Reply With Quote
I actually could get behind ideas like this in theory, GGA!
Those who support government policies are the ones who serve/pay for them!
GREAT IDEA! (I'll send you my 1040; you can write me a check for about 60% of it!)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101626_pf.html
Envoys Resist Forced Iraq Duty
Top State Dept. Officials Face Angry Questions
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 1, 2007; A01
Uneasy U.S. diplomats yesterday challenged senior State Department officials in unusually blunt terms over a decision to order some of them to serve at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad or risk losing their jobs.
At a town hall meeting in the department's main auditorium attended by hundreds of Foreign Service officers, some of them criticized fundamental aspects of State's personnel policies in Iraq. They took issue with the size of the embassy -- the biggest in U.S. history -- and the inadequate training they received before being sent to serve in a war zone. One woman said she returned from a tour in Basra with post-traumatic stress disorder only to find that the State Department would not authorize medical treatment.
Yesterday's internal dissension came amid rising public doubts about diplomatic progress in Iraq and congressional inquiries into the department's spending on the embassy and its management of private security contractors. Some participants asked how diplomacy could be practiced when the embassy itself, inside the fortified Green Zone, is under frequent fire and officials can travel outside only under heavy guard.
Service in Iraq is "a potential death sentence," said one man who identified himself as a 46-year Foreign Service veteran. "Any other embassy in the world would be closed by now," he said to sustained applause.
Harry K. Thomas Jr., the director general of the Foreign Service, who called the meeting, responded curtly. "Okay, thanks for your comment," he said, declaring the town hall meeting over.
In notices e-mailed to Foreign Service officers around the world late Friday night, Thomas wrote that State had decided to begin "directed assignments" to fill an anticipated shortfall of 48 diplomats in Iraq next summer. Separate e-mail letters were sent to about 250 officers selected as qualified for the posts. If enough of them did not volunteer, the letters said, some would be ordered to serve there.
Foreign Service officers swear an oath to serve wherever the secretary of state sends them, but no directed assignments have been ordered since the late 1960s, during the Vietnam War. More than 1,200 of 11,500 eligible State Department personnel have already served in Iraq, but the growth of the embassy has led to an ever-increasing demand.
The notices, which most diplomats first learned about from the news media as the e-mails sat in their office computers over the weekend, appeared to have catalyzed unease that has been swirling through the Foreign Service over issues that include Iraq, underfunding and inadequate recruitment, perceived disrespect from the U.S. military and the job performance of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
A poll conducted this month by the American Foreign Service Association found that only 12 percent of officers "believe that . . . Rice is fighting for them," union president John K. Naland said at yesterday's meeting, which was first reported by the Associated Press.
"That's their right. But they're wrong," said Thomas, who appeared to grow increasingly agitated as the questioning became more pointed.
"Sometimes, if it's 88 to 12, maybe the 88 percent are correct," Naland said.
"Eighty-eight percent of the country believed in slavery at one time. Was that correct?" Thomas responded, saying he was "insulted." Rice is fighting hard for them, he said. Amid scattered boos from the audience, Thomas added: "Let no one be a hypocrite. I really resent people telling me that I do not care about other Foreign Service officers."
The session began sedately. "We are the Foreign Service and the Civil Service of the United States of America," Thomas told them. "I am very proud of you. There is none better."
But he got quickly to the point. "We have 250 jobs to fill in the summer of '08 in Iraq," he said. "We have filled a little over 200."
Thomas reminded them, according to an audiotape of the session, that "every member of the Foreign Service, there can be no doubt, has agreed to worldwide availability. Every member . . . has taken an oath to the flag and the country." If volunteers come forward for the unfilled posts, he said, "we will cease this operation. But if not, we will continue. . . . If we have to, we will redirect assignments."
Some may have already decided that they "can no longer live up to their worldwide availability obligation," he said. "We will respect that. I will not criticize anyone. I will not slander anyone. . . . But we're going to move on with this."
Thomas told the diplomats that in the future, "everyone in the Foreign Service is going to have to do one out of three tours in a hardship post." Those who have not served in hardship assignments in the past will not be punished, but they all have to realize that there are "different conditions" now than in the past, he said. New training programs for those serving in hardship and dangerous posts are being developed, he said.
