Home
Videos
Photos
Welcome
About
Legal
Search
Archive

Share This Post

Recent Posts

Young Europeans React to Secretary Clinton’s Visit

What Actions Should the International Community Take To Resolve the Situation in Darfur?

Spring Break: Have Fun, Stay Safe

Secretary Clinton Responds to Your Text Messages

Secretary’s 2009 International Women of Courage Awards

View all Feeds

More information on Social Networks

Subscribe to Dipnote by Email

Follow Dipnote on Twitter

Dipnote on YouTube

Dipnote on Facebook

A Letter From Iraq to My Overwrought Colleagues
Posted by John Matel on Nov 06, 2007 - 06:59 PM

A Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) leader with a businessman in Baghdad, Iraq. [USAID photo]

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.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS

Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments

Judah writes:

Communique to the Government of the United States of America from the American Republic!

For over 200 years you have ruled with impunity. Your ancestors came to the Americas and slaughtered the indigenous humans that occupied these lands.
You allowed for crime and corruption to set up a government called democracy, to rule the land and enslave the ignorant and innocent. You guaranteed rights to only those that could understand your hidden agendas, while leaving the others to wander in lies and deceit. You have become the very government that you set out to destroy. You have destroyed the integrity of women and have allowed religion to control government. You have eaten animals for pleasure and want, and have disregarded the laws of Nature. You have set up "shadow Government" to carryout your crimes against humanity. Voluminous essays have been written of your history, orators have spoken to the multitudes to explain your glory. And yet you have not conquered the human spirit.

In the words of your contract to yourselves written so long ago and to the people of America, (Declaration of Independence) you have allowed for those that wish to change government, have that right. But of course you will use law and force of will to deter that choice, even of pain of death.

Fortunately by the will of God and Nature we now outnumber those that wish to deny us all freedom to choose and of expression. We the People ask you to consider our words and consider our objective. We now thru your error of judgment have come to be a beacon of hope for all that wish to be free from the tyranny that has been forced on the masses. We are everywhere you seek. We are the ones that have the power to change our lives, without the will of others.

Your administration is a mockery of justice and of Law. Your people are suffering in your land as others are suffering and dying in other lands. You have invaded countries illegally and have murdered the innocent, You have used your armies to carry out your madness. Families in America are grieving for their young sons and daughters as are others in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Sudan, and other Nations that are suffering the same fate. There will be no Christmas or New Year for many Americans and other countries that are at war for the rich. We are quite sure that if you, who tell others what to do are placed in a circle alone, you will beg for forgiveness and mercy. Freedom is knocking once again at the door, except this time we will let ourselves in.

We write and speak the truth. Those who are of the truth will listen to us.

We are a Legion of many, who will live a life of peace, and have respect for all living things, while having considerations for those who are different, and look for ways to truly accommodate those who are slow in understanding.

We support the poor, helpless, and defenseless people. We support the freedom of Women, we support the sane treatment of animals and the environment, we support the freedom of religion and expression. We do not support ignorance, period.

We are a growing nation of people that encourage anyone or Nation anywhere to become part of the New American Republic!

Posted on Thu Nov 22, 2007

Joseph writes:

To John Matel: Unfortunately, Jack Croddy isn't the only FSO to have embarrassed and harmed the Foreign Service. With your post, you have allowed yourself to be used to hurt and discredit the Foreign Service by an administration that greatly dislikes, disdains, and distrusts the Foreign Service.

Why would the State Department allow you, John Mattel, to paint a huge target on the Foreign Service with your blog and then hold it up for target practice for hyper-patriots? This type of "Us vs. Them" PR has been a trademark of this administration (Karen Hughes, a grateful nation thanks you for your service), but I admit that they surprised me by going after their own workers in such a crude and public fashion. This is so far from what we had with Colin Powell, who sincerely called us "his troops."

(Attention Dr. Rice: Loyalty goes both ways, Madam Secretary, and if you wonder why 88 percent of the service doesn't trust you to watch their back, please re-read this blog that you host.)

So, while the Jack Croddy types do not represent the Foreign Service, neither do the John Mattel types. FSOs are not, like you, pawns or drones, willing to be used in a disloyal sucker punch against their colleagues. Could you imagine this: The Marine Corps starts a new blog, with a post noting that "just because a few Marines raped and murdered some unarmed civilians in Iraq, please don't think all Marines are rapists and murderers. Comments welcome." Could you ever in the 231 years of our great republic imagine the heads of our military services encouraging a smearing of their soldiers like this blog does to the Foreign Service?

You've help illustrate another important difference between the military and the Foreign Service: In the military, troops frag unpopular leaders, and at State, it�s the other way around.

Enjoy your promotion and onward, I'm sure you've earned them.

Posted on Thu Nov 22, 2007

Robert in Iowa writes:

@ Jon in Iraq -- Wow. you would have made a great Nazi. I am not an FSO. I am a historian. So what you talk about is not what a historical FSO or diplomat does. They are to use their skills and knowledge to avert war not participate in it.

For example, tell me what did a German FSO do in Nazi Germany? Someone educated and trained and integrated in the German Foreign Ministry before Hitler took power. A German diplomat or FSO under the Nazi regime had no place, no job, no function because the job of an FSO is to avert war. To support international law. To support multi-lateralism. To support international law. That is a diplomat's training in Western Europe.
So after Nazi unilateral aggression and an avoidance of multi-lateralism, what does a German FSO do? Carry out Nazi policies? Round up people for the concentration camps?

Go research Konstantin von Neurath. A German FSO. In March 1939, von Neurath was appointed Protector (Reichsprotektor) of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (Reichsprotektorat B'hmen und M'hren). He instituted German laws controlling the press and abolished political parties and trade unions, ordered a harsh crack-down on protesting students in October and November 1939, but he was regarded as insufficiently rigorous in controlling Czech resistance. In September 1941 he was relieved of his day-to-day powers and replaced by Reinhard Heydrich. Von Neurath attempted to resign in 1941 but his resignation was not accepted until August 1943.

So you remind me of Heydrich. I may be wrong. We historians have to be careful.

Posted on Wed Nov 21, 2007

Jan in Florida writes:

@ Ann in Virginia -- Ann in Va (ironically I am flying there to Virginia this next week for work!) Thank you for clarifying the prime candidate selections. Yes to all of what you described. My friend is indeed a model FSO and even has Arabic language experience. My friend is up for relocation in July of 2008 and hasn't done a hardship tour in a long time. I just didn't understand it completely, and it was just very hard to take the news.

Thank you very much for helping me understand what goes on in the selection process. I hope my friend does well. And good luck to you in your career.

Posted on Wed Nov 21, 2007

Anne in Virginia writes:

@ Jan in Florida -- Thanks for asking about the directed assignments versus prime candidates. Approximately 200-250 "prime candidates" were identified for less than 50 jobs. That means for every position that was not filled, 4-5 people were identified as being a prime candidate. Prime candidates were chosen based on: (1) being an eligible bidder (i.e. due to transfer this summer 2008); (2) being a "fair share" bidder (i.e. they haven't done a hardship tour in the past eight years, but have remained in Washington or done a tour in non-hardship post); and (3) having outstanding leadership and other skills. So, in an odd way, being a good officer made it more likely that you would be identified as a "prime candidate!" That is in line with the Department's resolution to send the best and the brightest to Iraq to assist in - for good or for bad - is this administration's primary foreign affairs goal.

The people who put together the list of "prime candidates" were within the Bureau of Human Resources with access to everyone's files so that they could filter out the people who were already in an assignment, who had served their "fair share" tour recently and those who are perhaps just not right for the task required.

If your friend was a prime candidate, s/he had the option of writing a statement, which would have been read to the panel that decides on assignments, indicating why s/he could not go to Iraq or did not want to go to Iraq. Then the panel would have voted whether the reasons were sufficient to "back off" and find someone else. Remember, for each job, there were 4-5 candidates.

If your friend decided not to "fight" the assignment, s/he basically agreed to it. Remember the old saying from the 60's? Not to disagree is to agree. If your friend feels strongly that s/he doesn't want to go, then s/he has the option of filing the statement and taking his/her chances. The point is that no one was taken before the panel and assigned against their will - assuming that they filed the statement. Some people who were identified as "prime candidates," simply decided to "suck it up" and agreed to go. I can only assume your friend did just that. Is that a volunteer? I don't know. But they didn't fight it either.

Thanks for asking and for giving me the opportunity to explain it to you a bit clearer.

Posted on Wed Nov 21, 2007

William in Dominican Republic writes:

Once again, as I posted before, I have to say that this entire episode has been overblown. The Town Hall meeting is being portrayed as some sort of revolt on the part of FSOs, which just isn't the case. Over a thousand FSO's have served in Iraq. Thousands more are currently serving in hardship posts throughout the world. I have been in the FS for over 15 years now and am proud to serve with some of the most dedicated public servants. Noone I work with is coddled or whiny. We all joined to serve our country abroad, and we continue to do so with pride.

Posted on Wed Nov 21, 2007

TDF in Portugal writes:

For all those who scorn the few FSOs who were angry about being directed to Iraq, remember that what many are objecting to is being sent to do something for which they are untrained, inexperienced, and unqualified. Several posters try to use the "military" example, as if the military were one completely homogeneous entity. The more appropriate metaphor would be within the military occupational specialties (MOS) and between the services. Sending FSOs to a provincial reconstruction team (PRT) is like taking a Marine sniper and telling him to manage an Air Force maintenance bay. Or perhaps taking an Army Ranger and telling him to take over the engineering department on a Navy destroyer. In point of fact, in each of these cases the person could probably dedicate himself to the new task and do a serviceable job; just as FSOs are doing creditable work in the PRTs, just as Marine riflemen are doing creditable work as policemen. At the end of the day, taking FSOs with no Arabic language skills, no Middle Eastern experience, no job-specific skills (repairing electrical grids? water systems?), and especially no security training, and sending them to Iraq is foolish. Hundreds of FSOs are in Arabic training right now; job-specific training is lagging, but underway. These people will probably do good work in Iraq when ready. Many of those being sent now, however, are just totems, sent for no other reason than to show that they are there.

Posted on Wed Nov 21, 2007

Jenna in Washington, DC writes:

@ Tom in Idaho --

Or perhaps we could just refund you your .00002 cents that contributes to FSO salaries?

Posted on Wed Nov 21, 2007

Jon in Iraq writes:

Over the top, whining diplomats!

As far as the coddled little neo-Marxists that are voicing reservation about "directed assignments", get over it, but, quickly. The days of choosing weenies from East Coast whining mills is quickly coming to an end. A book worm has no greater chance of becoming a diplomat than an astrophysicist, or used car salesman, etc. - The glorified jeopardy test that is the bell weather, the, be all and end all is quickly being supplanted by a more rounded system for choosing those who are suppose to be sworn to carry out the administration's FP. What the hell kind of a metric is it that determines that you need the "smartest" and "brightest" to conduct FP. In any given corporation its not necessarily the CEO who is the brightest in the company, but, rather he is the one that is more predisposed to getting stuff done than others. What is needed is willing devotees who have a demonstrable penchant for foreign affairs, simply. Please, no more Ghandiesque weaklings who are:, week in the knees, full of hubris, with no life experience, picky-finicky-defiant, and weirdos, please!. Let�s return some dignity to the profession, and produce men like a Tom Pickering, that�s a man, that�s a diplomat. State has brought in outside consultants to study and provide guidance as to how to better States' managers and what they have found is not so surprising. Look, when you bring these weasels right out of school, coddle them, tell them that they are special, and treat them that way, you are going to have a leadership vacuum somewhere down the line. Sadly, this is what you have today at State, leaders reticent to make decisions as they weigh their career and how any decision may redound to its deficit or advantage. A fighter pilot is suppose to have a swagger about him/her - they are putting their stuff on the line, not, an aspiring diplomat, should not they be more humble than the rest of us? After all, who lives a life like a diplomat, at tax payer�s expense? DOS is a tax payer supported instrument of foreign policy, not, the local country club. If this whining continues there are plenty of smart and experienced contractors, 3161 excepted service types with language skills who have demonstrated very adeptly their diplomatic skills in Iraq and Afghanistan who very easily can fill the ranks of the "privileged" who bitch and moan. Let them sit in the corner of the libraries of Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, etc., and read about real heroes doing a real job and getting real results. The days of these romantic socialists, Gramscian incrementalists, and egalitarian �let them eat cake� whiners are numbered, �hip-hip hooray!� If you don�t believe me, check out the atmospherics that are abuzz within the precincts of HR. Having a 1600 on your SATs is not as important as having attributes like: Loyalty, exuberance, and humility, and a yearning to learn. Enough with this antediluvian and nepotistic system that produces unwilling public servants.

Posted on Wed Nov 21, 2007

Jerry in Oklahoma writes:

Mr. Croddy is no doubt a great foreign service officer.

His comments probably caused a lot of heart burn at Foggy Bottom.

He would have made a excellent Marine!

