The first point I’d make, and this goes back to the swearing in process, is that the storied Marine Corps boot camp exercise is based on the overriding objective of turning every recruit into a serving marine. Drill Instructors are graded on their ability to bring recruits through to graduation, not on their ability to ferret out the slackers.
Your point about officer selection doesn’t quite hold. Very few officers have served as enlisted marines, and there is a ‘class’ structure inherent in the military. However, the USMC officer selection process and basic training is such that in the end there is very much a shared ‘espirit’ which ensures a common sense of mission. I would think that the same approach would do for the Peace Corps.
As for contracting the officer corps out to a private company I fear the result would be an exponential increase in ‘fragging,’ a practice we don’t want to encourage. By the way, can I admit to having been influenced by those John Wayne movies without losing my ‘street creds?’
David, I thought that I had added a comment to your discussion of the five year rule on Peace Corps Online. Now, I cannot locate it on that site. So I will repeat here, and ask if you were aware of this and ask for your comment. The reference is from Coates Redmon, “Come As You Are: The Peace Corps Story. Sand Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986. You cite this book in your bibliography.
In the chapter, “In, Up and Out”, pages 129 - 131, she discusses the origin of the five year rule and attributes it to an assistant of Franklin Williams who argued that to keep the Peace Corps young and dynamic, it should go from an agency staffed by people who had never seved a Peace Corps Volunteers to an agency staffed totally by RPCVs. The five-year rule was suggested as the best way to facilitate this transition. If I am reading correctly, it was suggested that this could have been accomplished in eight years.
You note that there were no RPCVs in mid and upper management when you arrived in 1971 because the agency was so new. Yet, the agency was ten years old. Your own corporate career parallels the time line of Peace Corps and you had corporate experience. Why was it assumed that no RPCV could have accumulated comparable management experience?
I would welcome your comment.
I
Joey
I always enjoy hearing from you. It keeps me on my toes!
Let me start with your point about the staff role of RPCVs in the early 70s. When making my comment about mid- and senior level staff not being RPCVs I arbitrarily decided that country director positions were mid level and those above were senior positions. Generally these were men (and the occasional woman) between 40 and 50 years old with work and life experiences not yet achieved by all but a handful of RPCVs. Now, there were many, many RPCVs on staff as regional directors in-country, as desk officers in Washington, as recruiters throughout the US, and in other lower level positions. My guess is that all of that changed by the end of the 70s and we have the situation now where most positions (as I understand it) are filled by RPCVs.
I can’t find my copy of Redmon’s books but I’m sure you read it right. However, by the 70s the ‘make way for RPCVs’ element had been totally forgotten, abandoned, or maybe it didn’t even survive an initial review by Schriver while the ‘new blood’ element had become a mantra. The ‘five-year rule’ was even written into the original Peace Corps Act in 1961 without any mention of a purpose other than to keep bureaucratic calcification at bay.
Point of fact, David: Blanchard wasn’t even 40 years old when he took over as Director of Peace Corps.
Let us agree to this: Somewhere during the sixities, the administrative or political decision was made, either deliberately or by default, not to make successful service as a Peace Corps Volunteer a prerequisite for employment, either civil service or by political appointment. The historical record of when, by whom, and why this decision was made, is blank . I think the decision was critical. There is a historical record, which I cited, that this was intended at one time.
We disagree on whether or not this was a good decision. You say yes, I say no.
This is whay I say no. The argument about “new blood” and “sweeping clean” and getting rid of the “nay sayers,” is, IMHO, self serving. The language sounds like you are selling soap. I think it reflects the values of corporate , for profit institutions in a consumer economy. Absent planned obsolescence and the selling of new “improved” products, the consumer economy slows down. To keep the engine going, products have to be reinvented and consumer demand stoked up. I think those values are what you brought to the Peace Corps. Also, the Peace Corps became a political patronage plum cake. All of this reflected commerical values and political agendas which had nothing to do with what was happening in the field with real people, both HCN and Volunteers. As a matter of fact, what RPCVs would bring to the agency would have been anathema to all of the above.
What I believe was missing was the systematic evaluation and monitoring of all peace corps projects , through time and space, to identify what was not working and attempt to find out why; to replicate what was working and to monitor the majority of the project were the outcomes were not clear or did not fit a 21 or 27 month timeframe. I believe that this was impossible to do without the expertise gained from actual fieldwork. The failure to create an all RPCV staff was disasterous for the agency, IMHO.
Now, it may well be that the staff now is almost RPCV, I don’t know.
I do know that my FOIA request is being handled at PC/W by a lovely man, retired military, who does not know peace corps from the proverbial hole in the ground.
Finally, David, Do you realize what you did with my Marine analogy?
You immediately identified with the “elite” officer corps, and the serving Volunteers the perpetural “grunts.” You then said if the Pentagon tried that with the Marines, the result would be an increase in “fragging.” Yet, you seem blissfully oblivious to a non-violent but similiar reaction on the part of Volunteers.
Leave Comments Below»