PDA

View Full Version : aww.. those poor diplomats



dv8grl
11-01-2007, 07:27 AM
Iraq assignments upset some diplomats

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_embassy_16


WASHINGTON - Several hundred U.S. diplomats vented anger and frustration Wednesday about the State Department's decision to force foreign service officers to take jobs in Iraq, with some likening it to a "potential death sentence."

In a contentious hourlong town-hall meeting, they peppered officials responsible for the order with often hostile complaints about the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam. Announced last week, it will require some diplomats — under threat of dismissal — to serve at the embassy in Baghdad and in reconstruction teams in outlying provinces.

Many expressed serious concern about the ethics of sending diplomats against their will to work in a war zone — where the embassy staff is largely confined to the protected "Green Zone" — as the department reviews use of private security guards to protect its staff.

"Incoming is coming in every day, rockets are hitting the Green Zone," said Jack Croddy, a senior foreign service officer who once worked as a political adviser with NATO forces.

He and others confronted Foreign Service Director General Harry Thomas, who approved the move to "directed assignments" late last Friday to make up for a lack of volunteers willing to go to Iraq.

"It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment," Croddy said. "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?"

No U.S. diplomats have been killed in Iraq, although the security situation is precarious and completion of a new fortified embassy compound and living quarters has been beset by logistical and construction problems.

Still Croddy's remarks were met with loud and sustained applause from the approximately 300 diplomats at the meeting.

Thomas responded by saying the comments were "filled with inaccuracies." But he did not elaborate until challenged by the head of the diplomats' union, the American Foreign Service Association, who, like Croddy and others, demanded to know why many learned of the decision from news reports.

Thomas took full responsibility for the late notification. But he objected when the association's president, John Naland, said a recent survey found only 12 percent of the union's membership believed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was "fighting for them." ........

Sorry, but if you dont like your job quit.

freeby4me
11-01-2007, 07:34 AM
Im sorry but one should not be forced to go to a place where they could get murdered for looking a certain way. Where they could be held captive for ransom.
Putting yourself in such a danger I doubt was in the "job description" and one did not sign up for that. I dont blame them for being pissed.

If I worked construction and was demanded to be sent over there for "reconstruction" I'd tell my boss off in a minute.

The first person who's murdered who was forcefully sent over there, their family will get such a huge lawsuit and win.

dv8grl
11-01-2007, 07:44 AM
They took an oath to serve their country.

State Department to force diplomats to Iraq http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21495386/

those being sent to Iraq will receive extra pay and vacation time. About 50 diplomats will be needed in Iraq by January over the current level of 200.

However, those refusing Iraq duty may face disciplinary action up to and including dismissal for failing to uphold their oath to serve the United States and the Constitution

That doesn't mean serve it the way they want to. I'm sure most of the service men & women would rather serve their country here, where it is "safe". War is hell, the diplomats have a right to quit., its is still a free country.. isn't it? For now anyway......

hblueeyes
11-01-2007, 11:41 AM
What about our guardsman that are in the war over their? They went knowing that their families would suffer hardships, their jobs may not be there when they return, (even though the law says it must) etc. These were service people who joined their states National Guard. Regular military shoud be there as well as reserveists not guardsman. What if they refused? They would be court martialed so should the diplomats. If the diplomats are allowed to falter then it makes the disparity between the have and have nots that much greater.

Me

freeby4me
11-01-2007, 11:48 AM
I guess you both very well might be right, I just hate the idea of sending anyone somewhere where they dont want to go, to force them. Anyone who's signed up for the militairy has known.

Mom2Shaun
11-01-2007, 07:00 PM
All I can say is that if the diplomats feel this endangered, then maybe we're not making as much progress in Iraq as we've been told. I guess it's NOT like a swap meet in Indiana.

Jolie Rouge
11-07-2007, 09:06 AM
A Letter From Iraq to My Overwrought Colleagues
John Matel on Nov 06, 2007 - 11:20 AM

In his first posting, John writes an open letter to his Foreign Service Officer colleagues about the controversial issue of directed assignments in Iraq. The issue raises an interesting question, "Should diplomats and other non-military personnel be forced to work in an active war zone"?

John Matel is a career Foreign Service Officer (FSO) who is currently serving as the team leader of the Provincial Reconstruction Team embedded in Al Asad, Al Anbar Province.


I just finished reading a news article discussing some of my FSO colleagues' vehement and emotional response to the idea that a few of us might have directed assignments in Iraq . To my vexed and overwrought colleagues, I say take a deep breath and calm down. I have been here for a while now, and you may have been misinformed about life at a PRT.

I personally dislike the whole idea of forced assignments, but we do have to do our jobs. We signed up to be worldwide available. All of us volunteered for this kind of work and we have enjoyed a pretty sweet lifestyle most of our careers.

I will not repeat what the Marines say when I bring up this subject. I tell them that most FSOs are not wimps and weenies. I will not share this article with them and I hope they do not see it. How could I explain this wailing and gnashing of teeth? I just tried to explain it to one of my PRT members, a reserve LtCol called up to serve in Iraq . She asked me if all FSOs would get the R&R, extra pay etc. and if it was our job to do things like this. When I answered in the affirmative, she just rolled her eyes.

Calling Iraq a death sentence is just way over the top. I volunteered to come here aware of the risks but confident that I will come safely home, as do the vast majority of soldiers and Marines, who have a lot riskier jobs than we FSOs do.

I wrote a post a couple days ago where I said that perhaps everyone's talents are not best employed in Iraq . That is still true. But I find the sentiments expressed by some at the town hall meeting deeply offensive. What are they implying about me and my choice? And what do they say to our colleagues in the military, who left friends and family to come here and do their jobs? As diplomats, part of our work is to foster peace and understanding. We cannot always be assured that we will serve only in places where peace and understanding are already safely established.


If these guys at the town hall meeting do not want to come to Iraq , that is okay with. I would not want that sort out here with me anyway. We have enough trouble w/o having to baby sit. BUT they are not worldwide available and they might consider the type of job that does not require worldwide availability.

We all know that few FSOs will REALLY be forced to come to Iraq anyway. Our system really does not work like that. This sound and fury at Foggy Bottom truly signifies nothing. Get over it! I do not think many Americans feel sorry for us and it is embarrassing for people with our privileges to paint ourselves as victims.

http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/iraq_colleagues/



I will not repeat what the Marines say when I bring up this subject.

I can just imagine .... :rotfl:



As I recall, the writers at Diplomad http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/ (a Conservative blog by a couple of FSO’s provided an amazing inside glance at the State Department operations during the Tsunami aftermath) were read the riot act by the hierarchy and told to nix the blog due to (among other things) their consistent lambasting of the Liberal mindset from within, and the flat out falacies portrayed by the United Nations (which is the alter praised by a few too many FSO’s).

For a short time, before they were muffled…they were the cutting edge…and provided fantastic insight on our State Department (dirty laundry not excluded).

Jolie Rouge
11-07-2007, 09:13 AM
All I can say is that if the diplomats feel this endangered, then maybe we're not making as much progress in Iraq as we've been told. I guess it's NOT like a swap meet in Indiana.

Good Lord - remind me never to go to a swap meet in Indiana !

( Iraq is still a war zone and safer is not the same as *safe* )