through this website, AAFSW receives a small percentage to help fund out activities and services. 
Why Would I Want to Go There?
This article originally appeared in the Family Member Matters column of the October, 2002 issue of Foreign Service Journal.
There has been much discussion lately about the lack of bidders on "hardship" posts. It's clear that many consider today's FSOs to be wimps, interested only in cushy, career-enhancing posts in the developed world.
There is another reason officers aren't bidding on the Ouagadougous of the world: spouses are crossing them off the list. I certainly have, after asking myself the following questions:
Should we bid on a hardship post for the sake of my husband's career?
I have seen no evidence that service in hardship posts accelerates a State career. On the contrary, it seems that the best way to get promoted is to serve in highly visible places with highly visible people. It does not appear to matter how hard it is for an officer (or his spouse) to accomplish the most basic tasks during a hardship posting.
Should we bid on a hardship post because it's our turn?
We have served at four hardship posts, including one of the poorest countries in the world, one of the most devastated by AIDS, and one of the most crime-ridden, followed by one tour in Washington and our current post in Europe. Yet the next time we bid, my husband will be "eligible" for Fair Share, categorized with officers who have spent most, if not all of their careers in non-hardship posts. How is this "fair?"
Should we bid on a hardship post for the money?
By the time we bid on our next overseas post, we will be in Washington , D.C. , with a child entering college. I will be fully employed in D.C., but would have little chance of that status overseas. Why would I give up my salary just in time for tuition bills? In addition, my husband's salary would probably drop: today's piddling hardship differentials usually do not even match Washington locality pay. Free housing does not make up for a lost second income and the considerable expenses of relocating and living overseas.
Should we bid on a hardship post to broaden our horizons?
I learned a great deal during our tours in Latin America and Africa , but I often did not know what I was getting into when we bid on those posts. When we bid on Zambia in 1991, we relied on an outdated post report describing Lusaka as a "clean and attractive city." (Neither was true.) Nowadays, I can read Real Post Reports, post queries on discussion lists such as AAFSW's Livelines, and e-mail spouses at post. My research is no longer restricted to materials provided by State, and, in the case of many hardship posts, I conclude that I've been there and done that.
So, why would I agree to bid on hardship posts when there is no compelling professional, financial, or personal reason to do so? Hardship assignments should be compensated not only by generous pay and career incentives for officers, but tangible support for spouses, such as support for portable careers and decently paid, professionally challenging embassy employment. At the moment, no substantial reason exists for anyone with a family to bid on these "hard-to-fill" assignments. If State wants to encourage officers and their spouses to bid on hardship posts, it would do well to address bread-and-butter issues that matter to families, and stop admonishing officers who simply have their priorities in the right place.
Kelly Bembry Midura is a Web site designer and writer who has accompanied her husband, Chris, a Public Diplomacy officer, to La Paz, Guatemala City, Lusaka, San Salvador, Washington, and Prague.
@2002 Kelly Bembry Midura