Posted on Tue Nov 20, 2007

Dan in Washington, DC writes:

Below are some excerpts from a transcript of the State Department Press Briefing on Nov. 19th given by State Department's Spokesman Sean McCormack re the issue of Foreign Service Officers filling Foreign Service jobs in Iraq. For entire transcript, see http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2007/nov/95334.htm

Begin excerpts:

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. Just wanted to start off by noting the Secretary has talked to Ryan Crocker and talked to Harry Thomas about the Iraq staffing, and we are pleased to announce that all of the Iraq jobs have been filled by volunteers. So that's a total of 252, including the -- that includes the 48 jobs that we've all been talking about so much over the past couple of weeks. She's going to be sending out a cable to the State Department employees congratulating them on stepping up to the challenge that she put forward to them to fill all of these jobs. In talking to Ryan and Harry, it was their assessment that these are very qualified individuals who are going to be filling these jobs and that she was able to assure herself that we met the bar that we had set for ourselves; we in no way lowered the standards in order to get these volunteers.

So she's quite pleased by that and we are quite pleased that the Foreign Service and the State Department have stepped up to this -- stepped up to this challenge. She, of course, reserves the right at any future time, if need be, to fill any future jobs by directed assignments. But we were quite pleased that we had State Department volunteers that stepped up. And we'll have a statement out a little bit later on from her on it ...

QUESTION: Looking back, how could this have been handled better -- a certain amount of ill will, a certain amount of competition between the military and the -- or criticism between the military and the State Department? What would you do differently?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure that we would anything different. Harry talked a little bit about the fact that he would have wished that we were able to inform those 200 employees who received the prime candidates letter that they were receiving these letters prior to their reading about it in the newspapers. That said, we live in a world today where that doesn't -- that isn't necessarily the case and you have leaks to news organizations and, next thing you know, the story is out bouncing around the internet, on cable TV and on other outlets. That's unfortunate but that's the world we live in. Harry promised that we would try to get -- that in the future he would try to get out to any individuals that were wrapped up in this kind of process first before they read about it in newspaper accounts, but we can't always promise that.

In terms of the exercise as a whole, the Secretary challenged the Foreign Service, she challenged the State Department, and the people of the State Department and the Foreign Service stepped up to that challenge. She thinks it was absolutely the right decision to talk to the employees about the fact that if we weren't able to fill these jobs with volunteers then we were going to go to directed assignments. She still feels that's the right decision and she reserves the right in the future, if we face similar circumstances, to fill jobs by directed assignment.

In terms of -- you know, in terms of other government agencies, I can't account for individuals who might comment one way or the other. I know that Secretary Gates and the leadership over at the Department of Defense certainly appreciates what the State -- what State Department employees are doing, working with their military officers, their enlisted people on the ground in Iraq, the PRTs and in other ways. And Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General Petraeus have a very good working relationship and I think their intention is that that good, solid working relationship at the very top of management in Iraq will -- should flow downwards as well ...

end excerpts from transcript.

Posted on Tue Nov 20, 2007

Tom in Idaho writes:

At the risk of repeating previously posted sentiments:

State Department employees are employed by the US government, which is financed by American taxpayers like me. If an employee is given an assignment, he/she is expected to accept and complete it; the employer reserves the right to discipline any employee who doesn't perform. That's the way it works for those of us in the real world, anyway. But it seems the State Department is willing to allow employees to pick and choose their assignments; this amounts to the cart pulling the horse, and(in the real, working world, outside of government)is not tolerated by most employers.

As a taxpayer, I'd like to see the State Department fire each and every employee who refuses oversees assignment, and make room for those of us who still understand what it means to work for someone.

Those of us, out here, in the real world.

Posted on Mon Nov 19, 2007

Jan in Florida writes:

Anne...if they are "prime candidates" then that means they were forced to go, correct? Because what was played out in the media was that they were told to go and had no other choice BUT to go. I just can't stand to see someone told to do something when they didn't sign up for the assignment. My close friend was a "prime candidate" and to see this friend of mine told that they were told to go was heartbreaking.

I don't get it. I really don't. You are a "prime candidate", yet you can still choose not to go? Help me understand... seriously, I am not trying to make ill words, but please help me understand this situation. Then why did my friend not fight it?

Who submitted my friend's name?

Thank you for shedding light on this.

Posted on Mon Nov 19, 2007

William in Washington, DC writes:

The American Republic! Judah Ben-Hur for President, 2012!

Communique to The American People and others from the American Republic

It is quite apparent from the world events unfolding, and from the ones in the planning, that it is now time for those that are oppressed be set free.

Miracles are for believers of their faiths, and only that. Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, or any other Savior will not come to save you from your sins or from your despair. Governments and big business are your Gods. They control and manipulate you into whatever they desire. And the ones that do not conform are cast out into homelessness and death. There are cures for disease as their are cures for mass corruption and evil. There are cures for Cancer and for Aids, and see how many people are dying each day for that selfish fix. Desire and pleasure are the two most exploited forms of emotions that control the majority of humans on this planet. Democracy has failed, Communism, Fascism, and Socialism have murdered great men and women over the ages. Greed and betrayal have also contributed to the deaths of the innocent. Religious wars are being fought for no logical reason. Masonic, Skull and Bones, and other Fraternal societies are carving up this planet for temporary control, only to be lost to another and another until one system that is greater is chosen and allowed to become the Truth for all who wish to be free and co-exist with the Planet and its indigenous creatures. You must protect and nurture the environment to keep you all alive. God did not wish for you to destroy the creation that took so long to create. Your Eden is here, you have built on top of it.

Your prejudice and ignorance will also be your undoing. You treat the African people like they are talking monkeys of the forest. They are Men and Women who are humans, not animals. You treat those that are different like outcasts without hope. You poison those that seek God with ritual and lies. You control those that are not fortunate and make slaves of them. You degrade women and treat them like second class humans. Your governments offer your people nothing more than your greed will allow. Europe, South America, China, USA, and other countries have failed their people. Punishing those that are responsible will not solve the problems that exist. You must replace them all without compromise, and in their places put those that are not afraid of Truth.

The UN and NATO are only their for those who have the gold. The news media has mass manipulated you all into a frenzy of fear and mistrust of each other, with nowhere to hide. Your religions will not protect you, only God can with your commitment to the truth and only that. The War on Terror will never end as long as you all allow those that have the power of Man to rule your world. The ones that have the power of the truth are waiting to come forward and replace what is now.

We have separated ourselves from those entities and have formed what we call The American Republic. We do not have or need a flashy website or large one page ads in the news, we are not on talk shows, or CNN. We are not the subject of many, but we are known by Governments around the world. They know that their existence was created by people like us who grew tired of government and mounted invasions either thru violence or reason to replace. But we were not careful and found that in order to rule, one must be just and true, and now we have what we have now on this planet. Presidents have been assassinated for less information of what we know and can do. We decided to begin our new order in the United States of America, because it has been responsible for so much of the worlds problems and corruption. By recreating a new world order within the same one that has failed so many, will no doubt send a message to the rest of the world that change for the better is possible. Money and other tools we have. We do not need to solicit for existence, for we have what we need. We ask that each of you prepare for change and be aware of what is coming. Soon your pain and fear will turn to joy and happiness, and all of you will now have dignity and purpose without the fear of failure. There will be more reward than not.

We are a Legion of many, who will live a life of peace, and have respect for all living things, while having considerations for those who are different, and look for ways to truly accommodate those who are slow in understanding.

We support the poor, helpless, and defenseless people. We support the freedom of Women, we support the sane treatment of animals and the environment, we support the freedom of religion and expression. We do not support ignorance, period.

We are a growing nation of people that encourage anyone or Nation anywhere to become part of the New American Republic!

Posted on Mon Nov 19, 2007

B in Virginia writes:

To everyone who is bashing the FSOs, read the good reasons why they don't want to go there:
http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=hsnews-000002630082

Posted on Mon Nov 19, 2007

Harry in Massachusetts writes:

Walter Pincus' article November 19 in the Washington Post about Arabic language ?Blog Diplomacy? invites comparison with this free-for-all:

My comment: "Blogs: Two State Solutions"

Good article on what could be a useful program in public diplomacy in a region where we certainly need help.

The Post might do a parallel article on the State Department's semi-internal blog, Dipnote, and the public relations fiasco following one-sided media coverage of an internal State Department "town meeting" about involuntary assignments to Iraq.

Blogging on the topic led-off with a self-congratulatory posting by an officer already serving in Iraq. With the help of Fox News, his entry encouraged numerous interventions by non-State "patriots" denigrating the Foreign Service.

While the hullabaloo seems to be winding down, there is no real denouement in the absence of any useful intervention by State leadership to defend their officers. Hard to imagine the same passivity at the Pentagon in the face of such treatment of their vital human capital, their military officers.

Both blogging efforts are new and potentially useful. If you juxtapose the two efforts at State, the problem with Dipnote seems to be absence of leadership cognizant of the links between public image, organizational solidarity, morale ---and public funding.

We understand the Arabic blogs benefit from policy guidance on our side and sensitivity to audiences, both intended and accidental. Both blogging staffs appear to know what they are doing. Both efforts require talent and attention up the line as well."

Posted on Mon Nov 19, 2007

Anne in Virginia writes:

@ JRS in U.S.A. -- Um, I don't know where you got your "internal knowledge" about the people who volunteered to go to Iraq, but I work in the State Department and personally know that these people did in fact volunteer. Some of them were "prime candidates" who decided not to fight the assignment; others were probably people who were biding their time to volunteer and decided it was better go to now rather than being forced later. But they were all volunteers and NO ONE was forced or directed to go to Iraq. I only hope that next year enough FSOs will step up and volunteer again.

Please get your facts straight and don't be paranoid. There is no secret society in the State Department covering up anything - we're so transparent it's almost scary!

Posted on Sun Nov 18, 2007

JRS in U.S.A. writes:

I just read a news article online regarding the fact that the State Department didn't "have to force anyone to go to Iraq" and that all volunteers stepped up to fill the 48 positions newly created in Baghdad and the surrounding areas.

I can say from internal knowledge that this is not true and someone at the State Department was doing damage control in the press by releasing this statement.

It was forced, you know it. Now I don't deny having a sense of duty and the praise goes out to those who did "volunteer" (sarcasm intended) but to play it off in the press this way is unbelievable. I hope the decision at the State Department is one that you can live with and hopefully none of the 48 will suffer dramatically in their lives for this.

Not a big fan of this "policy". But I support my guys and gals going in the Foreign Service.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jSQ14PoKO8jjCLmzfdzIzty14IjwD8SUTRMO0

Posted on Sat Nov 17, 2007

Tiger in Florida writes:

Let me preface my statement by making it perfectly clear that I am not focusing on the FSOs that have stepped up to do their jobs. I am focusing my comments to a few specific posters here and to the FSOs who whined about the “possibility” of being directed to serve in Iraq…

@ Allen in N.C. -- Hurtful? Not at all. Just realistic. I have had several supervisors in the civilian sector tell me to either step up or step out. If you can’t, or in this case won’t, do the job the you were hired to do then get out of the way for someone who can.

@ Mike in Saudi -- Doesn’t an FSO “volunteer” for his job? Are you telling me that an FSO has to pay taxes on his pay earned in Iraq and also has to pay for any medical or dental care she or he receives while posted there? If that is the case then I would agree that policy should change. FSOs in Iraq ( and not in postings like Saudi, Kuwait or Bahrain) should receive tax free status and free medical care. The face similar, though not as extreme, risks as our military service members.

Second, although Travis essentially beat me to the punch, you are comparing yourself to a senior NCO with over 16 years of service in the military. It’s like comparing an apple to a stop sign: Sure, they are both red but the similarities end there.

@ Allison in VA -- No one has accused your family members or any other FSO that is doing their job of being a coward. What has raised the ire of most posters here is the fact that certain FSOs do not feel they should do “Forced” to do their job in a particularly contentious region of the map. Personally I would much rather do a 12month unaccompanied tour in Iraq or Afghanistan than subject my family to a three year tour in Africa or South America.

@ Andrew in Illinois -- Wow... The media sure hooked you good. The highest desertion rate since 1980? What war were we fighting in 1980 that caused the former record? I for one do not see a desertion rate of less than 1% per year of the total number of soldiers we have over there as being very alarming. But then again, I am not some liberal minded reporter trying to justify her paycheck by trying to sensationalize a non-issue.

@ the FSOs that have not shirked their duty -- It is because of people like you that I re-joined the military after a 17 year break in service. I would gladly give 150% to protect you from harm if ever given the opportunity.

@ the FSOs that complained -- I will guard you too because I understand that sometimes duty requires us to sometimes do things that we don’t want to do for the greater good of the people we serve.

Posted on Sat Nov 17, 2007

Tony in Virginia writes:

I retired from the Army Reserve back in '93. My DA civilian boss told me pack my bags and get on the plane to Kabul. He would not let me volunteer for recall although that would have prevented many administrative problems that did arise. The civilians back at Belvoir did not treat their forward deployed civilians well. Still, I went. I served the soldiers and my commander. On my watch, our compound never was surprised by Taliban actions. Some of that was my doing, some was we just had many alert kids with experienced veterans (most NGs called up). Our senior civilians shirked from going themselves. Although they felt they were the best and brightest, they believed they were too valuable as homesteaders.

