US diplomats refuse Iraq postings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7072047.stm)

Hundreds of US diplomats have protested against a government move to force them to accept postings in war-torn Iraq. About 300 angry diplomats attended a meeting at the state department, at which one labelled the decision a "potential death sentence".

writes Jack Croddy Senior US diplomat
Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?



These are the same people that are more than willing to send other families sons and father over to die. These are the same people who are rallying for war with Iran. A "senior diplomat" is a "civil servant" who didn't have what it takes to make something of themselves in the real world. Now when called to actually do some f*cking work its all tears.

Just pathetic,
Michael

How unpatriotic.

US diplomats refuse Iraq postings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7072047.stm)

Hundreds of US diplomats have protested against a government move to force them to accept postings in war-torn Iraq. About 300 angry diplomats attended a meeting at the state department, at which one labelled the decision a "potential death sentence".

writes Jack Croddy Senior US diplomat
Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?



These are the same people that are more than willing to send other families sons and father over to die. These are the same people who are rallying for war with Iran. A "senior diplomat" is a "civil servant" who didn't have what it takes to make something of themselves in the real world. Now when called to actually do some f*cking work its all tears.

Just pathetic,
Michael


Wait a minute, I thought the surge was working. I thought the security situation was improving in Iraq. Schools being built, less civilian deaths, etc.
Good, send those fuckers there, you reap what you sow.

They're mainly upset about being FORCED to go to Iraq. And I don't blame them in the least. Our diplomatic governmental services shouldn't be forced ...or if it is, what does that say about our ideals of "freedom" and "diplomacy"?

Baron Max

Jesus, what's got into you, Baron? That almost seems... fair.

Hold up now, why are you saying that you should be forced to go fight in a war you do not believe in. In fact, many people within the government have several issues with the war of Iraq and Iran; i mean look at the 300 diplomats. Diplomats are not soldiers of the United States, they are political representatives of the US government. Being patriotic has nothing to do with going along with what some damn turkey says is right. Being patriotic has to do with standing up for what you believe is in the best interest of the country.The main reason why this whole argument came up was because the state department did not notify the diplomats that they were going to be semi -drafted to the Iraqi embassy. They woke up one morning looking at a newspaper which told them they have to make a choice about working in a place with RPG 7's flying past their car. These people are not soldiers. It would be one thing if the "Green zone" was properly guarded for government officials. But thats not possible because Iraq is a complete shit hole. Currently, every man in Iraq fighting the terrorists chose that job. Thats great for them. Iraq hates the united states. We should not have an embassy in a country where the people don't want us there. That building will just get blown up and shot at. I have friends in the US army who just got back from 4 years in Iraq and they said its hell. The kids their are throwing hand grenades over the elementary school wall at US humvees. Until this changes, other forms of US representation should be used until the area is safely contained. The State department has "virtual embassies" for countries where there is no physical presence.

Unlike our solders they are not ordered to do anything in that they will not see themselves go to jail and they will not be loaded onto cargo planes and sent in. They can simply lose their their cushy gov jobs.

It doesn't rub you at all to think that these are the f*ckers who started the war, supported the war, are losing the war, are more than willing to send some other children's brothers, mothers, fathers, sisters, sons and daughters to go fight in the war - BUT are they themselves in no way going to get off their fat lazy arse and go do their job in "protecting Americans freedoms"! And this fat f*cker has the gull to say "Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?"

It's pathetic,
Michael

Buddy, Government officials like those diplomats are making less than $100,000 a year.

If they didn't support the war then why didn't they speak up sooner?!?!? Why didn't they rally against the injustices of it all this time? Because many of them did and do support the war - so long as it's not their arses on the line.

Buddy, Government officials like those diplomats are making less than $100,000 a year.OMG only $100,000 well this changes everything :bugeye:

$100,000 being the highest. Starting diplomats start at about $25,000 - $35,000 according to their website. Thats no fat sum.

They're mainly upset about being FORCED to go to Iraq. And I don't blame them in the least. Our diplomatic governmental services shouldn't be forced ...or if it is, what does that say about our ideals of "freedom" and "diplomacy"?

Baron MaxThey aren't forced and I'd prefer to think of them as "civil servants" hired to do a civil job and it is well within their contract and job description to be sent over seas into Iraq. Oh, many wanted their cusshy Greek island outpost - well tough, you're daddy wasn't an oil tycoon so you get Iraq!


Do you think governors and civil servants in the Roman outposts wanted their shitty job? No, but they did it because that's what it takes to maintain an army in an occupied foreign land for the glory of the Republic. I seem to remember MANY of these arse holes talking big about Pax Amercia 6 years ago - someone should have told them to be careful what they wished for.

$100,000 being the highest. Starting diplomats start at about $25,000 - $35,000 according to their website. Thats no fat sum.I'm sure they will get well over $80K as they get a huge top load for being in Iraq.

Speak up sooner? How the hell can you speak up sooner in a war that is completely illegal. Everyone knows that there was no casus belli for going in their. All the proof that bush used was false and fudged. He even went over the supreme court. Just because you work for the US government doesn't mean you agree with the current leaders radical ideas.

If they didn't support the war then why didn't they speak up sooner?!?!? Why didn't they rally against the injustices of it all this time? Because many of them did and do support the war - so long as it's not their arses on the line.

Why is it that you and others continually or convienently forget that almost the entire congressional branch of government voted to go to war in Iraq? It's what our government did willingly, just like in World War II.

We won in World War II because our soldiers, Marines and sailors were allowed to fight a war. In Iraq, they're forced to play mamby-pamby policeman. If we'd leveled the fucking country like we did Germany and Japan, we wouldn't even be having this stupid discussion.

Baron Max

US diplomats refuse Iraq postings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7072047.stm)

Hundreds of US diplomats have protested against a government move to force them to accept postings in war-torn Iraq. About 300 angry diplomats attended a meeting at the state department, at which one labelled the decision a "potential death sentence".

writes Jack Croddy Senior US diplomat
Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?



These are the same people that are more than willing to send other families sons and father over to die. These are the same people who are rallying for war with Iran. A "senior diplomat" is a "civil servant" who didn't have what it takes to make something of themselves in the real world. Now when called to actually do some f*cking work its all tears.

Just pathetic,
Michael

Just another day in the good ol' u.s of h ;)

They're mainly upset about being FORCED to go to Iraq. And I don't blame them in the least. Our diplomatic governmental services shouldn't be forced ...or if it is, what does that say about our ideals of "freedom" and "diplomacy"?

Baron Max

While I understand what you are TRYING to say, frankly I think it is incredibly immature, childish, and unbelievable that they ARE saying these things. What a lack of empathy! My Active-Duty Air Force husband is currently serving in Iraq, with the Army. Is he Army? NO. Did he join the Army? NO. Is he being forced to serve a branch he did not join, to do a tour he did not want to do, untrained for the job he was sent to do, in a hostile country, in a war he does not believe in? YES. For them to state that it is a death sentence virtually negates the sacrifices our beloved troops make DAILY. That is one of the most disgusting things that I have ever heard. If our troops are forced to be where they do not want to be, it is only fair that others in service to the government be forced to be there as well. I cry no tears for them. And before someone states that it is an "all-volunteer force" take again the situation my husband is in and look at certain words closely, such as - "untrained, Did he join the Army, forced to serve a branch he did not join," for instance.

You shouldn't put others into a situation you would not go into yourself, to do so is the height of hypocrisy and cowardice. They are diplomats justifying our country's actions to other countries and peoples, so they need to put their money where their mouth is and NOT cry about having to do the very same thing they have justified sending others to do. What arrogance, to believe that others should do your dirty work, while you sit at home with your family and mouth platitudes.