Many in the audience appeared initially reluctant to ask questions, according to several who attended. "I assure you you're not going to be punished or placed on a list," Thomas invited.
Naland rose first to note that there were "only about 30 spaces left" on a memorial plaque in the building commemorating those who had died on duty. His members told him that "some of our people [in Iraq] can't really do their jobs because of the security situation," he said, asking, "How certain are you and the secretary . . . that every one of those posts must be filled, that they require unarmed, undertrained Foreign Service and Civil Service [employees] to go there?"
At least three department employees have been killed in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
Naland said in an interview that some diplomats sent to Vietnam received four to six months of training. Many of those who have gone to Iraq received only two weeks of training, he said.
Thomas said he had traveled to Baghdad and gone over the staffing list with U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. Crocker sent a brusque cable to Rice in March saying that he needed more and better-qualified people if the U.S. diplomatic mission in Iraq was to succeed. Thomas said he was "not going to dispute that some people may disagree on the numbers." But, he said, "we have to go with the ambassador."
The number of diplomatic positions in Iraq has increased every year since the embassy was opened in 2004. The expansion of provincial reconstruction teams -- made up of diplomats who work with local communities outside Baghdad -- from 10 to 25 last summer as part of President Bush's new strategy, added 30 Foreign Service personnel and many more outside contractors.
Amid the anger expressed, the woman who was stationed in Basra said she had "absolutely no regrets" about serving in Iraq. "I wanted to go to a place where I knew it was important for my country to be," she said, "even though I had a lot of questions about the origins of the war to begin with."
But citing her own medical situation and sounding near tears, she said: "The more who serve in war zones, the more that will come back with these sorts of war wounds. . . . Now that you are looking at compulsory service in war zones . . . we have a moral imperative as an agency to take care of our people."
Ok. Here is the perfect opportunity for all of the war s to step up to the plate and serve their newly adopted country. We could start with Yawn whannity and hush..heck they could do there show outside of the greenzone...I am sure Yoni, Wild cobra and ray are looking for applications as we speak..
I actually could get behind ideas like this in theory, GGA!
Those who support government policies are the ones who serve/pay for them!
GREAT IDEA! (I'll send you my 1040; you can write me a check for about 60% of it!)
I'd go.
I'm not sure I have the qualifications, but, yeah, I'd go.
No problem for me to go there. Hey, if you sign on to
a job you go where they send you. Not just where you
want to be.
Now I understand how you would feel about it. Kicking
and screaming that you were being treated unfairly. But
what the , you are a big cry baby and don't want to
do anything hard. Like defend your country or
attempt to represent it under hard conditions. Even
at what they are getting paid, which I am sure would
make your mouth water for wages like that.
the signing up bull . what a chicken claim. get out there on your own and tame your new wild west. now you're asking for permission? 101a, haven't enough checks been written? it's your ass they need, or does your bandwagon only go so far.
What are you talking about?
i don't know. i had a ray moment
What are you talking about?
If I was skilled in those areas, and told to go as part of my job. I would.
This is those peoples jobs. Just because they don't get a choice assignment... Too bad...
Damn cry babies...
Foreign service officers swear an oath to serve wherever the secretary of state sends them. Moreover, in recent congressional hearings, Democrats have harshly criticized Secretary of State Rice for not having sufficiently staffed Iraq with U.S. envoys, and Rice agreed that some stations are understaffed. Thus, there is a clear mandate to send more diplomats to Iraq.
At a meeting of angry foreign service officers yesterday, one of them called service in Iraq "a potential death sentence." According to the Washington Post, he received "sustained applause." But, again according to the Post, three State Department employees have been killed in Iraq since the invasion in 2003 (the Post doesn't say whether they were diplomats). That doesn't sound like a death sentence. Indeed, soldiers and guardsmen who have been sent to Iraq (at least the ones I know) don't regard the assignment as a death sentence nor, to my knowledge, have they engaged in collective whining of the type on display at Foggy Bottom yesterday.