Our prayers are with you and your mission. Take care of your soldiers and yourself.

When you come home, be sure to get a very good physical!

They lied to us about agent orange, anthrax shots, exploding ammo dumps and threatened us if we insisted on good medical care upon our return to CONUS.

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

John in Washington, DC writes:

@ Norma in Texas -- Thank you for your calm and reasoned comment. Too many on this site have lost sight of the fact that both the military and the Foreign Service have a long history of honorable service to this country. We should not be bickering among ourselves when we're in the middle of a war, especially when most of us in both groups have friends and family in harm's way. I respect the right of anyone to say what they want, but folks (in both organizations) should realize the hurt that their ill-thought out outbursts can have. My thanks, too, to all who serve this great country. Just 2 cents from an FSO.

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

Arthur writes:

I commend those State Department employees refusing to be a tool in the continued occupation of Iraq. Let us remember that Iraq was invaded based upon the lies and deceit of this administration. Why should there be further risk of life to impose U.S. will on an invaded people? And in irony of ironies, the State Department in Iraq is defended by murderous Blackwater mercenaries that are apparently beyond the reach of any law, no matter how many Iraqi women and children they slaughter in the streets.

Apparently soldiers are drawing similar conclusions. The AWOL rate continues to rise.

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

Peter in Washington, DC writes:

Sorry, I posted on the wrong page. Doh!

Please see my post on the “Welcome” page titled "Peter from Washington, DC writes" dated Sun Nov 11,2007.

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

J in Kentucky writes:

Mr. Matel,

As an Army Reservist that just came back from driving fuel trucks over in Al Anbar, and as a citizen that has recently applied to work on a PRT in the same province, I appreciate your honest assessment on the complaints of some FSOs. That's the beauty of Americans: we step up to the plate when we need to the most, regardless of the situation. And you're absolutely right about not employing our talents in the best way. The military has been just as bad. But I'd be glad to delay law school (again) so I could lend my skills to a PRT.

Good luck to you over there.

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

Andrew in Ohio writes:

@ Allison in Virginia -- Wow. Wow. Nice work ripping the men and women in uniform who are busy getting shot at, getting blown up by IED's, etc. I love the fact that you mentioned 'prep school' in your post, because it really captures the kind of girl you are to say the things you did about the military. The interesting part is that no one said anything about your family, no one called them cowards. The only people labeled cowards here are the folks who won't go when called, a group to which your family clearly does not belong. My only question is: if your family served so honorably, as it seems they did, how did they raise such a stuck-up priss who would publicly question the sacrifices our military members are making? This whole page of posts was so issue- or policy- neutral about the war and the administration, and then you came along and painted a very bitter, liberal picture of every little girl who went off to prep school and was shielded from what our military really does for a living. Nice work, princess.

Wow.

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

Norma in Texas writes:

First, let me start by saying I didn't know what a FSO was. After reading all (and I mean all) the posts, and doing some research, I have come to a few conclusions.

1 - FSO should be given the same war-time benefits as the military.
2 - A FSO job is no less important that the military.
3 - I sincerely hope the FSO deployed to a war-zone has the benefit of weapons training or at the very least, armed guards to protect them.

I am not condoning nor condemning the actions of what we have all seen occur at the town meeting. My family history has a very long line of military service, (great grandfathers, grandfathers, father, uncle, son-in-law) including my husband who retired from the Army and spent time in the Gulf War and my son who is currently in the Navy and deploying next year. My son joined the Navy knowing at some point he would deploy. I think the difference is my son has had the proper training to be deployed to areas of conflict.

From what I have read, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, FSO's don't typically receive that type of training. I understand they sign up with the advanced knowledge of being sent anywhere in the world; however, if they are being sent to conflict areas, shouldn't they receive some sort of combat training or am I the only one that thinks this? It seems to me the State Department should also be thinking along those same lines, to do everything humanly possible to protect those who could be sent to a hostile environment. It seems like the human thing to do.

I do not believe the FSO is full of wimps and weenies, although in every faction of life, these groups of people do exist including, unfortunately, the military. I think it was unfortunate the media showed a clip of concerned people expressing their opinions/concerns about forced deployments and I thank God everyday that we, as Americans, have the right to do so.

Those of you currently serving in areas of conflict, whether military or civilian, thank you so much for your service. I know first hand the sacrifices you all are making. For those who have lost loved ones, know your families are in my prayers every night.

God Bless America and the people who fight for our freedoms.

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

Andrew in Illinois writes:

Hmm...looks like there are more desertions from one arm of the military than there are Foreign Service Officers...wimps and weenies, eh?

Army desertion rate highest since 1980

By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press Writer --

Soldiers strained by six years at war are deserting their posts at the highest rate since 1980, with the number of Army deserters this year showing an 80 percent increase since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.

While the totals are still far lower than they were during the Vietnam war, when the draft was in effect, they show a steady increase over the past four years and a 42 percent jump since last year.

According to the Army, about nine in every 1,000 soldiers deserted in fiscal year 2007, which ended Sept. 30, compared to nearly seven per 1,000 a year earlier. Overall, 4,698 soldiers deserted this year, compared to 3,301 last year.

The increase comes as the Army continues to bear the brunt of the war demands with many soldiers serving repeated, lengthy tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military leaders -- including Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey -- have acknowledged that the Army has been stretched nearly to the breaking point by the combat. And efforts are under way to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to lessen the burden and give troops more time off between deployments.

Despite the continued increase in desertions, however, an Associated Press examination of Pentagon figures earlier this year showed that the military does little to find those who bolt, and rarely prosecutes the ones they get. Some are allowed to simply return to their units, while most are given less-than-honorable discharges.

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:

I am happy to learn that enough FSOs have stepped up to make forced assignments unnecessary. Those guys at the town hall embarrassed themselves and us for nothing. Clearly the Jack Croddy types do not represent the Foreign Service.

We talked a lot about duty, but let's consider the up-side. The idea that Iraq is like a death sentence is just silly. We have ridiculed it enough. I think what people still do not understand is that serving in Iraq is a great opportunity for an FSO. We can really do some good in Iraq and really do the kind of hands-on diplomacy most of us dreamed about when we joined.

Iraq is recovering from a long time of troubles. The country has been in a perpetual state of crisis for more than a quarter century. It is finally ending. It is a great privilege to be here -- now -- when the good changes are finally happening. Not many people get a chance to be part of something so interesting. I am grateful I got that chance.

Thank you all for your comments.

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

Steve in Maryland writes:

John,

As a former FSO (16 years including tours in Bangladesh, Guatemala, Bolivia, Italy and two tours in the Balkans, one with the UN right after the Dayton Accords), I totally agree with you. I should say that I resigned for personal reasons, not out of protest of this administration. After 16 years wandering around the world, my family was ready for some stability, especially my high-school aged children.

I do not know how to properly honor the service of those Americans (be they civilian or military) that have left their families and in the case of guardsmen, their jobs, to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places we don't ever hear about. Their sacrifices of time, health and lives are much more than we stateside Americans can appreciate. I know because I was separated from my family for the relatively short period of nine months - and I got two R&Rs. It amazes me that there are so many Americans willing to do this and not complain. The administration would do well to give them a voice.

And to take that one step further - I am shocked that veterans are finding difficulty with jobs, services and even being kicked out of the military for PTSD related personality issues.

I really don't know what to tell our friends in the military, except that the FS is a civilian corps and maybe we need to tell potential FS members that service in war zones is a reasonable expectation. The real test of the current leadership of the Department will be to see if they take such a step. Will they now make CLEAR to ALL future hires, both FS and CS that they can be expected to serve in war zones in the future? Or are they too afraid to take that bold step?

At the same time, that does not make what we did in Iraq the best course of action for the United States. We should admit that we were in error about the fact that Iraq was not a threat to us - as MOST of our allies publicly warned us. Instead, out of arrogance and based on flimsy intelligence and ignoring the counter-evidence supplied by the State Department, we attacked another country and proceeded to rain down misery on a people who had already suffered almost 30 years of a brutal dictator.

I think before we make any more decisions about Iraq congress should have all levels of military and FS members testify behind closed doors and/or in public if the individuals prefer. Any member of congress who has not gone to Iraq should be shamed into going (sorry guys - I know what a hassle a CODEL is!) and moreover should be required to ride with a PRT and GIs patrolling the streets.

let us remember that this issue was a manufactured crisis brought on by the administration's decision to set a deadline for the Iraq assignments in a poorly organized attempt to limit "gaming" of the system by connected insiders. What an interesting concept coming from this particular Secretary.

I salute you, and all Americans who are serving in Iraq, trying to do a difficult job under difficult circumstances.

I hope to see more of your posts on this site.

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

Travis in U.S. writes:

I see much talk being made of compensation disparities. The comparison is made with senior NCOs or officers. I don't see anyone comparing the disparities to the vast majority of the military the E-5s and below. Are they not just as valuable as any of the FSOs or other military? The elitism is astounding. After spending two years in Iraq, dealing with diplomats daily - some are very conscientious and worthwhile, but some are very self serving. The risk of bodily harm is and has been present for every FSO from the inception of diplomacy and anyone who thinks this risk is not at least implied is either disingenuous or just plain stupid. I am sorry to see that directed assignments did not happen - it would have possibly rid our diplomatic corps of many less than worthy representatives of our country.

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

Dan in Washington, DC writes:

A few posters to this discussion seemingly don't understand much about Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) as a whole, or understand much about the tradition, nature and on-going record of FSOs' dedicated service to our nation. Nevertheless, a couple of the posters to this discussion still feel it necessary and appropriate to cast dispersions on FSOs in general and as a group. Such largely uninformed antagonism directed toward FSOs as a whole has been around for a long time and will likely continue in the future ... Indeed, as Dean Acheson provocatively observed to State Department employees upon his last day as Secretary of State in 1953:

"Yours is not an easy task nor one which is much appreciated. You don't ask much of your fellow citizens, and if any of you are so inexperienced that you ever do, you receive very little. Certainly not much in the way of material recompense; certainly not very much in the form of appreciation of your work, because you are dealing with matters which, though they affect the life of every citizen of this country intimately, do it in ways which it is not easy for every citizen to understand ...

"We have traditions here in the United States about the Government. One which grows from our early history sometimes makes our life a little uncomfortable. In the early days of our country, government was conceived as something alien and something which threatened the liberties of the citizen. Therefore we have a tradition in this country of skepticism about government, of looking at it very carefully, of seeing what our public servants can take.

"That isn't always comfortable, but, on the whole it is good. Any time when there are governments in the world which are crushing the liberties of their citizens, it is good that in this great country people look with some skepticism upon government as such. This is one of our traditions.

"But we have another, and I think far deeper, tradition and that is the tradition of public service ... and as a public servant, I never for one moment believed that the holding of office was a source of power -- it was an obligation of service ...

"It is only by this sort of commitment to public service that a democracy, a republic such as ours, can live. And live it will, and this Department will continue, as it has throughout history, to be honored by those whose honoring is really worth while, and probably abused by those whose abuse is unimportant."

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

Allen in North Carolina writes:

After reading all the posts on this site it's clear to see that the majority feel that if you accept the job of FSO, you should serve wherever the need arises. If not, go work elsewhere.

Ouch!
They're some hurtful people out there.
How would you like to have one for a boss?

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

Rich in Iraq writes:

This was my retort to Jack Croddy, the FSO who whinned so vociferously at the Town Hall about having to actually do his duty:

Dear Jack,

It takes a lot to rile me up. I let inaccurate public statements, newscasts, op eds, and radio call-in shows all pass by without riposte. But not this time; not this topic.

First, if you're going to hide your cowardice behind facts, then at least have the decency to get the facts right. Incoming is not "coming in every day" in the Embassy Compound; nor is service here a "death sentence." No U.S. diplomat has died in Iraq since Liberation in 2003; American's aren't dropping in the streets of the IZ. I've been here 30 months, and I'm still breathing.

Second, your public statements at the recent Town Hall meeting at Main State are a dishonor to the Service, to the Department and to your Country, and you are an embarrassment to those of us serving here with State and a host of other federal agencies.

"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," you said. Since you failed to heed the Secretary's call for volunteers, does that mean you don't agree with the U.S. mission here in Iraq? Regardless of whether you agree with the policy or not, if you are not willing to do your job if called upon to serve, then you should do the rest of us a favor and leave -- you're in the wrong line of work.

No one's asking you to come here because it's fun or easy; it isn't. It's your duty. Your Country needs you, your Country has called you. Period. Step up and fulfill the oath you took when you entered the Service. Tens of thousands of brave Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Coast Guardsmen have done the same. Hundreds of State Department employees have done the same. We have Iraqi employees here who literally risk their lives here every day to work for us.