While I understand what you are TRYING to say, frankly I think it is incredibly immature, childish, and unbelievable that they ARE saying these things. What a lack of empathy! My Active-Duty Air Force husband is currently serving in Iraq, with the Army. Is he Army? NO. Did he join the Army? NO. Is he being forced to serve a branch he did not join, to do a tour he did not want to do, untrained for the job he was sent to do, in a hostile country, in a war he does not believe in? YES. For them to state that it is a death sentence virtually negates the sacrifices our beloved troops make DAILY. That is one of the most disgusting things that I have ever heard. If our troops are forced to be where they do not want to be, it is only fair that others in service to the government be forced to be there as well. I cry no tears for them. And before someone states that it is an "all-volunteer force" take again the situation my husband is in and look at certain words closely, such as - "untrained, Did he join the Army, forced to serve a branch he did not join," for instance.

You shouldn't put others into a situation you would not go into yourself, to do so is the height of hypocrisy and cowardice. They are diplomats justifying our country's actions to other countries and peoples, so they need to put their money where their mouth is and NOT cry about having to do the very same thing they have justified sending others to do. What arrogance, to believe that others should do your dirty work, while you sit at home with your family and mouth platitudes.

Give em' hell girl, they want the fancy job, exotic locations, and the pretty girls, well it come with a price, the job, were ever, when ever, what ever need be done, same as the Military, except we get paid a whole lot less for our services, and the accommodations just aren't quite 5 star.

Give your husband my greetings, and I will pray for him, and his safety.

My Active-Duty Air Force husband is currently serving in Iraq, with the Army. Is he Army? NO. Did he join the Army? NO. Is he being forced to serve a branch he did not join, to do a tour he did not want to do, untrained for the job he was sent to do, in a hostile country, in a war he does not believe in? YES.

For a military wife, you sure don't know much about how it works, do you?

If our troops are forced to be where they do not want to be, it is only fair that others in service to the government be forced to be there as well.

I don't think you're aware of how things work in the world, Diane. The soldiers are fighting men, they've been training in the art of war. Diplomats in Iraq would be little more than targets ...and without any means of defense. And now the government is even trying to take away the Blackwater security forces for their protection.

No, Diane, I don't think you know how it works.

Baron Max

Welcome to Sciforums dianacarol6,

I think almost everyone agrees with your ascertainment of the situation.

And the sick thing is, when Jack Croddy that senior US "diplomat" a "Veteran" of foreign service opened his big mouth and said: "I'm sorry, but basically that is a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or wounded?" He did so to a huge standing applause! The whole room ignited!

Of course these are the same people that fully supported the "Decider" - that is, until it was decided they get off their "Veteran" of foreign service arse and do some work.

Michael


And Baron I agree, firebombing and nuking Iraq probably would subdue Iraqies. But that's really not going to be supported as they didn't have any kind of WMD and, unlike the industrial juggernauts Japan and Germany, were not an imminent threat to America's safety. Shit, is there a country in the entire ME that can even manufacture a plane? How about a crop duster? A propeller for a plane?? Probably not even that much.

Look. This might sound harsh. and I pray for you husband. (this is not directed at him btw) People have a choice in what they want their career to be. If you want to serve your country. You have several choices. Two being the military and the government. If you pick the military, you go in fully knowing that you are going to get shot at, and you are in the physical fight. If you chose the government, you are helping via the political aspects. Both are honorable jobs, fighting for the same cause, on different tactics. Putting a man whose job is not to get shot at in Iraq is ridiculous. They simply do not have the training to do so, nor in their job description. I am all for the diplomats going into Iraq if it was safe. But until the physical side completes its job on securing the so called "Green Zone," the diplomats have no business going in there. I agree with Baron max on this

For a military wife, you sure don't know much about how it works, do you?That's how it worked for Pax Roma.

Civil Servants bitched back then too, many were killed or wounded as well, many left their families with no father. But that's the price for maintaining the Empire, which did pay their wages afterall.....

If you want to serve your country. You have several choices. Two being the military and the government. If you pick the military, you go in fully knowing that you are going to get shot at, and you are in the physical fight. If you chose the government, you are helping via the political aspects. Both are honorable jobs, fighting for the same cause, on different tactics. Putting a man whose job is not to get shot at in Iraq is ridiculous. They simply do not have the training to do so, nor in their job description. I am all for the diplomats going into Iraq if it was safe. But until the physical side completes its job on securing the so called "Green Zone," the diplomats have no business going in there. I agree with Baron max on thisthen they can look for a different job - it's really that simple. They obviously are not cut out to do what it takes to perform their duties. No one is making them do anything - they can quit and find a new line of employment.

Look. This might sound harsh. and I pray for you husband. (this is not directed at him btw) People have a choice in what they want their career to be. If you want to serve your country. You have several choices. Two being the military and the government. If you pick the military, you go in fully knowing that you are going to get shot at, and you are in the physical fight. If you chose the government, you are helping via the political aspects. Both are honorable jobs, fighting for the same cause, on different tactics. Putting a man whose job is not to get shot at in Iraq is ridiculous. They simply do not have the training to do so, nor in their job description. I am all for the diplomats going into Iraq if it was safe. But until the physical side completes its job on securing the so called "Green Zone," the diplomats have no business going in there. I agree with Baron max on this

I understand what you are saying about the military, which is why I put in there the information about my husband NOT joining the Army... he is Air Force. SUPPORT to the fighting men - until recently, they did not even train Air Force in basic training for anything more than one weapon. Because they simply were not the fighting force, in any sense. My husband would not have joined the Army - the people that do, do so, know they are joining a FIGHTING unit. As so Marines... Navy and Air Force, not so much. lol

For a military wife, you sure don't know much about how it works, do you?



I don't think you're aware of how things work in the world, Diane. The soldiers are fighting men, they've been training in the art of war. Diplomats in Iraq would be little more than targets ...and without any means of defense. And now the government is even trying to take away the Blackwater security forces for their protection.

No, Diane, I don't think you know how it works.

Baron Max

Oh wait, are you seriously trying to tell someone who was raised Air Force, went on to marry Air Force, about the Air Force? Sorry I thought you were joking.... because otherwise that just really doesn't make any sense....?

Give em' hell girl, they want the fancy job, exotic locations, and the pretty girls, well it come with a price, the job, were ever, when ever, what ever need be done, same as the Military, except we get paid a whole lot less for our services, and the accommodations just aren't quite 5 star.

Give your husband my greetings, and I will pray for him, and his safety.

Thank you, I will tell him, he honestly and truly really does appreciate hearing things like that, because he is at a base where they have only a few Army men... it is mostly Navy and Air Force serving for the Army... and TONS of IA (Iraqi Army). They are so vulnerable where he is at :( So anyway it feels good to him to know that some of the folks back home really do think about 'em. :)

Putting a man whose job is not to get shot at in Iraq is ridiculous. They simply do not have the training to do so, nor in their job description. I am all for the diplomats going into Iraq if it was safe. But until the physical side completes its job on securing the so called "Green Zone," the diplomats have no business going in there.


Well their job is to be diplomats, to help the government communicate with other governments, their job has nothing to do with being a Grunt, they will not be out on the firing line, though it might do them some good to have a understanding of just how easy their jobs really are, and their job is words and government to government contact, and to carry out the Diplomatic Policies of the United States Government, so they want the fancy job, and job title, that means, less than choice assignment are part of the job, and that means being posted to Iraq, to carry out the Diplomatic Policies of the United States Government.