One woman, who was stationed in Basra, said she had "absolutely no regrets" about serviing in Iraq, and "wanted to go to a place where I knew it was important for my country to be, even though I had a lot of questions about the origins of the war to begin with." She complained, however, that after she returned from Iraq with symptoms of post-traumatic stree disorder, the State Department would not authorize medical treatment.
That sounds like a valid complaint. As the woman put it, "we have a moral imperative as an agency to take care of our people."
At the same time, State Department personnel have a moral imperative to live up to their worldwide availability obligation. And it should not be too much to hope that they would share the view of the woman detailed to Basra who wanted to go where her country thought it needed her, rather than the man who said, to applause, that "any other embassy in the world [facing similar cir stances] would have been closed by now."
If Rice sticks to her guns, we likely will see a large number of resignations. That sounds like a good thing.
I don’t know how representative John Matel is of his colleagues but I sure hope there’s a lot more like him in the State Department than the ones mentioned earlier in this thread.
Currently serving on a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Anbar Provience, Matel has a few choice words for the folks who spoke up about forced deployments to Iraq. In short, shut up and let the grownups do the important work.
Matel is scheduled to be in Iraq through next September. I haven’t had a chance to read a lot of his stuff yet but it looks like his blog bears watching for a different perspective on what’s going on over there.
I am sure there are plenty of neocons who would love to go..so let's send them.
problem solved.
I guess they could fill the positions that should vacated by firing or forcing the resignations of the chickens over at Foggy Bottom.
Sounds good to me.
yoni ripped off powerlineblog again.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../11/018912.php
No thank you, we don't need a repeat of Bremer's CPA.
Condi can't even get the shills in her own dept to believe that we are winning anything in Iraq....
Forced Iraq Postings 'May Be Necessary'
Volunteers Fill About Half of Embassy's 48 Open Slots, State Department Says
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 11, 2007; Page A19
washington PostFour days before a deadline for Foreign Service officers to volunteer to go to Iraq or face the prospect of being ordered there, the State Department notified employees yesterday that "about half" of 48 open assignments there for next year have been filled.
"This reduces but does not eliminate the possibility that directed assignments may be necessary," Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte wrote in an e-mailed update. Filling the remaining jobs is still "the Department's priority," he said, adding that he is optimistic that more will volunteer.
With 26 positions still open, however, it appeared increasingly unlikely that they will all be filled by Tuesday's deadline. Both Negroponte and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have made clear in recent days that they intend to proceed with a mandatory call-up if spots remain unstaffed.
"If I need somebody to serve in Iraq, they have to serve there," Rice said in an interview on Friday with the Dallas Morning News.
She could have been somebody, but she chose to be Secretary of State in the Dubya administration instead...
Rice's Management at Issue
Critics Cite Blackwater, Baghdad Embassy and Passports
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 10, 2007; Page A01
Washington PostShortly after Condoleezza Rice took charge of the 57,000-person State Department in 2005, she said she relished the challenge of "line responsibility" in leading a large organization. "I really enjoy that," she said in an interview. "Some of my favorite times here have been my budget and high-level management reviews."
Nearly three years later, Rice is under fire from inside and outside the State Department for a range of crises that are largely managerial in nature -- the failure to monitor private security guards in Iraq, the delays in opening the huge U.S. Embassy under construction in Baghdad and the resistance of some Foreign Service officers to being forced to serve there. Over the summer, the department also fell woefully short in processing passport applications, resulting in ruined vacation plans for many Americans.
Within the department, Rice is viewed by many rank-and-file employees as an aloof manager who relies on a tight circle of aides, leaving her out of touch with the rest of the staff, in contrast to her predecessor, Colin L. Powell, a retired Army general who won praise from workers for treating them as though they were his "troops." At her last town hall meeting with employees 2 1/2 years ago, Rice told staffers: "I consider myself the chief management officer of this department." But a poll by the American Foreign Service Association indicated that an overwhelming majority did not feel that Rice was their advocate.
The latest controversy about forced assignments to Iraq has only heightened internal resentment of Rice's management style. "I personally do not like the ultimatum-giving," said one Foreign Service officer. "It is not what State is about." ........
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