It's easy to "serve" your country from the banks of the Potomac, Jack; easy to serve it commuting from McClean or shopping at the local Safeway. True service, though, entails sacrifice. True service isn't just working 9 to 5, with your weekends free. True service is laying aside friends and family, creature comforts, the familiar, and doing what your Country and fellow Americans require of you.

"Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded," you asked? The gall. Who takes care of the children of our brave fighting men and women when they give their lives or are wounded in the service of their country? Are you somehow better than they are, Jack? Entitled to more than they are?

It is because of the likes of you and your ilk that the Service has a reputation in some circles as an effete group of cowering elitists more worried about their comforts than actually stepping up to the plate.

Step up Jack. Step up, or step off.

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

MD writes:

As the proud wife of a man who served his country in the army for 11 years and is now serving his country as a Foreign Service Officer, I find many of these comments very disheartening.

While in the army, my husband spent a year in Bosnia. As most of the wives did, I wore a yellow ribbon on a pin every day he was gone. We were living in Germany at the time, but my children and I spent a month in the States during that year and I still remember the dismay I felt every time someone would ask me about my pin and then respond with "oh yeah, we do have soldiers there, don't we?" or some similar phrase. Here I felt my family was making such a sacrifice, and yet the majority of the Americans I came into contact with in the States were barely aware that we had soldiers in Bosnia at all.

I feel the same dismay now, reading so many hateful comments about Foreign Service Officers by people who clearly have very limited actual knowledge of the roles and lives of FSOs. My husband just spent a year at a PRT in Afghanistan. It was no less of a sacrifice for our family than his year in Bosnia as a member of the military. His service is no less valid. The pieces of shrapnel he keeps on his desk from the IED that nearly cost him his life are no less real.

There are "wimps" and "weenies" in every single organization that exists (the FS and the military included). What's more, there is not a single person who has not, at one point or another, said something that made them look very much like a "whiner" at the time they said it. Luckily, it happens to most of us in less public settings. But to judge an entire organization on the remarks of one person is a mistake. In fact, even to judge that one person based on one comment made is not likely to be a very accurate judgment.

While there are some similarities between the military life and the diplomatic life, there are also many, many differences. One such difference that has continually been portrayed here as a similarity is the way future assignments are given. FSOs have much more control in where they go than military personnel do. They do not always get their top choice, but very very rarely does a FSO get posted to a place that was not even on their bid list. "World Wide Availability" is, in practice if not intent, meant to span an entire career. A very benign example: if a FSO has a child in braces, of course they will bid on a post that has adequate orthodontic care and will not even consider posts that don't. And yet, later in their career, when the braces are off or the child in college, that same FSO may very well end up happily going to a post where orthodontic care is not available. This is the mentality of bidding for FSOs -- it is very different from the military -- and agree with it or not, it should make the reaction to forced assignments at least more understandable.

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

Ben in Missouri writes:

I'm not in any way connected with the Foreign Service, just an average citizen. After reading the barrage of negative posts on this website, I wanted to let you all know that I, for one, don't think FSOs are cowards. You do very difficult work for our country. It's different from the military's mission, but no less important. You face different hardships than those faced by military personnel, but that doesn't change the fact that you sacrifice a great deal for the benefit of the rest of us. Thank you so much for your courage, your professionalism, and your perseverance during what must be a particularly trying time for the State Department.

Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007

David in U.S. writes:

If the wimps and weenies don't want to serve in Iraq then they shouldn't be allowed to serve anywhere those that won't serve should be removed from there cushy jobs...they stink.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

John in Washington, DC writes:

It's ironic in a way, because if the State Department was hoping to deflect some of the criticism of FSOs by having John Matel post this blog, others like Bill in Michigan who show up with comments like "what it takes to live with your whole family, including little kids, in some shithole in Africa, Asia or Latin America for three, sometimes four years" appear determined to open up their profession to further disdain from an entirely different perspective. Is "shithole" an official, uh, diplomatic term used in the Foreign Service, and are "shithole" countries (or is it continents?) advised of their status by means other than public blogging? Is that what diplomatic notes are used for?

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Hank in California writes:

I was offended by the self-centered complaints reflected in the comments of what appears to have been a few State Department employees. If you aren't willing to accept the responsibilities you have sworn to assume, when and where needed, then resign your commission and find another line of work. I haven't read that the State Department has much trouble recruiting.

You are not the only Federal Civilian employees being asked to serve overseas in difficult and possibly dangerous situations. But, your situation is clearly not equivalent to the risks assumed by members of the military, who, regardless of branch of service, are subject to being placed directly in the line of fire to defend us at any time.

My son is a civilian Merchant Marine Officer working for the Military Sealift Command, and my younger daughter is a MM2 in the Navy. Both have been to the war zone.

At the same time, I commend the rest of you who choose to serve overseas, and do so humbly, in the best tradition of government service. I'm an Army brat from the cold war, and a Navy veteran of Viet Nam, I know how difficult such assignments can be for your families. I also honor you and your families for the sacrifices you make for our country. Thank you.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Clark in Connecticut writes:

As a retired Soldier who encountered FSO during my overseas tours, the latest whining and moaning from "Career State Department" personnel reaffirms my opinion of them. That opinion was and is ,that as a group these folks are self absorbed, arrogant and very narcissistic who spend their careers apologizing for being Americans and America. We as a nation don't need those who are unwilling to do the heavy lifting for this country , while looking down their noses at this nations Warriors! Especially those who can't live up to their oath of office.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Stephen in North Carolina writes:

I've just read where all the positions appear to be filled in Iraq and no "forced" assignments will be made. I was disappointed. After witnessing the cowardness displayed at the "town hall" meeting, I had hoped many of those that spoke, and the others that applauded, would be fired.

As a veteran of both Vietnam and Desert Storm, I was appalled. I would have volunteered for duty in Iraq, or any place else that I could be an example to others of what freedom means. Freedom does not mean "do what I want" but also includes the freedom to do what's right. Our men and women lost lives to help establish freedom in a country where "rape chambers" were a part of life. I guess if the same thing ever happened in the United States, those of you that balked at serving, would never want another country over here helping us put down a brutal dictator. It would be acceptable if it were your wife and family.

Anyway, stay at home...please. Send me at no pay so the people of Iraq can learn what a real American is. Not someone that hides behind a desk.

USAF, MSgt, (Ret)

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Mike in California writes:

To: Careerist FSO's

From: US Army 19D

When in the service of your government, for which you volunteered for, you go when told. If you do not want to go then you should be dismissed. It's really that simple.

Your job is to represent the United States of America regardless of what 'administration' is currently in office. If you disagree with the policy, the location of duty or the length of service then resign. Quit. Obviously you are more interested in your 'career' than in serving your country or actually making a difference in the world.

There are soldiers, sailors and airmen who have been 'directed' to serve overseas and 99.99% of them have gone again and again. The few who didn't go had legitimate reasons or departed service and yes some of them deserted or went AWOL. However, thousands of others were called into an office and told that they would have to deploy as an Individual Augmentee (IA) or to fill a specialty vacancy and, sorry to say, you will be gone for 180 days... or 224 days or in some cases 415 days at a time. They went.

If serving your country is such a problem than stop doing it. You all have college degrees or other forms of advanced education so apply yourself out in the business world or maybe a college or something. Just stop putting yourselves on the cross because you didn't get assigned to Trinidad or Australia.

Well... There's always Canada.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Kitty in Oregon writes:

I don't think the reluctance of most of the people at the town meeting was due to cowardice or even fear of death. I believe they are fed up with the lack of professional diplomacy by this administration, the ineptitude of many of the higher ranking officials at State who were selected for their loyalty and not their expertise, and the lack of an adequate training program for those who are going into a very dangerous situation. As one diplomat said: "in any other country as dangerous as Iraq, the U.S. Embassy would have been shut down years ago".

President Bush is trying to accomplish through the state department employees what the government of Iraq will not do--keep the peace and develop democracy. It is difficult to see any future in this plan. As soon as our troops leave, anarchy will reign.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Rusty in Alabama writes:

This story and the resulting chorus of melodramatic whining from FSOs didn't surprise me in the least. Apparently, when called to a hazardous duty, these guys showed their real colors - yellow.

Having worked with several FSO during my military career, I've found that most of them have been more worried about personal comfort and compensation than about service to their nation. While I'm sure that there are good FSOs out there, that was my experience.

Oh my... scared of service in the Green Zone? That's where Marines and Soldiers go to relax! LOL

This debacle clearly shows how the State Department is a haven for the pinnacle in the stereotype of "public servants".

For those FSOs who have served in Iraq - thank you. My hat is off to you. For those who refuse to go... well, enjoy sitting on your behind while your coworkers pick up your slack.

Rusty
(awaiting my fourth set of orders to Iraq/Afghanistan)

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

MJ in U.A.E. writes:

I agree with some of what you have said in your posting. However, the comments from the meeting on the 31 October are justified. The FSOs signed up to protect the interests of the U.S. constitution, extend and maintain foreign relations and look after the best interests of the U.S. However, as more and more diplomats, servicemen and women, and the general public are realizing, our foreign policy (or the lack of it for that matter, has severely dented the image of U.S. diplomats, forces and sadly the nation, all around the globe, including our closest allies, the United Kingdom. I would hardly refer to the aftermath of the destruction in Iraq as an achievement as proclaimed by C. Rice, its a disgrace. We should be proud of our forces who have placed their lives on their line of duty, but what good has all this brought to Iraqi people or the families of those who have not returned home? Fake promises, lies, black ops and extortion are not what I would called protecting the interests of the U.S. The true meaning of the word "diplomacy" has been long crushed under the sound of U.S. war drums, which serves the pockets of our senators and corrupt government officials. The day C. Rice, takes up office in Iraq, or sends her loved ones to protect the FSO's, I will happily volunteer for a posting to any part of Iraq. However, we all know that this day will never come. It's one thing speaking about protecting the interest of U.S. constitution from the comfort of your $20m home, under the 24hr protection of the secret service, and another to be taking up office in an active combat zone where our very presence is loathed, not just by the Iraqis, but by the whole region, and sadly the world.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Eric in New York writes:

I'm a junior military officer who just got back from Iraq four weeks ago. I'm not going to call anyone a coward who doesn't want to go to a war zone, but I would say that I would go back to Iraq in a heartbeat for the opportunity to make a difference in the way that a dedicated diplomat could do in a place like Iraq. Without hyperbole, I'd even forego my block leave to make a difference if I could leave tomorrow as an FSO.

As a military officer, my mission is to seek out and destroy the enemies of the United States. That is a different kind of mission, but in the non-linear battlefield that is present in Iraq, the differences between what a diplomat can do and what a military officer is obligated to do in order to win are blurred.

You're lucky as FSOs to have this opportunity. This is exactly what experienced, trained personnel such as yourselves are needed for - to listen, to understand, and to sift through the minutia needed to evaluate another party to get to the root reality of a situation and find a diplomatic, negotiated solution. A diplomatic solution is what is needed ultimately, regardless of military success. Losing in Iraq will affect our country for years to come -- no one can dispute that -- and each small victory can change the course of the war.

You have the chance to positively affect the course of our country for years to come, and I hope that each of you currently serving as an FSO realizes this before balking at such an assignment.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Jason in North Dakota writes:

I am not part of the diplomatic core. But I put in 21 years in the army going where ever they told me to go. I didn't want to go to Iraq either. But when I received my orders, I deployed there. I was more than inconvenienced by a military stop loss (the back door draft). You guys are getting pay and benefits above and beyond what the average soldier receives while your sitting in the green zone. Meanwhile that soldier is dodging RPG's, rockets and small arms fire outside the green zone on a daily basis. You accepted the fact that the government would send you outside the U.S. when you joined the diplomatic core. It is likely that the required number of diplomats in Iraq will increase in the near future. If you do not like the way things have been going, you should either step aside and quite, or maybe you should have voted differently three years ago.

When I look at the numbers, it seems statistically safer to be a U.S. diplomat in Iraq than a soldier. 1 -vs.- over 3,000.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

John in Washington writes:

Tiger,
For what FS officers make, think military officers--our system tracks pretty well with that. The biggest practical differences that I can think of are that the military earnings are tax-free in areas that are in a war zone, military get a housing allowance in the US, a supportive public (can you name a movie where State is positively portrayed--damn liberals in Hollywood) and, to my mind most importantly, mostly deploy as a unit and have communities left behind that support families much more than State. I know this is not true for Guardmen and women, and more should definitely be done for them, but it makes a difference.

BTW, Iraq is now close to 100% staffed. I think the number for our other posts around the world is closer to 75%, so I hope our policymakers try to find funding to hire people to fully staff up other countries (think maybe diplomacy with China, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Venezuela, Cuba, etc., might be as or almost as important as Iraq going forward?) The diplomats go to a lot of places the military does not.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Mike in Saudi Arabia writes:

The military are a all volunteer force that understand the risks associated with their job- they will get killed and maimed as a result of their "chosen" occupation. For the most part they are compensated better than their civilian counterparts (tax free salary, medical and dental care etc) I am a U.S. Government civilian employee who is in the middle tier of the pay scale and make substantially less than a E7 in the military with 16 years of service. Personally I do not see there being much of a security issue in Iraq for State Department employees. Aren't you all personally protected by Blackwater?