How can they can pull air force for the army? Hows that work?

There is a part of the enlistment contract that spell out the fact that due to tactical needs, you can be assigned to any branch of the service at the need of the Military.

And for all the fancy MOS's the basic job of any solider, be it Air Force, Navy, Marine, or Army, is that or infantry, gravel agitating infantry, pulling a trigger.

It was done in WWII by the U.S. several time, and the best known example that I know of was the Herman Goring Division, it was made up of Luftwaffe Personnel who operated as a Infantry Division. It is done by all countries.

How can they can pull air force for the army? Hows that work?

Well I can't give you the link, because I don't have more than 20 posts yet and for some reason this site won't let you post links unless you have more than 20 posts :)

but here is the story itself:

"Air Force, Navy seeing growing duty in Iraq
Personnel filling roles normally performed by strapped Army

07-21) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The Pentagon, scrambling to maintain 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, has ordered growing numbers of Air Force and Navy personnel into combat-related assignments with front-line Army and Marine Corps units.

The decision to send thousands of airmen and sailors into nontraditional assignments such as convoy duty reflects growing personnel shortages as the armed forces try to sustain the highest troop levels of the war.

The Air Force has steadily increased the number of personnel in Iraq in place of soldiers or Marines -- from 1,905 in 2004 to about 5,000 this year and 6,000 next year.

The Navy is sending roughly 2,200 of what the service calls "individual augmentees" this year to handle combat-related duties with Army and Marine units.

"The good news and bad news about this is that we are out doing things that our people weren't originally trained for," said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley in a speech.

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chief of naval operations designated as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in remarks to trainees that the Navy is "anxious to pitch in as much as we possibly can for the duration of this war," adding: "I don't see the need for Navy talent going down any time soon."

Air Force and Navy personnel bound for combat-related duties with ground combat units in Iraq receive at least two weeks of combat training at one of 15 Army training centers around the United States.

"Technically, these combat-related assignments do not violate service members' contracts," said Lawrence Korb, a former Reagan administration official who handled manpower as assistant secretary of defense.

"But many airmen and sailors are not volunteering for these jobs -- they're being told to do them, and that could cut down re-enlistments and complicate recruitment for both services down the road," he said.

Air Force and Navy personnel serve up to 12 months in Iraq -- shorter than the 15-month combat tours demanded of Army units since April. "

And this is the link sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/21/MNGI3R4EI01.DTL[/url] , hopefully it lets me post it without the http and www part :)

As you see it does not TECHNICALLY violate their agreements, which just means they found a loophole and are using it, lol I'm certain more than a few of them would not have signed up in the first place had they known they would be reassigned to serve a tour for another branch entirely.

But that would still be useless because there is no government to discuss polices with. The Iraqi government is still unstable and is also heavily influenced the US from home. It is the people who are running the show. We (the United States) cannot convince Muslim extremists that their jihad a gainst the US and other Iraqi's is wrong. Their own people must do this convincing. Until the situation is stable...how can you possibly talk about diplomacy? I am all for sending in the diplomats to hardship positions do not get me wrong. But sending them in while it is still a hot zone is unnecessary.

Yeah i agree diana. I would compare the Airforce to the diplomats in this situation in a sense that "This is not what i signed up for." Let the Diplomats handle the politics, let the airforce stay in the sky, and let the army stay on the land.

But that would still be useless because there is no government to discuss polices with. The Iraqi government is still unstable and is also heavily influenced the US from home. It is the people who are running the show. We (the United States) cannot convince Muslim extremists that their jihad a gainst the US and other Iraqi's is wrong. Their own people must do this convincing. Until the situation is stable...how can you possibly talk about diplomacy? I am all for sending in the diplomats to hardship positions do not get me wrong. But sending them in while it is still a hot zone is unnecessary.

Honestly, I truly do see what you mean. The fact is though, that currently, our forces are attempting to act as "untrained diplomats". 99% of what my husband is doing over there is negotiating and diplomacy - his job in the Air Force was Power Production !!?!? He was not trained in any sense of the word to be a diplomat. They really SHOULD have diplomats doing diplomacy, because as my husband was told before he got to his base, "you will feel discouraged and like you can't cope because you can't accomplish anything". I would imagine trained diplomats could possibly do a better job and not leave feeling hopeless and helpless?

There is a part of the enlistment contract that spell out the fact that due to tactical needs, you can be assigned to any branch of the service at the need of the Military.

And for all the fancy MOS's the basic job of any solider, be it Air Force, Navy, Marine, or Army, is that or infantry, gravel agitating infantry, pulling a trigger.

It was done in WWII by the U.S. several time, and the best known example that I know of was the Herman Goring Division, it was made up of Luftwaffe Personnel who operated as a Infantry Division. It is done by all countries.

You're right, BR... it's not really a loophole, more like an intentional part of the contract. I doubt my husband, or most anyone read the silly thing - as it is literally a pound of paper, but it is NOT technically wrong, they CAN do that. I just think it is morally wrong, because trust me, my husband never had ANY desire to be Army. Not that the Army isn't amazing - cuz well, our Army is :) He just would never have wanted to be away from home as much as they are, AND, he is not a fighter. :P Don't tell him I said that!!!! :D

I think this is pathetic. If you're working for state to serve your country, then you serve your country and go where you are needed. You don't pick and choose your assignments. What's worse is these people act like they will be on a patrol or something. They'll be in the green zone, going to cocktail parties and doing paperwork...

I think this is pathetic. If you're working for state to serve your country, then you serve your country and go where you are needed. You don't pick and choose your assignments. What's worse is these people act like they will be on a patrol or something. They'll be in the green zone, going to cocktail parties and doing paperwork...

Well I agree with you 100% that them whining about having to go is pathetic, and my biggest complaint with that, is that it demeans our men and women in uniform who have to go over there as well, but for a LOT less money and no private security (be it Blackwater or Marines). But most importantly, I believe, is that from what I understand or have been told of the situation over there, there is a NEED for diplomacy - I'm sorry but an Air Force Power Production guy trying to use diplomacy with IA Colonels is ridiculous in the extreme. Diplomats should be doing what they are trained to do - and them crying about the situation is disrespectful to those who are in TRULY difficult situations every day. I would like to believe they will be sent where they are NEEDED, which IS at the remote bases such as my husband is at, but you are right - they will likely be sitting in relative security doing paperwork :(

Well I can't give you the link, because I don't have more than 20 posts yet and for some reason this site won't let you post links unless you have more than 20 posts :)

but here is the story itself:

"Air Force, Navy seeing growing duty in Iraq
Personnel filling roles normally performed by strapped Army

07-21) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The Pentagon, scrambling to maintain 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, has ordered growing numbers of Air Force and Navy personnel into combat-related assignments with front-line Army and Marine Corps units.

Geezus, I didn't know that! Best wishes to your Husband. And welcome to sciforums.

The problem is that Diplomats see themselves as being 'Non-expendable' which is why they aren't willing to put themselves in harms way and make themselves a potential target for kidnapping or assassination. This is probably why the task has been pushed onto military personnel that are less likely to have seen direct action (After all it wouldn't be good to have a soldier face to face with the family that he had to kill a son, brother or father of for the sake of keeping the peace.)

I'm sure we all wish the entire conflict to have been avoided, unfortunately what the country had prior to their current pseudo-anarchy was a Despotism. With such governmental structures there is no room for reason, no room for diplomacy and this was often proven by how the regime of that time was uncooperative in regards to U.N. sanctions and regularly publically taunted other nations and nation leaders.