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Allison in Virginia writes:

I am the granddaughter of a career diplomat and ambassador who also represented us with the UN. I know what hardship posts entail, because of what one of my parents went through. Most of my classmates in boarding school were the children of diplomats -- many in the Middle East -- to be kept out of harms way. While I never suffered what some of my classmates did -- having to hide under beds in embassies to avoid being shot in a coup de etat -- I know that none of these people, or their children, were cowards.

They were also guarded by MARINES, not private contractor cowboys who have no chain of command to follow, and are unwilling to put their uniforms back on! Somehow they are heroes, but the FSO are cowards?

I am not a coward! My grandfather was not a coward! My parents were not cowards!

It disgusts me to see a poor ' military' solution destroying ALL the hard work that was done by my grandfather in the ME. Maybe if the FSOs had been sent in before invading Iraq, we wouldn't be here today.

I also understand that it is not policy to have diplomats posted in what is clearly a war zone. Mr. Bush is fond of stating we are in a war, and Iraq is one of those battle grounds. Why then are FSO's expected to be in something that is only a 'military' operation?

Frankly, I am sick of hearing the more military types come on here and throw out the same sort of petty accusations about cowards and traitors as they do to any soldier who finally questions why he or she is being sent to die for no visible benefit. Guess what?

Army recruitment wouldn't be so problematic if other dedicated military professionals hadn't said "this is rubbish" after their 3rd and 4th tour of Iraq. Their families are being destroyed too. And for what?

The FSO is not the military, for a good reason. I don't know too many military people who take their families to do garrison duty in Bahrain, do you? Nor do they spend four years there either. They only take their families to the nice cushy posts in Germany...

Yes, FSOs do agree to serve allover the world, just like soldiers do. That doesn't mean they are obligated to follow blindly, or not question 'orders' when they see it is neither in the tradition or the purpose of the service they signed up for.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Johnie in Arkansas writes:

I am a retired military officer. Those of us in the military or who served in the military knew we could be sent anywhere at anytime. That is a part of being in the military.

Although it now looks like there won't be any directed FSO assignments to Iraq I am surprised the government would say they can force a government civilian in to a war zone.

Government civilians regardless of agency never signed up for that kind of duty. Most except for diplomatic security agents haven't been trained in combat.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Kerry in California writes:

Mr. Matel, thank you for such refreshing words. I am a military spouse and was deeply offended after reading the article you are referring to. Remember that being a FSO was a rational, independent choice made by each FSO and I feel no pity for them if they are sent to Iraq when I have families (many many many) families whose husbands, wives, fathers, and mothers are gone to Iraq for over 15 months (and then they come home for just over 12 months and then get sent back).

The only argument that is sound (and I do not know how FSO offices work) is that anyone being sent over to Iraq should have weapons or at least be guarded by those who have weapons. Understanding yours is a job to promote peace, but self-preservation should be allowed when you are in a war-torn country like Iraq.

Thank you for your patient and voluntary service. Thank you to your family who has also made a huge sacrifice. I, too, hope that more of your colleagues will just "get over it" and do their job!

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Julianne in Michigan writes:

Dear Mr. Matel,

Your "wimps and weenies" comment in this blog appears to have stirred your FSO colleagues to a greater sense of voluntarism, thus ending the need for future directed assignments, given the latest news reports. Very nice.

I have a couple of questions:

First, the State Department's newly-adopted policy of "transformational diplomacy" specifies that FSOs are to be proficient in the language(s) of the countries to which they are posted. Given this recent "blitz" assignment of FSOs to Iraq, are we to assume that all affected FSOs are proficient in Arabic? If not, how does the State Department hope to correct this deficiency?

Second, in January 2007, the State Department, in cooperation with PR Coalition, sponsored a "Private Sector Summit," the purpose of which was to garner the support and assistance of global public relations firms in advancing the nation's public diplomacy interests at a global level, with especial focus on countries where U.S. access is a bit restricted (as they are in Iraq). Purportedly that support and assistance was assured. Are your efforts in Iraq in fact being bolstered by public relations firms? Or was the "Private Sector Summit" really nothing more than an inordinately-expensive, social tete a tete?

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Tiger in Florida writes:

I know that I am showing up a little late to this party but I am really curious about a few things: How much does an FSO in Iraq, on average, make? How does this compare to a Marine PFC or Army Corporal walking patrol outside the green zone? What "benefits" does the military "enjoy" that the FSOs don't? Is being armed really considered a "benefit"?

I understand that the Secretary of State has her volunteers now but I am wondering what it takes to volunteer.

One more parting note: If the Democrats (or politicians in general) are saying that this war can only be won with Diplomacy, what happens to the military if the Diplomats won't go?

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Bradley in Florida writes:

I am amazed at the FSO that are having a problem with serving their country that they swore by oath to serve. I have been trying for two months to help in Iraq, to no avail. I can't understand why I can't help, but these so called career FSO that don't want to serve are crying about their family obligations. They knew when they joined that they would have to serve where ever in the world. It was okay for them while they did not have to go to Iraq. Perhaps the State Department should look for those that want to serve instead of trying to force the ones that don’t. I am an American citizen that spent time in the U.S. Army, and would love to help our country, but rules state because of my age (46) that I am too old for the military. Again this is hard for me to understand.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Eugene in Virginia writes:

Idiocy of the Administration aside, FSOs accepted worldwide availability and have the choice of accepting a directed assignment or resigning their commissions. Now if the training FSOs receive before going into war zones is what is really the issue, then the Department should deal with it. I suspect the division over this issue only reassures us that our Foreign Service is representative of the American people. Likewise, there's probably an equal amount of division within the military serving in Iraq, only the uniformed dissenters have no choice.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Doug in Minnesota writes:

It now seems enough diplomats will volunteer to fill the needed jobs in Iraq without directed assignments. I refuse to second-guess the wisdom and judgment, certainly not the patriotism, of either those who choose to go or those who choose otherwise. But it sure seems the Department's personnel types went off half-cocked. As a general rule it’s unwise to attempt to force people to do something they’d be perfectly willing to volunteer for if asked in the right way. And I'm fairly certain the military men and women here, both officers and enlisted, would bear me out on this point.

The comparisons made here between Foreign Service and military officers seem to me invidious. If we can't agree that, in the effort to project American influence and power in the world, the role of the diplomat is -- and should be -- profoundly different from that of the soldier, this is going to be a long and ultimately pointless discussion.

Some foreign service officers may have more experience than most military officers in dealing with foreigners. That doesn't make every newly commissioned FSO some latter-day Lawrence of Arabia who can come in and solve the problems of the world, or even some small part of the world. Particularly if they don't have the kind of skills and background that Lawrence started with.

There may well be a place in today's world for a more active foreign service, despite the traditional -- and IMO wise -- taboos against diplomats becoming involved in local affairs. That place may well be alongside the military, assisting with nation-building in troubled areas of the globe.

But if Transformational Diplomacy is going to mean we now need some kind of Foreign Service Militant, available for involuntary dispatch to the front lines with minimal training and/or background, then that needs to be made clear up front to the people who are going to join, and no less clear to those current diplomats who the transformers expect to transform. In my experience most foreign service officers weren't cut out to be soldiers, cops, or civil administrators, nor were we interested in being any of those things.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Edgar in Washington writes:

I believe the term "war zone" is too general and glosses over some important distinctions regarding role of the Foreign Service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the current assessment is that security and development in Iraq is threatened by an insurgency and that therefore the Coalition has adopted a counter insurgent strategy, then victory is measured in terms of people not land. If so, then the FSO skill set is necessary in Iraq, whether it be public diplomacy, economic or political in nature.

Even if the assumptions above are too idealistic for some, then there still is the argument that now more than ever, there is a need for genuine and insightful reporting, which, again, requires a skill set for which the Foreign Service Officer is particularly well suited.

Whether one believes that our strategy in Iraq is based in the principles of counter insurgency or that the Coalition must reassess the situation and its goals, it seems to me that there is an important role for the Department of State.

As for the senior level officers whose services and skills are in great demand in Iraq, I can understand the reluctance of some from serving. The probability of meaningful results and progress versus the hardship (real and imagined), may seem unrewarding. However, the experience senior level officers could pass on to the many mid level and junior officers serving under them in Iraq, provides a valuable and very tangible long term benefit, not only to the Foreign Service, but to our future foreign policy capacity. A legacy they should embrace.

Finally, to those who were not swayed by any of the previous arguments -- world wide availability means WORLD WIDE availability. Granted, the operational environment and maybe even the nature of the foreign service has changed in some manner. For some this will be acceptable, others may decide it is not and chose to leave (an option many of our military colleagues do not have).

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Paul in Iraq writes:

I am the Provincial Reconstruction Team Leader for Sadr City and Adhamiya in downtown Baghdad. I was promoted (from Haiti) and certainly did not need to come to Iraq for my career. I did so out of commitment to service -- and I have met so many other Foreign Service Officers who feel the same way. I work with a magnificent group of equally committed military officers from the 2/82nd Airborne. We are making progress at the local level on governance, reconciliation and to a much slower and lesser extent on economic development. Is the situation easy to deal with? Definitely not. But we are needed and our country needs us to do this. Dangerous? Sometimes yes. But we all face danger at times in the Foreign Service. Like many FS members, I can tell many war and danger stories -- not just from Iraq. I have served all over the developing world. It is the nature of the world we deal with. We need to be leading the effort.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Anne in Washington, DC writes:

Ditto to everything said by S in California! I could not have said it better myself.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

OT writes:

When I personally joined the FS, it was NOT part of the job to serve in a war zone. In fact, we were reassured during training that, while we are commit to work in an embassy overseas, we would be evacuated if our post country turned into a war zone. For that reason, we have no embassy in Somalia. It's not analogous with the military at all.

Why does the State Department offer extra benefits to people in Iraq? To encourage people to go. If it were our job to go around the world no questions asked, the State Department should just pay everyone the same salary around the world.

If the State Department does not make service in Iraq worthwhile, it would face a problem with recruitment and retention. The sole criteria for the Foreign Service should not be the willingness to serve in war zones.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Joe writes:

No, you know what makes me sick? That all of you jerks are so damn happy to jump on the bandwagon and rail off against people you don't know, and people whose situations you don't know. So a few people ruined the reputation of everybody else, get over it. Although the need for jobs in Iraq called for more than the State Department body had anticipated, most of the jobs have been volunteered for. I'm sure they all would have gone had they so many people not been inconvenienced by the short notice. These people are NOT cowards, and they're not crying, and the only people I see passing on sob stories and whining are you. Yes, you. The next time something as self-righteous and sickening as these posts starts to come out of your mouth, run to the bathroom.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Kate in Virginia writes:

Foreign Service Officers are not cowards. But anybody who decides to call them this behind their backs is. These people regularly get shipped to hardship posts with their children, without military training for combat zones, and have had short notice about this decision that is going to change many families' lives. More Foreign Service officers are torn about this than you think, so I think you should ease off a little. The whole nation supports the fine soldiers who go to Iraq, people could be a little more generous to these people who are often left out, who work behind the scenes, who in the past have been some of the first Americans to die in unstable and later war-torn countries. Our overseas situation makes everybody edgy, but this is not the place for you to gang up and vent. Some of the bravest and most selfless people I have met are Foreign Service Officers, and although you may aim your slanders at one person, you end up hitting them all.

Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007

Bill in Michigan writes:

@ Snook in Wisconsin -- To "Snook" in Wisconsin, if you're looking in again at this blog and taking another rare break from Fox News and Bill O'Reilly: I haven't heard of too many U.S. submarines engaging in combat since, who knows, was their any submarine "combat" in Vietnam? So you're hardly one to call people "cowards" who are reluctant to serve, unarmed in real active combat zones, areas that are nothing like anywhere you ever served. The sad thing about this whole debate is that one errant comment at a town meeting by an unrepresentative FSO who was frustrated at a pathetic and childish performance by one of our so-called leaders (the Director General), lures out of the woodwork a bunch of "God, guts and glory" types like yourself who have no clue about the Foreign Service, U.S. foreign policy, what causes all these conflicts we're involved in or, most importantly, what it takes to live with your whole family, including little kids, in some shithole in Africa, Asia or Latin America for three, sometimes four years.

I am an FSO and three out of my four posts have been hardships. In Bogota I rode to and from the Embassy in an armored van, every day, with Uzi toting body guards peering out the window watching for FARC guerrillas, narcoterrorists or random slimeballs just looking for a reason to put a bullet in our heads. So keep watching O'Reilly, hang onto that gunrack, and do whatever you need to do to keep feeling good about your distorted, "snook-centric" worldview. And leave the debate about forcing FSOs to go to Iraq to people who have an atom of a clue about the issue.

Posted on Wed Nov 14, 2007

Scott in Virginia writes:

Lack of sustainability.

I believe that is behind much of the controversy that has been raised by State Department assignments to Iraq.

Although the media has reported on the difficulties the military has faced due to the necessity of 2nd and even 3rd deployments to Iraq and/or Afghanistan, it has not yet been raised as a concern for other areas of the U.S. Government supporting our efforts in those two countries.

Well, it's time to start thinking about that now. While most FSOs are willing to take on one of the 750 tough, unaccompanied assignments State has (over 2,000 of the 11,000 FSOs have already done so in Iraq or Afghanistan alone), we have more than 250 other overseas posts to staff and a shortage of 1,000 to 2,000 FSOs at the moment, depending on who is doing the counting. A lot of people do not have adequate training (it takes 2 years to get the average person to a moderate level of fluency in Arabic!), or are not at the right stage of their careers to take these assignments on.

Sound a bit like Management 101? Hire several hundred new FSOs to plug those gaps and permit additional training, and within a year or two the supply will probably meet the demand.

It's not just about numbers, though. I think FSOs are right to question the wisdom of establishing the biggest embassy in the world in the middle of a war zone. By the standards I have seen applied over the years, Embassy Baghdad should have been "drawn down" to a minimal number of critical staff, not ballooned to several hundred diplomats.

I would liken those concerns to those raised by the brave soldiers who asked former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld why they were not being provided proper body armor.

For the record, I am bound for an assignment in Afghanistan, and like John Matel, am excited about the opportunity to help the U.S. work through some of its most important foreign policy issues. I don't think it is helpful, though, to impugn the integrity of those who choose not to take similar assignments at this time or who question how our operations are being managed.

Posted on Wed Nov 14, 2007

John in Washington, DC writes:

@ S in California -- When you say, "I have proven my... heroism," that may be just the sort of unintended hyperbole that gets FSOs into trouble at times, because one usually doesn't promote his own heroism, if you see what I mean. A more appropriate statement -- especially in your quest to emulate the military -- might be that you've done your duty (even if you did it heroically).

Secondly, I'm not sure what FSOs being the equivalent of commissioned military officers has to do with any of this, since military officers are no less subject to service discipline than noncommissioned officers and enlisted soldiers when it comes to following orders to deploy to a combat zone. (It may also be worth keeping in mind that the Foreign Service isn't just about FSOs, as there are many Foreign Service Specialists and members of the Civil Service in Iraq as well.)

Finally, the benefits you would lay claim to are earned by soldiers in a combat zone not just because, like you, they might be underneath an incoming mortar round or on the wrong side of an IED, but because they are subject to being sent into combat.

This is an important distinction that is being overlooked in many critical ways as this discussion rages on. No one is asking FSOs to engage in combat -- to truly "be soldiers" -- thus the continuing refrain about being sent to Iraq "unarmed" or "untrained" is irrelevant in connection with any increased risk of harm. (Certainly there is a need for training to avoid all sorts of other undesired outcomes in an FSO's work, of course.)

If and when the time comes for an FSO to be killed or injured in Iraq, it is most likely going to be as a result of indirect fire or an IED, and these are weapons which do not "seek out" the unarmed and untrained. FSOs are compensated for this risk by receiving danger pay.

On the other hand, being "treated like the military" -- and thus entitled to the many benefits you mention -- can mean doing things like going out on a daily foot patrol in a potentially hostile neighborhood and exposing yourself to direct fire. Or perhaps it involves driving around for hours and hours, day after day, and not just taking the occasional trip to a ministry. It can also mean enduring the mental stresses that accrue from killing people who are trying very hard to kill you.

Soldiers do very different things and take far more ongoing risks to earn what they do. That is why several thousand of them have lost their lives in Iraq.

Regardless of the heroic nature of your service, you are not a grunt, and you should think twice about laying claim to a piece of their blood-soaked turf as a condition for doing what you do.

(Oh, by the way, I believe that State Department has a number of medals, including a Medal for Valor. Perhaps you should look into that. Meanwhile, the next time you think someone is comparing you to a sergeant, that's a badge of distinction you should wear with pride.)

Posted on Wed Nov 14, 2007

Eric in California writes:

I feel that as an FSO one's job is to represent the interests of the United States, which is to be an envoy of the President overseas. I don't understand why some FSOs find it below them to accept the fact that they signed up for a job that would require them to serve their country abroad - and the Middle East and Iraq are the hotspots today. I have a roommate serving in Iraq and he isn't in danger - to the contrary.

I don't honestly understand what FSOs do because the Green Zone is so huge; it is probably like another American city within the city of Baghdad. You are probably safer in that city than you would be in any major metropolitan American city given the security and fences that surround that compound.

If you don't like your job, then quit and do something else. But don't wine and complain. Give the opportunity to serve America to someone else who would like to represent the United States.

Posted on Wed Nov 14, 2007

J.V. in Maryland writes:

I have been reading through this blog because I stumbled onto it; I have been Googling "Jack Crotty" or "Jack Croddy" ever since I read his contemptible remarks because I have been wondering whether one or more of his colleagues would disavow them. Instead I see more whining: about how the military has better perks (!), how Foreign Service Officers must not be compared to enlisted military (!!), how Secretary Rice doesn't love you (boo-hoo), how the "misinformation and calumnies in the media are to blame." But Croddy's remarks appear to have been accurately quoted (although his name was initially misspelled). He said what he said, and what he said is your problem. Not the media's. Not the military's. Not the secretary's. Deal with it.

Posted on Wed Nov 14, 2007

Sarah in Pennsylvania writes:

Freedom isn't free. I live near the Cemetery of the Alleghenies and see new graves every month to remind me of that fact.

If you join a company who's business is to bring about peace one has to assume that there is currently conflict to be resolved so that peace can be achieved.

I was a peacenik in the 60-70s and now realize what a disservice I did to my friends who were willing to die for peace. Now my son-in-law is willing to do the same. He is doing his job and not whining. Why can't you do your job without whining?

Buck-up or quit the job and find something safe to do. You will probably miss out on a chance to play kick ball with Iraqi children or help a family. But you will be safe. Get out, leave the job to those who defend freedom and believe that peace is an admirable goal.

Posted on Wed Nov 14, 2007

Eddie in Maryland writes:

A couple of observations need to be made:

1. No one has refused a directed assignment to Iraq.

2. Anyone who is in the FS for a number of years serves in real hardship posts with conditions that most Americans cannot imagine.

3. It was a Town Hall meeting. Do the posters here believe that the intent of a Town Hall meeting is so that those who called it can tell the participants what to do and the participants should salute smartly and leave? I was under the assumption that a Town Hall meeting was at the core of our democratic principles and such a give and take (overwrought or not) is to be expected.

4. Management in the Department of State blew this and blew it badly. Who would quietly submit to their management announcing potentially life-altering rules in the dark of night to be relayed in the press?

5. And you Mr. Matel, I respect your right to post this and I even understand your perspective since you are currently serving there. However, scrolling through the many misinformed and visceral comments I came across this reply by you:

Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:

"@ Mary in Texas -- ...I wrote this post to indicate that most of us are not like those guys at the town hall. You notice, BTW, that they were all in Washington. What does that say? "

Shame on you. You perpetuate a myth that we in the FS take refuge in Washington. You know as well as I do that Washington service is just as compulsory as hardship service and comment that was uncalled for.

Posted on Wed Nov 14, 2007

Lindsay in North Carolina writes:

As I sit and type this my husband is currently gearing up for his third Thanksgiving, Christmas and birthday in a war zone. My husband honorably and without complaint deployed to Iraq twice, he was then stop-lossed and sent to Afghanistan for 16 months. His military contract was extended without his permission yet he and the thousands of other stop-lossed soldiers are not on TV whining about the 'potential death sentence' they have been given. If you sign up to be a Foreign Service Officer then you have just signed up to serve in ALL foreign countries, just as our military members know they are signing up potentially go to war.

Grow up Foreign Service Officers, do the job you get paid to do or find another line of work.

Posted on Wed Nov 14, 2007

James in Virginia writes:

I had the pleasure to work under John Matel as a State Department Intern less than one year ago while still taking classes at GWU. I am not at all surprised to see him post this note in a typical lighthearted manner that he seems to have mastered.

I am particularly proud of him considering my current job: I am an officer in the Army training to run convoys in Iraq in the near future. I have no choice IF I will go. I surely will. Even then, had I a choice I would go anyway. There are too few fine men and women handling the burden that soldiers and dedicated stateman like John are asked to carry out. Why should I, or any person who offers service to his country turn that down so blatantly, so shamelessly, without considering the implications of my actions?

It is my professional goal to work as an FSO one day, to continue service to my country, and yes, to enjoy the perks that come with being a diplomat. But sometimes to get a lot, you have to give a little.

Posted on Wed Nov 14, 2007

Auem writes:

We need a five year term limit on the FSO job. This will allow more Americans to serve and they will respect the work.

Posted on Wed Nov 14, 2007

Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:

@ Roger -- Most FSOs are not that way. One reason I wrote the initial post was to counter the impression made by those guys at the town hall. I was ashamed of how they acted and I wanted to call them out. Now we hear that the complainers were not even representative of the town hall.

I think we (FSOs) sometimes get a bad reputation because the biggest complainers have the biggest mouths. Most of the rest of us just keep just do our jobs and keep quiet believing that everybody understands that the complainers are not speaking for us. Unfortunately, if all the public sees on TV are the hysterical whiners, they think that must be how all of us behave.

If you look at the news updates, you see that we have filled all but a couple dozen jobs with VOLUNTEERS. Obviously my overwrought colleagues at that town hall are not the voice of the FS. They just talk loudest.

Posted on Wed Nov 14, 2007

S in California writes:

I am a Foreign Service Officer who has served in Iraq -- twice, a full year tour, and a previous TDY. No one forced me to go; I went of my own volition to make a difference. I have also served in Nigeria, Cameroon, Beirut, Tunis and Brazil, so I am no stranger to hardship. For the FS bashers, I have proven my patriotism and heroism. I am sorry if your do not recognize the value of unarmed civilians voluntarily going into a combat zone to serve their country.

I have no objection to directed assignments to Iraq, as long as the directed assignments fairly target individuals who have systematically avoided serving in hardship tours. Those individuals should be ordered to Iraq, and they should quit if unwilling to go. I do object to the lambasting of the entire foreign service based on the bad behavior of a few. The majority of us are not the whiny weenies we are portrayed as being in biased media reports.

I was at the town hall meeting, and those of us present were not told that the details of this meeting were going to be released to the press. We understood this was an internal meeting with our human recourses department for a no-penalties discussion of a proposed new HR policy. Press coverage of the meeting excludes legitimate questions raised by FS officers about the nature of the assignments system.

The comparisons of foreign service officers to enlisted military in multiple posts on this blog is spurious and needs to be addressed. Foreign Service Officers are commissioned officers, just like military officers. The appropriate comparison is to commissioned military officers, not enlisted.

If the foreign service is expected to serve in war zones, give us the same benefits as the military: 1) tax free pay in theatre (which I know for a fact includes countries outside active war zone, including most of the Middle East) -- FS officers pay taxes everywhere they serve, all the time-- they do not get tax free benefit at any post 2) free health care for life (if we are to be treated as military, give us military health care) 3) veterans' preference on employment (we don't get this now) 4) government funding for housing while assigned state-side (at present we pay out of our pockets for housing when assigned stateside); the military benefit equates to significant equity from purchase of property by officers who get USG money for housing stateside) 5) more transparent promotion systems (military have point values that determine eligibility for promotions; our promotions are along lines of stealth decisions in smoke-filled rooms -- secret decisions that are never explained) 6) promotions ceremonies at which our accomplishments are celebrated by senior officers and our colleagues (we just get our name in a cable and no celebration) 7) ribbons and medals to recognize our accomplishments (yup, don't get this either), 8) professional development through staff colleges and war colleges - these opportunities are few and far between for the FS but standard for military. We get none of these things now, and that's OK, but if we are not going to get the advantages of military service, is it fair to expect us to accept service serve in military zones? I would argue it is not. Also, the military position is contradictory and ridiculous. I have personally heard all of the following from the military, portrayed to various degrees on this blog: State has dropped the ball in Iraq. Diplomats are weenies doing clerical jobs, for excessive pay. Diplomats (i.e. Secretary Rice and other cabinet Secretaries) are responsible for the war (umm, wasn't that the VP and the SecDef?) so career diplomats are responsible for fixing the problem (even though they are not political appointees and their views were brushed aside by the administration) and therefore career diplomats should be punished for failure of administration's policy.

Get real here people -- the career diplomats are paid to give their best advice to whatever administration is in power, and if their advice is ignored, to do their best to implement the policy they are given. They are not wizards, cannot make flawed policies succeed. They cannot go into a messed up situation and miraculously fix it, nor should they be expected to. Such expectations indicate a total lack of understanding of how diplomacy works.