Most politicians would shirk such taunts as something that comes with the job, however some nations have military advisor's that don't like to see their country and it's leaders seen as weak and might have propositioned towards retaliative actions to strengthen their resolve against other nations that might follow suit.

Unfortunately the one thing people neglect to understand about 'Elected' diplomats is sometimes their very jobs are dictated to by the "Advisor's" who are never democratically voted in.

I think this is pathetic. If you're working for state to serve your country, then you serve your country and go where you are needed. You don't pick and choose your assignments. I don't see the value in assigning such people to jobs they don't want to do - especially diplomats.

There is a part of the enlistment contract that spell out the fact that due to tactical needs, you can be assigned to any branch of the service at the need of the Military.

And for all the fancy MOS's the basic job of any solider, be it Air Force, Navy, Marine, or Army, is that or infantry, gravel agitating infantry, pulling a trigger. That's how Navy sea officers ended up pulling base camp guard duty in the mountain deserts of Afghanistan.

Good thing none of that infantry stuff is skilled or difficult, requiring training and drill - or such personnel shuffling would be putting lives and missions at risk.

They're mainly upset about being FORCED to go to Iraq. And I don't blame them in the least. Our diplomatic governmental services shouldn't be forced ...or if it is, what does that say about our ideals of "freedom" and "diplomacy"?

Baron Max

so what about our soldiers aren't they forced to go

.. unfortunately what the country had prior to their current pseudo-anarchy was a Despotism. With such governmental structures there is no room for reason, no room for diplomacy and this was often proven by how the regime of that time was uncooperative in regards to U.N. sanctions and regularly publically taunted other nations and nation leaders.There may have been a reason why Iraq, an artificial State made post-European colonization, had a Dictator. It seems to me that this may have been the only real reason there even is an Iraq here today. It probably would have dissolved years ago.

Hence Max's suggestion, bomb the place flat, probably occurred to Saddam.

Not to mention our forefathers used genocide and mass murder to subdue the people of the Americas. My point being: Lets not try and paint Saddam into something more than he was.

Unfortunately the one thing people neglect to understand about 'Elected' diplomats is sometimes their very jobs are dictated to by the "Advisor's" who are never democratically voted in.They may be directed by advisor's but they are not dictated by them. Advisor's can be fired and their advice need not be taken. It's good to surround oneself with many different advisor's and then make the best decision. Unfortunately Bush is dimwitted and he prefers to surround himself with Cheney yes-men who do the thinking for him.

I don't see the value in assigning such people to jobs they don't want to do - especially diplomats.Me neither, if they don't want the job they should be fired.


Also, lets not make career politicians into some sort of wunder-dog-diplomats. Most of them are idiots and many of them know dick about Iraq or middle eastern history and can not speak arabic. The only way they are going to do something useful is if they do go and live there and learn the culture and speak the language.

Like I said, if they don't want to move there then they can simply quit their job or be fired,

Michael

All I can say is this just pushes the image of the crappy diplomat: all talk. Now i know why the military hate diplomats so much.
however, if they were actually going to do something, such as negotiate and create initiatives for the local populace, then they should go ahead.

Basically what we all really want to see is these whinny little diplo-f*cks with there Mercs and BMWs to get off their whinny little fat f*cking arses and do a little work. What? This fat f*ck Jack Croddy Senior US diplomat thinks he's going to be able to come up with some solutions sitting behind his nice little white f*cking picket fence in DC? Solution to this debacle called IRAQ??!!?? Jesus, someone grab his scapula (yes his head is THAT far in his arse) and pull - because he is smoking crack if he thinks living in DC is going to give him the diplomatic skills to extricate our solders from this f*cking shit hole.

Plain and simple - He should be fired.
He works for US and we don't need some lily livered little bitch telling US, his employers, how he should do his job.

Michael II

Plain and simple - He should be fired.
He works for US and we don't need some lily livered little bitch telling US, his employers, how he should do his job.

Michael II

Agreed... he SHOULD be fired. Frankly, he should be fired just for the comments he made... THIS is a diplomat? What person with knowledge of true diplomacy would SAY those sort of things - knowing the public at large would read them, knowing servicemembers would read them, and families of servicemembers, and how about children of servicemembers? I am still stunned by the lack of sensitivity towards our troops that was expressed in his statements. Are our troops lives somehow less valuable than our diplomats lives? Do our troops not have children as well? To me it is a true narcissist that would toss aside empathy completely and throw out the "WHAT ABOUT ME" flag. He and his diplomat friends would be FAR from the only Americans serving in Iraq, despite their apparent opinion that they are the only ones that count. And NEWS FLASH - EVERYONE serving in Iraq is in danger, 24/7. I realize this might be a secret - but.. shhhhhh the country isn't stable :eek:

According to dictionary.com, a diplomat is: "1) a person appointed by a national government to conduct official negotiations and maintain political, economic, and social relations with another country or countries 2) a person who is tactful and skillful in managing delicate situations, handling people, etc." Maybe he's not really a diplomat... :shrug:

you either DO your job or get a NEW job. in other words, take it or leave it.

You're right, BR... it's not really a loophole, more like an intentional part of the contract. I doubt my husband, or most anyone read the silly thing - as it is literally a pound of paper, but it is NOT technically wrong, they CAN do that. I just think it is morally wrong, because trust me, my husband never had ANY desire to be Army. Not that the Army isn't amazing - cuz well, our Army is :) He just would never have wanted to be away from home as much as they are, AND, he is not a fighter. :P Don't tell him I said that!!!! :D

I found out about it on the day I was inducted into the Army, I was at the AFIC, and waiting for the bus's to go to Ft. Campbell, at the back of the auditorium the doors opened and in marched a Marine Gunny, 4 Sgt. a Lt., a Capt. and a Col. and a whole squad of M.P., the Gunny got everyone on their feet, and ready to hear the Speech from the Colonel, and it was the one about the Marines need a few good men, well no one volunteered, we all had chosen the branch we wanted to go into, so the Gunny started down the rows counting... one, two, three, Marine, one, two, three, Marine, and these guys were going to the Marines, one of the Guys was signed up to the Air Force, and he pulled his contract, and that is when the Lt. pointed out the section in the enlistment contract that you could be assigned to any part of the armed forces at the need of the United States, this was right after Khe Sanh, and the Marines needed personnel, so all of these guy were reassigned to the Marines.

I found out about it on the day I was inducted into the Army, I was at the AFIC, and waiting for the bus's to go to Ft. Campbell, at the back of the auditorium the doors opened and in marched a Marine Gunny, 4 Sgt. a Lt., a Capt. and a Col. and a whole squad of M.P., the Gunny got everyone on their feet, and ready to hear the Speech from the Colonel, and it was the one about the Marines need a few good men, well no one volunteered, we all had chosen the branch we wanted to go into, so the Gunny started down the rows counting... one, two, three, Marine, one, two, three, Marine, and these guys were going to the Marines, one of the Guys was signed up to the Air Force, and he pulled his contract, and that is when the Lt. pointed out the section in the enlistment contract that you could be assigned to any part of the armed forces at the need of the United States, this was right after Khe Sanh, and the Marines needed personnel, so all of these guy were reassigned to the Marines.
Thats one long sentence.

writes Jack Croddy Senior US diplomat
Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?

Well I have a short and concise answer for him the same one's that take care of the Children of the Soldiers who are killed and wounded.

This idiot calls himself a man? a man does the job that he chose and trained for, and this shit head chose the Diplomatic Corp, and he went to school to acquire the degree's necessary to be a Diplomat, he was sent to schools by the Government to learn how to be a Diplomat, and now it time for him to do the job, and to do it to the best of his ability, and quite sniveling like the preppy punk he is.

I found out about it on the day I was inducted into the Army, I was at the AFIC, and waiting for the bus's to go to Ft. Campbell, at the back of the auditorium the doors opened and in marched a Marine Gunny, 4 Sgt. a Lt., a Capt. and a Col. and a whole squad of M.P., the Gunny got everyone on their feet, and ready to hear the Speech from the Colonel, and it was the one about the Marines need a few good men, well no one volunteered, we all had chosen the branch we wanted to go into, so the Gunny started down the rows counting... one, two, three, Marine, one, two, three, Marine, and these guys were going to the Marines, one of the Guys was signed up to the Air Force, and he pulled his contract, and that is when the Lt. pointed out the section in the enlistment contract that you could be assigned to any part of the armed forces at the need of the United States, this was right after Khe Sanh, and the Marines needed personnel, so all of these guy were reassigned to the Marines.

Wow, sounds scary!:)

I think people seem to be forgetting a minor little glitch in all this ...in any other nation on Earth where the US has an embasy, if the conditions were the same as they are in Iraq, the embassy would be closed and the diplomats brought home.

I have to agree with the diplomats ...how can we force them to go into such a place without the means to protect them -- like we do at all embassies all over the world?

Trained soldiers go to war zones, not diplomats.

Baron Max

Well, it should be no surprise to anyone that Iraq is a total mess, and a dangerous place to live. Our diplomats shouldn't have to serve there, and neither should our soldiers. Whoever said these diplomats would be serving in the green zone is mistaken, they would be serving all over Iraq.

In truth, they cannot be forced like the military, but they will lose their jobs if they don't go.

Well, it should be no surprise to anyone that Iraq is a total mess, and a dangerous place to live. Our diplomats shouldn't have to serve there, and neither should our soldiers.

Europe and the South Pacific were total messes during World War II, but our soldiers had to serve there. War is messy business, and dangerous. How many diplomats during World War II had to serve in the middle of the war zones?

In truth, they cannot be forced like the military, but they will lose their jobs if they don't go.

No, they won't get fired. We close embassies and bring diplomats home during dangerous conflicts. You can't have it both ways.

Baron Max

Europe and the South Pacific were total messes during World War II, but our soldiers had to serve there. War is messy business, and dangerous. How many diplomats during World War II had to serve in the middle of the war zones?
Yes, our soldiers had to serve there. I would guess few if any diplomats were used in war zones.


No, they won't get fired. We close embassies and bring diplomats home during dangerous conflicts. You can't have it both ways.
If they don't go to Iraq, they will be fired. That is the controversy.

I found out about it on the day I was inducted into the Army, I was at the AFIC, and waiting for the bus's to go to Ft. Campbell, at the back of the auditorium the doors opened and in marched a Marine Gunny, 4 Sgt. a Lt., a Capt. and a Col. and a whole squad of M.P., the Gunny got everyone on their feet, and ready to hear the Speech from the Colonel, and it was the one about the Marines need a few good men, well no one volunteered, we all had chosen the branch we wanted to go into, so the Gunny started down the rows counting... one, two, three, Marine, one, two, three, Marine, and these guys were going to the Marines, one of the Guys was signed up to the Air Force, and he pulled his contract, and that is when the Lt. pointed out the section in the enlistment contract that you could be assigned to any part of the armed forces at the need of the United States, this was right after Khe Sanh, and the Marines needed personnel, so all of these guy were reassigned to the Marines.

:eek: Heavens, that came as quite a shock I'm sure!!!! Sounds like they were having as little success getting volunteers as the "Blue To Green" program!

I would guess few if any diplomats were used in war zones.

Where? Berlin? Tokyo? ...LOL!

If they don't go to Iraq, they will be fired. That is the controversy.

No, that's the sensationalist, bullshit rumor. They won't get fired, 'cause if they do, then they can never close another embassy due to armed conflict in those cities around the world.

But don't worry ...they'll get plenty of young diplomat volunteers wanting to make a fast track to "stardom" in the dippy corps.

Baron Max

They won't get fired, 'cause if they do, then they can never close another embassy due to armed conflict in those cities around the world.
I don't understand the reasoning.

Trained soldiers go to war zones, not diplomats.

Baron Max

Well, my husband is currently doing "constant diplomacy, along with contract crap, and teaching basic stuff with negotiations and communicating" (as per his own words). He is not trained to do it - he did not get classes and schools about diplomacy, contracts, or negotiations. He is not accepting a salary from the government and then saying he will not do as he is ordered to do because it's too hard or dangerous. He manned up to what he was ordered to do and did not even ATTEMPT to get out of it. To my mind, these diplomats are NEEDED over there, but they are not even close to half the man my husband is, because at least he has a sense of honor enough to do the job he has been paid to do, even though HE was not trained to do it. Given the opportunity to do the same, they are instead crying about it. They chose their career path and training - but I guess only for sunny days.

Don't you think that since the military solution obviously isn't working well over there, at some point they have to try a political solution too?

Diplomats aren't soldiers, they shouldn't be sent into a war zone.

Diplomats aren't soldiers, they shouldn't be sent into a war zone.

Okay - so... soldiers=should go to war zone, diplomats=shouldn't go to war zone, so diplomats do not equal soldiers. Well then, conversely, soldiers (or airmen, in my husband's case), do not equal diplomats, correct? That being the case, who then is to do the diplomacy that is NEEDED? I would think that if diplomacy is needed, it only makes sense that someone who is trained in it, should do it. Would you want a mechanic to do the roofing for your house? There is every possibility that they COULD do it, but would they do a good job? Would they do the job correctly? Or would you still have a leaky roof, because they are simply not trained or experienced enough for the job....?

Frankly, at every single job I've ever worked, I am 100% certain that I would have been fired had I dared say, "That's not my job." and simply not done something asked of me. The military in Iraq right now is doing things that are not their job - but at what risk? I think the risk is relatively straightforward - using untrained people for diplomacy - for anything - sets them up for failure, because they were not given the tools to succeed. What is the price of failure with diplomacy in Iraq? I'm not certain you can put a number or value on that cost, I believe it is incalculable. We have gotten ourselves into this quagmire, and we need to try to move ahead with it at this point.

Military solutions have been tried - they are not working. Though at this point it seems a desperate ploy by the current administration to push forward with this (think of when your kids were very little, you would smack their hand to tell them "no" - military solution - as they got older and more aware, you started talking to them instead - political/diplomatic solution), from the "front-line knowledge" I am getting, diplomacy really is needed at this juncture. SO, back to the beginning. Who then, is to do it?

Iraqis.

Iraqis.

LOL lovely point... wish it were possible, to be honest :D You should HEAR how they talk to each other, though... <shudder> Almost every single conversation they have between one another needs a mediator. And you have untrained airmen/soldiers/sailors trying to figure out how to do this? You should hear some of the frustration... my saying the military is being set up to fail (in regards to lack of training) is a kind assessment.

An inevitable consequence of the Bush administration's delusional optimism.

An inevitable consequence of the Bush administration's delusional optimism.