I have no problem with criticizing the few U.S. diplomats who are not worldwide available, but please do not tar us all with the same cowardly brush -- most are committed professionals. And please do not hold the professional diplomatic corps responsible for fixing the administration�s mistakes in Iraq. There is only so much diplomacy can do; we are not miracle workers. If you buy the pottery barn analogy "You break it; you bought it" then sorry, the folks who bought Iraq ain't the Department of State. They bought it -- let them fix it (and staff it).

Posted on Wed Nov 14, 2007

John in Washington, DC writes:

Even in the face of America's costly toll in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years, there is a generation of Foreign Service Officers (including the past and current presidents of the American Foreign Service Association) who are still fond of quoting the "statistic" that more ambassadors have been killed in the line of duty since the war in Vietnam than generals or admirals.

On the heels of the public relations debacle following the State Department's unfortunate town hall meeting on Iraq, the false bravado underlying this inappropriate declaration is going to ring just that much more hollow.

Notwithstanding whatever efforts are underway to repair the damage -- and regardless of whether or not the characterization is deserved -- it's hard to escape the awful feeling that the Foreign Service has been stained a shade of yellow that just isn't going to wash out easily in the minds of the American public.

As AFSA's leadership and other disgruntled members of the Senior Foreign Service plan their next moves to try and fend off FSOs' obligations to serve in accordance with their oath, one can only wonder whose longer term interests are really being served.

Perhaps the next trip up to Capitol Hill to persuade Congress to more adequately compensate members of the Foreign Service for some hardship or other will offer an opportunity to find the answer to that question.

Meanwhile, FSOs such as the author of this posting are probably all too well positined to find out right now how much the tragicomical display at Foggy Bottom is going to help them get their jobs done in Iraq.

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Steven in California writes:

I'm not an FSO but I wouldn't mind joining, and even going to Iraq. I have degrees in criminal justice and political science, and a Master degree in Public Administration. 23+ years of information technology experience. There would only be two simple requests: 1) training in Arabic, and 2) training in armed and unarmed combat. Why? Quite simple: if the unfortunate does happen, I'd like to be prepared and I'd rather not go down without a fight.

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Joe in Georgia writes:

I would like to comment on this issue. I applied to become a FSO but did not make the cut. I joined the military to help my cause. I would be more than happy to go over and pull a tour for the State department and try to get things going within the Iraqi government especially if it means that my brothers and sisters in arms can come home when the mission is done. FSO's are no different than the military, except they don't carry weapons nor does their pay reflect what they are really worth. You have lost all respect within the military. Whining like they are going straight to the execution chamber with no hope of reprieve even though many, many young patriotic Americans are making sacrifices every day, some the greatest sacrifice for their country and you disgrace them that way. I wish Gen. Patton heard that diplomat. He would slap him silly and send him to Iraq in the first group over.

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Steve in California writes:

I am not an State Department employee, however I am a veteran (volunteer) from the Vietnam era, and I find the actions of the employees refusing to deploy reprehensible and cowardly. Your VOLUNTEER jobs as employees of the State Department do not allow you the choice of a required assignment to accomplish the mission at State. How dare you act in this manner. If you do NOT want to serve then QUIT. I would prefer that you not represent my country in any manner. Maybe you can just move to Canada. They welcome cowards also.

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Dan in Washington, DC writes:

@ Gary in Virginia -- You make an interesting point about it not being only some U.S. Foreign Service Officers, but also some U.S. Military Officers, asking some questions concerning assignments to Iraq. Along these lines, here is a Washington Post article reporting on some comments that U.S. Armed Forces Officers recently had for the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So in a sense DOD has already had some town hall meetings with some concerns being expressed ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302588.html

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Snook in Wisconsin writes:

The FSO's that are crying about having to serve in Iraq make me sick. You take the money, you take the perks, you take the retirements, you sit in DC drinking your Starbucks. Time to pony up, chumps. I did 6 years in submarines and went to places every spec-op that was life threatening. I knew the risks and so do you, you cowards.

As for the FSO's that accept the risk and do their job - good for you. You are stepping up when your country needs you.

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Reynold in Florida writes:

I will take the place of ANY FSO who is afraid to go to Iraq. Please let me know when I can leave.

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Shelly in California writes:

The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.
-- Thucydides

To all FSOs-you took an oath to serve our nation by means of diplomacy-your nation needs you; the soldiers that carry out your directives need you; Iraq needs you. Your service is required, yet you cower in fear.

I took an oath as an Army Officer and I was scared to go, but I mustered my strength and went-twice. When I took the oath, I took it seriously; I took it literally. You don't get to choose where you are needed.

FSO's must answer the call-your nation and your military waits for your much needed skill, intellect, and diplomatic training.

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Roger in Utah writes:

I'm not an FSO but I am a retired Army officer. I find the controversy over assignment to Iraq by some in State not only distasteful but cowardly. Your job, like mine, is to serve your country. Period. Not when it's convenient or comfortable or fun but always. If you don't like that, then get out. It's that simple. I could care less whether these words 'offend' you or not; your conduct and lack of dedication offends me! This is exactly why the military has such a low opinion of diplomats. The author of this letter is an exception but for the rest of you, if you don't want the job give it to someone who is more capable and less a coward. Coward. That's the word for someone who won't risk their personal comfort or safety in the national interest but will still take the governments check. My disgust is limitless as I am sure it the case for those soldiers and Marines currently deployed.

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Dan in Washington, DC writes:

Re the suggestion that @ Harry in Massachusetts offers about the State Department making public a tape of the State Department Town Hall Meeting where the Director General of the Foreign Service discussed assignments to Iraq, I think that is an appropriate idea.

I work at State and I've seen a tape of this meeting. As @ Jane reported, most of the meeting was a very productive, informative, positive and professional exchange regarding various issues and details related to staffing Foreign Service position and Foreign Service Officer service in Iraq. The majority of the exchanges at the meeting focused on Foreign Service Officers wanting to know the specifics about their service in assignments in Iraq, and also wanting to know about the support the Department will provide to those have already and will in the future serve in Iraq. The majority of the questions and comments were NOT about Foreign Service Officers objecting to or refusing to serve in Iraq!

Only towards the end of the meeting did some of the more emotional and heated exchanges take place. Seemingly, these few exchanges have been taken somewhat out of context.

As is so often the case, what has been publicized by the media is basically only the emotional and heated exchanges, while the forthright and positive exchanges that characterized the majority of the meeting were not highlighted or at all mentioned.

An example of this focus on the emotional exchanges only is the CNN report found at the link below. In addition to only showing a few seconds of several highly-charged, emotional exchanges (taken out of what was a meeting that lasted about an hour and largely was characterized by much less emotion and much more professionalism), the CNN reporters report that the meeting was an "open revolt" and a "stunning uprising." If this town hall meeting was an open revolt and a stunning uprising, then does CNN characterizes everyday U.S. Congressional proceeding as all-out, doomsday, global thermo-nuclear exchanges? Anyway, here is CNN clip:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics

For another perspective on this issue, below is a link to the American Foreign Service Associations (AFSA) take on these matters. Of special note is this excerpt taken from the AFSA President’s November 5th letter found on this site: “AFSA reminds everyone that directed assignments are not a certainty. Both the Secretary and Director General have said that they remain open to filling the vacancies with volunteers if they materialize. At least 15 additional volunteers stepped forward last week. Others may do so this week.” AFSA link: http://www.afsa.org/president-update.cfm.

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Gary in Virginia writes:

Anyone who looks at the current, record-low, military officer retention rates will see that it isn't just FSOs who are avoiding service in Iraq. Here are some quotes:

"The Congressional Research Service has noted that Army projections show its officer shortage -- which will be approximately 3,000 line officers in FY 2007 -- will grow to about 3,700 officers in FY 2008, and will continue at an annual level of 3,000 or more through FY 2013." [Source: Government Accountability Office, Military Personnel: Strategic Plan Needed to Address Army’s Emerging Officer Accession and Retention Challenges,[January, 2007, page 27.]

"This trend also continues at the Army’s premier academy, West Point. According to statistics compiled by the academy, of the 903 Army officers commissioned upon graduation in 2001, nearly 46 percent left the service last year -- 35 percent at the conclusion of their five years of required service, and another 11 percent over the next six months. Further, more than 54 percent of the 935 graduates in the class of 2000 had left active duty by this January, the statistics show. These figures mark the lowest retention rate of graduates after the completion of their mandatory duty since at least 1977." [ibid, page 6.]

Interviews with former West Point superintendents, graduates, and retired officers point to the wear and tear on officers and their families from multiple deployments in Iraq as the key reason why these officers are leaving in such large numbers. "Iraq is exerting very strong influence on the career intentions of junior officers," said retired Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, a former superintendent of West Point." [Bender, Bryan, ?West Point Grads Exit at High Rate,? Boston Globe, April 11, 2007]

We won't see a DOD equivalent of the State Department's now-infamous town hall Meeting on directed assignment to Iraq, but it is clear nevertheless that many Army officers are voting with their feet.

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Harry in Massachusetts writes:

@ Jane -- Thank you, Jane, for your first hand report on the "town meeting". While far from the scene, I believe you have exactly sized up the situation and management failure in the wake of the meeting.

Where are the responses of State and Foreign Service leadership to the misinformation and calumnies in the media...including their own Blog? Is management opting to throw its soldiers to the lions as a diversion from the real policy issues? Would Gates (or Powell) stand by while his officers--his vital human capital--were being denigrated?

Blog parent Public Affairs should step in. Ask CSPAN to run a tape of the full town meeting, along with discussion by AFSA management and the Secretary, or her designee if she can't find time. Make the program available to the media--and field via Dipnote.

Service discipline may still bar taking up the core policy issue, the war, but entirely appropriate would be discussion of the huge opportunity costs in foreign policy, as elsewhere, of the Iraq deployment.

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Fred in Thailand writes:

Military personal sign up knowing they may be sent to war. When a Foreign Service Officer signs up for worldwide availability, are they to assume they may be sent to a war zone? Somehow, I think very few diplomats ever thought they could be forced into serving in such an environment. This is a draft, nothing more nothing less.

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Bill in Spain writes:

I have to agree with you, John. As a Foreign Service Officer who has served in his share of differential tours, I am somewhat dismayed to see the reaction. It seems a given that we are worldwide available and that there may come a time when you are assigned somewhere you did not particularly want to go. I feel those who declare their resistance most shrilly are doing the rest of us no favors. Our military colleagues are already disgusted by us and disrespecting the entire FS for the actions and statements of a few. Most of us are loyal and dedicated and, regardless of our political affiliations or our personal feelings regarding the situation in Iraq, will do our duty where it is required of us. Those considering vocal dissent should carefully consider the consequences of their words on the entire FS.

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Jane writes:

I am an Foreign Service Officer. I was at the town hall meeting. And I'm disgusted by the way this whole aftermath has played out in the media -- and worse, by the way the Department has handled it.

I don't think there was a person in that auditorium who thought he or she could change the policy. The vast majority of questions were on implementation issues, and were on technical details; those that weren't, dealt with some anger over how the news was disseminated. The reason you only see one sound bite in dozens -- if not hundreds -- of newspaper and online articles is because that was essentially the only question/comment that would've been readily accessible to someone outside the profession. This was in no way the public protest it has been painted to be.

Moreover, although the initial Reuters coverage was fairly accurate, later reporting focused only on the "death sentence" comment and cut other important context, such as the way the Director-General hectored and belittled the audience, and compared FSOs to slave owners. The mood was far less confrontational at the outset of the meeting than at the end. And that, I believe, is the reason for the smattering of applause that Croddy received (which was far less, incidentally, than what was -- justifiably -- received than the brave woman who talked about her PTSD). People were applauding his anger against a Director General who was behaving like a child.

So: do "most" FSOs oppose directed assignments? That's an open (and easy to research) question that certainly wasn't answered during the meeting.

What has been answered is that, in the face of a massive public display of hatred for and ignorance about the diplomatic function, the Department's only official response has been to dig up a clumsy flag-waver to egg on the detractors. How difficult would it have been to pull just one person from the "R" bureau to track and respond to news coverage with factual op-eds -- heck, even letters -- setting the record straight about the so-called "cushy" FSO life and about public service? It may seem like a warning shot to internal dissenters now, but what about when the lawmakers who are also following all this coverage realize how much popular approbation they can gain by slashing State budgets?

And gosh, could any of this in any way explain why only 12 percent feel the Secretary has the interests of the Foreign Service at stake?

And gee, could that, in turn, explain any of the reluctance so many of us feel (quite apart from the question of whether we'll serve) in contemplating this assignment?

(For FSOs against directed assignments: here's a nifty thought-experiment. Would you feel differently if Colin Powell had asked you to go? I know what my answer would be.)

Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007

Thomas in Colorado writes:

I've been trying to get on with the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office as a Provincial Reconstruction Team Public Diplomacy Officer for more than a year, but have been rejected time and again. And I probably have the appropriate qualifications: years abroad in Asia, former journalist/editor at one of America's premier newspapers, master's degree in international relations, a firm belief in the mission, and a strong understanding of the principles and practice of public diplomacy and public and civil affairs (about which I teach at a local university). Would that those who truly want to serve and are qualified had the chance to do so.