I'm not certain that I believe that delusional optimism is involved here... I think that they knew precisely what they were getting into. That bothers me, honestly, because I am forced to wonder where they perceive an end to be. We cannot keep dumping billions of dollars into Iraq indefinitely :shrug:

It won't be billions and it certainly won't be indefinitely. The problem is a large portion of the country is unwilling to commit to anything that takes longer than a baseball season to achieve (I leave aside the Democrats political machinations for the moment) . But another problem, one that is equally important, is that the government has not outlined how long they think this will take and what the end game will be. And, of course, they've already wasted years with failed strategies.

It won't be billions and it certainly won't be indefinitely. The problem is a large portion of the country is unwilling to commit to anything that takes longer than a baseball season to achieve (I leave aside the Democrats political machinations for the moment) . But another problem, one that is equally important, is that the government has not outlined how long they think this will take and what the end game will be. And, of course, they've already wasted years with failed strategies.

It has already been billions, though? As of January 2006, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office counted $323 billion in expenditures for the war on terrorism, including military action in Iraq and Afghanistan... the Pentagon was estimated to be spending about $200 million a day in Iraq (or about $6 billion a month). That was almost two years ago... we have placed more troops and equipment there since then.

I totally agree that we are an impatient public :) HOWEVER - as of March 20th, 2008, this war will be five years old. I do not think it is impatient to have expected at least SOME results by now? The current administration might certainly be attempting to appear further along than they are by forcing diplomats to go to Iraq, but... truly what else can be done at this point except try to move forward?

dianacarol6: "I think that they knew precisely what they were getting into... We cannot keep dumping billions of dollars into Iraq indefinitely"

countezero: "It won't be billions and it certainly won't be indefinitely."

dianacarol6: It has already been billions, though?.. "

They certainly did not know what they were getting into. If you will take a look back at the public and private statements of the PNAC that hatched the policy from 2003 earlier, and at Bush Administration statements early in the expedition, it is plainly evident that the Bush Administration was brimming with confidence.

We were regaled with a series of consistently naiive pronouncements about Iraq's receptivity to American remodeling. There is ample record of how the intelligence and diplomatic community tried to inject some reason before the adventure began, but were were silenced by an Executive Branch and public that were overcome by emotionalistic, nationalistic post-9-11 outrage and hubris. It wasn't fashionable to be pragmatic and inquisitive about Mesopotamia then, and certainly not at the expense of looking tough and appealing to feelings of revenge and pride.

Having been misled by emotion, Americans should not allow ourselves to be even more ignominiously misled by revisionism and resignation. We're about to blow through 500 Billion Dollars (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=297&Itemid=7) in this experiment with no end in sight.

dianacarol6: "what else can be done at this point except try to move forward?"

First, we have to get in touch with reality as a nation. We have to admit to ourselves and to the world that we were wrong as a nation to invade and occupy Iraq. Then it's time start pulling out. When the basic mistake is going where one should not, there is no remedy available in staying. There is no power in the world that is going to halt the breakup of Iraq that we have precipitated. The more protracted we allow this failed American empire to become, the greater will be the economic and strategic blowback in the "Homeland", and the greater the likelihood that Shi'a-majority rebellion will spread Southward into more active oilfields. The only thing forestalling an About Face is all about face: Foolish pride.

If we as a society cannot turn back from strategic folly because of our foolish pride, then we are no different than the fanatics of Imperial Japan who preferred apocalypse to confronting a national mistake. Reality inevitably punishes societies indiscriminately and without mercy for such willful blindness.

Lately, we're starting to find our national sense of reason again. The militant nationalism expressed in the common phrase "Support Our Troops" is being increasingly recognized as a deception, a manipulation of the dedication, and affront to the human value of our citizens in uniform. SOT is a ploy identical to that of regimes like the bygone Soviet Union, a virus that quashes clear thinking and open debate. Americans are still commonly brow-beaten for questioning this war, but reason is taking hold anyway- that is, so long as we are not stymied by a new tragedy and provocation before we have developed the national maturity to weather shocks like 9-11 without falling into reckless militancy and authoritarianism.

dianacarol6: "I think that they knew precisely what they were getting into... We cannot keep dumping billions of dollars into Iraq indefinitely"

countezero: "It won't be billions and it certainly won't be indefinitely."

dianacarol6: It has already been billions, though?.. "

They certainly did not know what they were getting into. If you will take a look back at the public and private statements of the PNAC that hatched the policy from 2003 earlier, and at Bush Administration statements early in the expedition, it is plainly evident that the Bush Administration was brimming with confidence.

We were regaled with a series of consistently naiive pronouncements about Iraq's receptivity to American remodeling. There is ample record of how the intelligence and diplomatic community tried to inject some reason before the adventure began, but were were silenced by an Executive Branch and public that were overcome by emotionalistic, nationalistic post-9-11 outrage and hubris. It wasn't fashionable to be pragmatic and inquisitive about Mesopotamia then, and certainly not at the expense of looking tough and appealing to feelings of revenge and pride...

I have no proof that they knew what they were doing - in fact the evidence would certainly point in the opposite direction looking at where we are NOW in Iraq... however, I refuse to believe that EVERYONE in government service is "thought-challenged" and was unable to make the logic leap of the potential consequences of their actions. It is my OPINION that at least SOME people knew precisely what would occur, but did it anyway. I just wonder to what end.

First, we have to get in touch with reality as a nation. We have to admit to ourselves and to the world that we were wrong as a nation to invade and occupy Iraq. Then it's time start pulling out. When the basic mistake is going where one should not, there is no remedy available in staying. There is no power in the world that is going to halt the breakup of Iraq that we have precipitated. The more protracted we allow this failed American empire to become, the greater will be the economic and strategic blowback in the "Homeland", and the greater the likelihood that Shi'a-majority rebellion will spread Southward into more active oilfields. The only thing forestalling an About Face is all about face: Foolish pride...

I do think it was a ridiculous and reckless idea to invade Iraq. I have thought that from the beginning... however; we are there now. Though I do not know the answer as to how to FIX it, I don't believe that we can rush in - create havoc and chaos - and then just leave. We have a responsibility to those that have endangered their own lives to help us (ie., interpreters) and to those that have been displaced by our actions. Additionally, I am not certain if the American people have any idea from news stories just HOW chaotic Iraq is - there is a desperate need for negotiation and diplomacy there. We might have FUBAR'd the place, but we need to take responsibility for that and make every attempt to help stabilize them.

dianacarol6: "I refuse to believe that EVERYONE in government service is "thought-challenged" and was unable to make the logic leap of the potential consequences of their actions."

That's right, not everyone was blinded by the bullshit. But in the post-9-11 climate, American society seamlessly shifted into a different mentality. In this mode, reason was squashed.

"It is my OPINION that at least SOME people knew precisely what would occur, but did it anyway. I just wonder to what end."

Hard personal choices to keep one's job and lifestyle, a hope that reason will prevail, hope that things won't turn out so badly, and resignation at being only one person in a human stampede often contribute to such calamities. If Americans don't gain a stronger resistance to provocation and hubristic, belligerent leadership after this experience, our way of life may not survive our next calamity and strongman.

I was watching the news last night and another army general was being interviewed and he flat out said that the millitary will be broken before the end of 2008 and so we will begin leaving by then. Either that or a draft. Of course some people will remain (maybe Oh my, even a diplomat) but the army will most be brought home.

In my mind this means either Iraq will break apart of there will be a new Saddam put in place - possibly even voted in by the Iraqis themselves.

Actually foreign diplomats understand that they may be sent to work in a dangerous country - it's part of the job contract and as most of these diplomats have higher degrees they usually read and understand that such may be the case.
Those diplomats who want the work understand this and do the job they are hired to do even when it means leaving their nice little cushy job in DC and move to another country.