Posted on Mon Nov 12, 2007

Andy in Egypt writes:

@ those military and former military personnel who hurl insults --

I would never consider logging onto the Pentagon's official blog to post entries to lambast those who work at Defense. I would never log on to a website for soldiers and preach to them about what they should or shouldn't be doing on the battlefield. I welcome thoughtful observations from military personnel from either side of the discussion regarding State's deployment to Iraq. For those who just want an excuse to insult the State Department and the Foreign Service (who, let's face it, you never liked anyway), I suggest you look for Rush Limbaugh's blog site. I'm sure you'll be among friends there.

Posted on Mon Nov 12, 2007

James in Virginia writes:

I read with interest "Envoys Resist Forced Iraq Duty" article in the Washington Post and offer these comments. As background, I served a career as a Naval officer with tours at our embassy in Kuwait, where I worked for Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and the military training mission in Saudi Arabia. I returned to government service with the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office. As an "inside outsider" my comments on State's Iraq experience may be useful.

Some members of the Foreign Service are discomfited by Secretary Rice's emphasis on expeditionary diplomacy as opposed to fairly benign environment many have grown up in. That's understandable, but is not sustainable. State must be in the field to stay relevant. The Defense Department recognizes the need for more Foreign Area Officers (FAOs) and Civil Affairs (CA) officers. The intelligence community (IC) is recruiting more analysts and operations officers with Middle Eastern or Muslim heritage. While these initiatives will take several years to pay off, they will erode the influence of State, and the soundness of our foreign policy, if more FSOs don't deploy to complement the military and IC. The military appreciates State's area expertise, but the Foreign Service has to be where the military is - Anbar, Diyala, South Baghdad - not the Green Zone or Washington. Otherwise, the initial conditions will be set by the Army, Marines, and CIA. When State finally shows up it'll have to live with it.

The Post article mentioned "perceived disrespect from the U.S. military" for the Foreign Service. I would venture to say one reason is because the military has had to backfill the State Department positions in the Provincial Reconstruction Teams. As a result, junior and middle-ranking military officers are negotiating with Iraqi politicians and tribal chiefs and, even if they are doing a credible job, have to be wondering why they can't get some political backup from experienced diplomats. After Iraq, the military may take away the belief that it doesn't need State. I can't even imagine what an Iraqi tribal chief (who has fought, then negotiated with, our military) will think of a diplomat who arrives after the dust settles and claims to speak for America.

State's opposite numbers in the military and intelligence community operate in military and paramilitary systems and go where they are needed. A Foreign Service officer corps that picks and chooses assignments based on its approval of any President's policy only raises doubts about its staying power and, sotto voce, its patriotism. In Iraq, even private contractors have proved more deployable than the "Foreign" Service. This means MREs, no privacy-berthing, and casualties. Welcome to your future.

General Barry McCaffrey reviewed the reconstruction of Iraq and wrote, "The State Department actually cannot direct assignment of their officers to serve in Iraq. State frequently cannot staff essential assignments such as the new PRTs which have the potential to produce such huge impact in Iraq. The bottom line is that only the CIA and the U.S. Armed Forces are at war. This situation cries out for remedy." Ambassador Crocker suggested one such remedy and it may have left his colleagues bewildered and angry, but is also offers the Foreign Service the opportunity to consider where they want our foreign policy to go and if they want to take it there. If not, as we said in the Navy when a valued shipmate departed, "We don't know what we'll do without you, but if we have to, we'll think of something."

Posted on Mon Nov 12, 2007

C in Egypt writes:

@ David in Florida --

You say you've been evacuated from 4 posts. Think back to what led to those evacuations.

And then answer this question, “Why haven't civilians been evacuated from Iraq”?

The diplomats and other civilians are there right now for unabashedly political reasons, to prop up/prove that the mission is not failing. The horrendous amounts of money we are spending to keep them there is not commensurate with results--how can they produce with the security situation the way it is now?

Bring them home, I'm tired of paying for civilians to dodge mortars and meet counterparts sporadically.

Whoever said not one diplomat has been killed in Iraq is wrong, by the way. I can remember a handful offhand--a USAID human rights lawyer, several diplomatic security personnel.

Posted on Mon Nov 12, 2007

Nada in Iraq writes:

I don't know what other places John has served while he is in Iraq, but being in a remote military base (Al-Asad) in Al-Anbar doesn't mean that he is serving in the real Iraq. Surrounding by the heavy military vehicles and other kind of artillery making him feel very safe, but if he goes to the capital (Baghdad) were the U.S. and other embassies there he will face the real tragedy, the very dangerous life...if it is not dangerous I suggest to the diplomat to check whether Condoleezza had announced in advance any of her visits to Iraq!! Don't come to Iraq, everybody is leaving, trying to escape. Why you have to be killed or kidnapped by those very death group that trained by the U.S. itself.

Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007

Dan in Maryland writes:

@ Bill in New Mexico --

I said and say again the same about "Bill from Minnesota's" cheap shot at President Bush's military service during the Viet Nam war that I did about your cheap shot at Gore's and Kerry's military service in Viet Nam during that war -- that all these sort of cheap shots were and are on the whole unfair and unfortunate.

Please question the integrity of any person you want to in a fair and honest fashion. However, we would all be better off if this sort of questioning was done without resorting to cheap shots, and if we all had bit more respect for those who enter the arena, and who seek to serve our nation at some of the highest, most demanding and potentially dangerous offices.

If I'm a bemusing dreamer in this regard, so be it. For what I dream is of a political discourse where there is more respect and more honest discussion as part of our politics. This would be to the benefit of our elections, U.S. citizens and our nation's continued progress.

This cheap shot issue is relative to this discussion, as individuals posting messages on both "sides" of this debate have taken some cheap shots at the other "side." This is an important discussion, and it would be more useful and civil if such cheap shots were eliminated.

And while I like a laugh and being amused as much as the next person, I don't find cheap shots about the wartime military service of individuals seeking national office to be at all entertaining. Perhaps over a beer I would take it differently, but obviously I'm taking this blog a bit more serious than bar room banter...

Thanks again for your comment and regards.

Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007

Felix in Virginia writes:

Current discussion of forced assignment to Iraq takes me back to about 1968-69 when same discussions arose re forced tours with CORDS program in Vietnam. During 1 week training session at Harpers Ferry about 40 of us were asked if we would resign if faced with orders to CORDS....all but three answered YES. I was among three but until today I'm not sure what my decision would have been if the actual problem faced me. With two young kids, just back from four years in Croatia, and eager to pursue further specialized training and work in Soviet/East European area I would not have been eager to join CORDS. Many doubted the value of the program just as do many today about the Iraq program..even if not killed or injured these folks wonder if they can willingly join an effort which they do not believe in. One has to step back and look at long-term U.S. diplomacy: is it really necessary or advisable to have so many of our officers with other specialties tied up in what at best will have marginal effect on the future of this nation. Maybe more of these FSOs must raise their hands and be willing to hand in their resignations.

Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007

Harry in Massachusetts writes:

As an retired FSO and veteran from an era when involuntary assignments were taken for granted, I sense the current media furor misdiagnoses the reticence of FSOs to serve in Iraq. It's a matter of careers, certainly not cowardice.

At recent gathering in Washington of ex-FSOs, I found great distress over the comments of one former colleague at the "town hall" meeting. I also found others sharing the diagnosis I posited for lack of Iraq volunteers. Even ahead of family disruptions were the questions: Would assignees have something useful to do? Or would there be too many officers tripping over each other in the cocoon of a huge embassy. Where and how would local contacts be cultivated in this small, closed universe? Would they have space and opportunity to show their diplomatic as opposed to bureaucratic skills? (Indeed, did they speak Arabic?)

Beyond "needs of the service", there is a careerist argument for volunteering, anyway. The Vietnam experience showed that good onward assignments might be secured and careers advanced by serving in a doubtful cause. Loyalty may be especially rewarded under such circumstances. However, I recall most officers preferring to get ahead by contributing their skills and energy to successful missions.

It appears your lead-off writer found plenty to do in an assignment he sought. Assuming he speaks Arabic, the right officer is in the right job. I agree with most of what he says, in a tone more embarrassed than sanctimonious or "over-wrought". Scanning down the Blog, it seems unfortunate that his comments, so different from those of the officer at the "town hall" meeting, may also have fueled the flames fanned by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

Since the Department has, in effect, invited therapeutic pie-throwing on this site, I hope there will be an effort to put this episode in context. The Department might post a reminder that the line-of-duty deaths in the Foreign Service, per capita, have over the years often exceeded those of the Military.

Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007

Tom in Virginia writes:

I am a Civil Service Officer at the State Department who has had the privilege and honor working with Foreign Service Officers. All the FSOs I know are selfless, hard-working, courageous, and are willing to serve.

From what I have seen and heard, the massive frustration concerning directed assignments to Iraq is a result of many factors. All the FSOs I know do not object to the idea of directed assignments. They all know that they are serving at the pleasure of the Secretary and the President, and will go where told.

The mission in Iraq is causing many issues at State. There are serious management issues. Many offices and embassies around the world are short-staffed, mostly because they people they need are in Iraq. My office is currently short about 5, 6 FSOs, and this is causing most in our office to work longer hours and receive practically zero vacation time. Some offices are unable to perform their functions fully due to these shortages. (Shrinking State Dept. budget doesn't help either) Additionally, many FSOs are unhappy with how the directed assignment policy was announced. The e-mails and cables were sent out on a Friday night, meaning State Department employees found out about the announcement in the press. It was a pretty sleazy and disrespectful way to notify the Foreign Service. I�m sure soldiers in our military would be very unhappy if they learned about their deployments from the newspaper and not from their commanding officers.

Some people question why the Embassy in Baghdad is the largest in the world, when there are many places around the world we need a large amount of skilled and experienced FSOs (Beijing, Brussels, etc.) Then there are the stories of FSOs who have come from Baghdad (not the PRTs), stating they did very little meaningful work. Who would want to work in a bunker that�s attacked almost daily doing work that could probably be done somewhere else? People need to believe that their work will be meaningful and important. At least six FSOs from my office are �prime candidates� for the unfilled positions in Iraq. None of them have any Middle East experience. None of them speak Arabic. How are they the best people to send to Iraq? What good will they do, especially if they will only get two weeks of training? No one can learn the intricacies of Iraqi culture and politics in two weeks.

For those criticizing the Foreign Service as a bunch of martini-sipping, overpaid elitists afraid to do hard work, get the facts straight. FSOs continue to volunteer to work in places like Afghanistan, Sudan, Chad, Pakistan, and Yemen. Particularly in the Middle East, FSOs are continuously the targets of terrorists and extremists. The FSOs, and particularly their families, sacrifice a lot. Over 80% of the posts in Iraq have been filled with volunteers. Most embassies and offices in DC would be extremely happy to have 80% of their positions filled.

Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007

David in Florida writes:

As a former Army Officer, Vietnam veteran, and retired Diplomatic Security Special Agent, I can only say that the complaining FSOs knew the rules when they took the oath. Directed assignments are rarely made but not unheard of. Of my six Foreign Service overseas assignments, four were hardship posts and two of those were closed by evacuation. I was proud to serve and volunteered for all of my postings. If an FSO isn't willing to do his "Fair Share," s/he needs to get out. Its not as though they will have a hard time in the job market.

Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007

C in Egypt writes:

Wow, such self-righteousness when civilians actually assert their opinions regarding the sanity of their being deployed to Iraq!

Let's get through the "FSOs are weenies" argument right now--I don't see shortages of volunteers for Afghanistan assignments, or those in Sub-Saharan Africa, such that "directed assignments" are necessary. During the Balkan wars, I know of several FSOs who were riding around that war zone trying to broker peace. FSOs have been and are in Rwanda, Darfur, refugee camps, the Sinai, many many places that involve hardship and even danger of bodily harm.

So WHY is there a shortage of volunteers? Because the mission is too damn big.

As an American taxpayer, when a huge chunk of the money spent on diplomats goes to security for them, coupled with the fact that they cannot meet their counterparts because it's a war zone and realizing that other diplomatic posts get largely evacuated because of one or two terrorist incidents, then I have a fundamental objection to that many of our civilians being in Iraq.

And to my tax dollars paying for it.

I am a development contractor myself, and I know FSOs and contractors who have been in Iraq. They all went to serve, and all returned disappointed that they were of little or no use there. They can't get out to the counterparts, can't get anything done, being there becomes for many, if not most, a countdown to finishing the assignment and reaching safety. And avoiding aftereffects of facing mortars every day, even if they miss the vast majority of the time.

This is what we're paying for, as taxpayers.

I admire everyone who went out with the intention to serve their country. Every single individual.

But unfortunately, I just don't think the cost-benefit works, nor the political calculations.

Let the civilians come in when it doesn't cost more then each person's salary to provide protection. Until then, we are simply padding careers and enriching contracting companies, with little to show in the way of results for our money.

And why are we so upset that people are actually registering objection. That is checks and balances, a cornerstone of our democracy, and of our constitution.

Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007

Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 Next