The FACT is diplomats are needed in Iraq right now - so Iraq is where they are sent. It's really as simple as this. This is their job they either do it or quit. I fail to see what's so controversial about that?

dianacarol6: "I do think it was a ridiculous and reckless idea to invade Iraq. I have thought that from the beginning... however; we are there now. Though I do not know the answer as to how to FIX it, I don't believe that we can rush in - create havoc and chaos - and then just leave."

Consider that it is the American presence that has produced Iraq's present chaos.

"We have a responsibility to those that have endangered their own lives to help us (ie., interpreters) and to those that have been displaced by our actions."

Every empire has had a "responsibility" for their collaborators. They don't validate the adventure- That's just another aspect of the false logic we're being consistently fed as part of our new post-9-11 militant-nationalist craze.

"Additionally, I am not certain if the American people have any idea from news stories just HOW chaotic Iraq is - there is a desperate need for negotiation and diplomacy there."

But the USA does not have the moral mandate among Iraqis to be the referee. That means all political arrangements, and the ultimate outcome will never be finalized until we're out.

"We might have FUBAR'd the place, but we need to take responsibility for that and make every attempt to help stabilize them."

It's beyond that now. There is a degree of failure when a person or nation has lost the credibility to continue in a controlling role. This happens after all manner of accidents, tragedies, and crimes. It is because the USA precipitated this calamity that the USA will not be able to preside over the endgame. It's hard to take, but it's the truth.

Usually, in a war, the diplomats are sent to meet with the enemy in some third neutral location, not to the war zone itself where they could be bombed or assassinated any time.

I was watching the news last night and another army general was being interviewed and he flat out said that the millitary will be broken before the end of 2008 and so we will begin leaving by then. Either that or a draft. Of course some people will remain (maybe Oh my, even a diplomat) but the army will most be brought home.

In my mind this means either Iraq will break apart of there will be a new Saddam put in place - possibly even voted in by the Iraqis themselves.

I believe it... what we have going on right now (by taking Air Force and Navy to fill Army and Marine slots) is what I have been calling a "De Facto Draft". Of course the only next step there could be, would be a real draft. You have to think, by taking people from the Air Force and Navy, the Army and Marines are also borrowing money from the Air Force and Navy - at some point all of these bills are going to come due. You CANNOT just continue spending indefinitely. They are already juggling money in the military - "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Honestly - generations of my family have been in the military. That stops THIS generation... I wonder how many other people feel that way as well? When a troop signs the dotted line, saying he or she will serve with our Armed Forces, I believe that he/she does so in the belief and good faith that they will only be called to armed conflict with a GOOD reason, with a STRATEGY, and with a PLAN. In that belief, I will not allow my children to serve until the military can prove to my family that it has returned to reason.

All that said, I really do not see how we can withdraw with what we have done, unless as you say, another Saddam steps up. :shrug:

Michael: "another army general was being interviewed and he flat out said that the millitary will be broken before the end of 2008 and so we will begin leaving by then. Either that or a draft."

Without some new traumatic national catalyst, a draft for Iraq is out of the question. It would have been politically and Constitutionally impossible in the case of Vietnam as well, if they had delayed long enough for the public to get as wise as we are now to the present situation.

"...either Iraq will break apart [or] there will be a new Saddam put in place - possibly even voted in by the Iraqis themselves."

No, like bad eggs, and bad wars, it's beyond that now. There's no brokering a viable, unified Iraq under US auspices -Which many career diplomats in the US State Dept have come to understand, even while it's impossible for them to be frank about this realization.

"...diplomats are needed in Iraq right now - so Iraq is where they are sent... This is their job they either do it or quit. I fail to see what's so controversial about that?"

The controversy is over what is good for our country. As Iraq is fully revealed as a failed adventure, participation becomes problematic even from a patriotic point of view.

dianacarol6: "...I really do not see how we can withdraw with what we have done, unless as you say, another Saddam steps up."

There's talk that they're re-treading Allawi (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/26/allawi.returns/index.html) for that, but like I've been saying, it's far too late. We can't crash and just keep driving. The wheels are torn off, and we're here talking about paint.

Consider that it is the American presence that has produced Iraq's present chaos.

I can fully understand your reasoning that our presence is creating this chaos, however... it is not the entire reason. Iraq is split up by more religions, sects of religions, tribes, and ethnicities than you can shake a stick at. And how they deal with one another depends entirely on ALL of those factors. It's just mind-boggling. I honestly do not even know how THEY keep track of it. And for the record - I don't have ANY post 9/11 craze... I never once fell prey to it :p I believe that logic dictates that if you mess up a place, you clean it up. It's as simple as a dirty room, in a sense. The interpreters and others who have helped us, truly ARE in danger - they really WILL be killed. It is not posturing or threats - it is FACT.

If we leave, the country will fall apart - we created the circumstances that will lead to that, how can we not be culpable? Bear in mind, I talk almost daily to someone who is THERE and doesn't see any way out of it for us either. To just say, "oops" and leave is unconscionable and not worthy of The United States of America.

dianacarol6: "I can fully understand your reasoning that our presence is creating this chaos, however... it is not the entire reason. Iraq is split up by more religions, sects of religions, tribes, and ethnicities than you can shake a stick at."

More than all the King's horses, and all the King's men will ever put back together again.

"And how they deal with one another depends entirely on ALL of those factors."

Yes. And it will all come down to how they deal with it. We're in the way.

"I don't have ANY post 9/11 craze... I never once fell prey to it"

All Americans are blanketed by it. It pervades all of our political talk, and influences us all to some extent.

"I believe that logic dictates that if you mess up a place, you clean it up. It's as simple as a dirty room, in a sense."

Not at all. We're talking about the wrecking of millions of human destinies. There's more culpability here than found in a dirty room. No society expects incompetents and criminals to make everything right, nor do they normally afford them the chance. Overwhelmingly in the eyes of the regional inhabitants, the USA has behaved criminally and incompetently, and has forfeited the authority to establish the new order in Mesopotamia.

"The interpreters and others who have helped us, truly ARE in danger - they really WILL be killed. It is not posturing or threats - it is FACT."

Many collaborators have and will start new lives abroad. Many are being killed. Many more will sadly follow. These are inescapable realities.

"If we leave, the country will fall apart - we created the circumstances that will lead to that, how can we not be culpable?"

Iraq is brain-dead on life support, while we are pretending that we haven't killed it.

"Bear in mind, I talk almost daily to someone who is THERE and doesn't see any way out of it for us either. To just say, "oops" and leave is unconscionable and not worthy of The United States of America."

Invading and occupying a country that did not pose a threat to us, and that did not provoke us, was unconscionable and not worthy of the USA. The rest is the result.

I actually do agree with SOME of what you've said, hyperwaders... but I think we will have to agree to disagree regarding leaving Iraq. I disagree on the moral grounds of what *I* believe the United States now owes the country of Iraq. You believe that by staying we are making things worse than they already are. I follow you, but I simply can't agree. I'm getting first-hand reports from there, and I think we would be doing them another bad turn if we left at this point. That's my OPINION, just as you have yours. I guess they will just have to be different :) It does serve to illustrate, however, how many different opinions there are regarding this issue! lol

You're posts are refreshingly thoughtful, dianacarol6. But please don't go for the cop-out about opinions- We both know that there are over 5 billion opinions but only one absolute reality. Discussions like this are about discovering the truth, not intellectual intrenchment.

In no way do I mean to belittle your husband's perceptions when I say that he can survey less than you can of the prospects for Iraq at present. You have ready access to more candid Iraqi and Arab opinions than he does- He's in the belly of the beast, while you're out where you can see, hear and (don't forget) say much more. Here's to his safe return home- I'm signing off for tonite, but I hope we can chat again.

And hypewaders has used everyone of the five billion.

You're posts are refreshingly thoughtful, dianacarol6. But please don't go for the cop-out about opinions- We both know that there are over 5 billion opinions but only one absolute reality. Discussions like this are about discovering the truth, not intellectual intrenchment.

In no way do I mean to belittle your husband's perceptions when I say that he can survey less than you can of the prospects for Iraq at present. You have ready access to more candid Iraqi and Arab opinions than he does- He's in the belly of the beast, while you're out where you can see, hear and (don't forget) say much more. Here's to his safe return home- I'm signing off for tonite, but I hope we can chat again.

Well, thank you.. I think. Realistically, however, there is NOT one absolute reality in ANY complicated issue. How do you define reality? Reality (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reality) is defined in many ways - but it is also a philosophy, in that one of the many definitions is, "all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you". Our realities are compromised of our belief systems, cultures, experiences, socioeconomic status (at times), and law. That said, our reality here in the United States from an event might be interpreted quite differently in another country. This issue is FAR too complex to make blanket statements that one thing will fix it. So, I don't believe it is a cop-out to see that a discussion has come around onto itself, with no resolution, and smile at a good debate while agreeing to disagree.

I realize you are not intending to insult the position my husband is in, and I truly appreciate that :) HOWEVER - I might have not stated clearly what he is doing, and if that is the case I apologize. He is at an IA base, not an American military base, in Iraq. He deals with the Iraqi peoples all day, every day. He is basically "entrenched" with them. He knows more about this situation than any of us can or ever will, as he is not only a news hound but is seeing first-hand all of the developments, lack of developments, culture(s), and sociology of Iraq. He is attempting to fill what should be a diplomatic spot - mediating between various factions/tribes, negotiating contracts, supervising communications, etc. His training is essentially in electrical and mechanical work (power production). He's doing the best he can, and I'm so proud of him. But he's not a diplomat. I feel sorry for him that he was set up to fail, but there is nothing we can do about that. It is what the Army sent him to do.

I got involved with this discussion because I was INCENSED :mad: that our diplomats made such a fuss about having to do their job, when my husband IS doing his job, to the best of his abilities, as ordered. So, to my mind, they should just STHU and do THEIR job as well, or quit. Whichever, it makes no difference to me as long as they do not sully the ranks of government service with their cowardly presence. It broke my heart to imagine the child of a deceased servicemember reading what those diplomats said. Like somehow their parent was worth less than a diplomat, when that parent was probably their whole world. I am more than willing to admit that I took it personally because my husband is over there trying to do what they have been trained to do, but without training. Trust me - he gets VERY candid opinions about what is going on and what has gone on. Despite the danger, the Iraqis are not shy about stating their opinions in the LEAST. Much as I would like to deny it, many have actually stated to my husband that they "like George Bush". Easy to see why, when money is pouring into their country like a waterfall.

My husband is over there, with little to no protection, in the "belly of the beast". He is not safe. Recently, a bunch of American military went to a nearby town to distribute toys to children. One of the Army women had one of the children spit in her face. Nobody is safe there. But, the diplomats are also in government service and took an oath to go wherever they are sent. At least if they don't want to uphold that oath they have the option to quit or be fired. Our men and women in uniform certainly aren't given that leeway - they are charged with a crime if they try.

I believe that we should not have gone there in the first place, but I also believe that we cannot just pull up and withdraw with what we have created because it is "too hard". To do so without a stable government in place would create an anarchy we can only imagine in the depths of some horror movie. And I do mean TRUE anarchy - riots, murders, genocide, you name it: complete and total lawlessness. I won't change my opinion about that, because I was raised to believe - and my experiences have been - that if you make a mistake, you work to fix it. You don't throw up your hands and walk off mumbling. So as you see, to ME, I have a firm grounding of why I believe the way that I do. You seem to have a firm grounding of why you believe the way that YOU do. In that case, we will likely not change the opinions of the other, so the "diplomatic" solution (once you've already done a complete circle) is to agree to disagree. LOL

A "senior diplomat" is a "civil servant" who didn't have what it takes to make something of themselves in the real world. Now when called to actually do some f*cking work its all tears.

Just pathetic,
Michael
Agreed. If they refuse their assignment, they should be fired.

dianacarol6: "Well, thank you.. I think."

You're welcome, without reservation.

"Realistically, however, there is NOT one absolute reality in ANY complicated issue."

That's not true. There is only one reality, regardless of situation. When we're honest and inquisitive, we're all seeking to understand and cope with the same hard reality.

"I don't believe it is a cop-out to see that a discussion has come around onto itself, with no resolution, and smile at a good debate while agreeing to disagree."

Cop out; bad reasoning; unscientific; intellectual laziness. You don't own these shortcomings, and we all share them, so don't go getting all defensive about them.

"I might have not stated clearly what he is doing, and if that is the case I apologize. He is at an IA base, not an American military base, in Iraq. He deals with the Iraqi peoples all day, every day. He is basically "entrenched" with them."

He is wearing the uniform of an occupying army. He cannot be approached candidly by everryday Iraqis. Things have unravelled in Iraq beyond the point where IA personnel under occupation are hardly any more compatible or accepted within their broken society than armed foreigners. Regardless of your husband's good intentions and keen powers of observation, he's not in a position to interact normally with Iraqis. It's far more insurmountable than any culture barrier- the American mandate has crashed, and widespread, intense fear and loathing are part of the aftermath.

"He knows more about this situation than any of us can or ever will"

That' not true. Knowledge is highly communicable, but less so within military occupations.

"he is not only a news hound but is seeing first-hand all of the developments, lack of developments, culture(s), and sociology of Iraq."

Exiled Iraqi news hounds have better access to information from outside their own country. It just isn't safe to personally survey opinions within Iraq- It's a country in civil war, suffering under ethnic cleansing. Regarding some volatile reactions, there's a clearer view from safe distance. Up close, we can't see the forest fire for the transfixed trees.

"He is attempting to fill what should be a diplomatic spot - mediating between various factions/tribes, negotiating contracts, supervising communications, etc."

...Despite the danger, the Iraqis are not shy about stating their opinions in the LEAST. Much as I would like to deny it, many have actually stated to my husband that they "like George Bush".

Just as down through the centuries all sorts of Caesars have enjoyed their Aves from people seeking the safety of power, and the power of safety. But the American mandate is broken and futile. Understand, this does not mean your husband is a bad person because he can't really bargain- It's just the nature of the situation. If your husband could speak freely he might tell us the same. He can't, and neither can the people he's surrounded with. It isn't safe for them to.

"He's doing the best he can, and I'm so proud of him. But he's not a diplomat. I feel sorry for him that he was set up to fail, but there is nothing we can do about that."

We can get him out of there. We are a misinformed democracy. We don't need to ditch the democracy part- it's the misinformed part causing all this. When most Americans have confronted the reality of Iraq, all our troops will return without delay to where they are needed and can do more good for our country.

"I got involved with this discussion because I was INCENSED that our diplomats made such a fuss about having to do their job, when my husband IS doing his job, to the best of his abilities, as ordered."

There is a military fuss over this futile job also. There is discipline, professionalism, and patriotic dedication in the State Department, but individuals within that establishment all enjoy the empowerment -like military officers enjoy and enlisted people lack- to resign. There has never been such dissent in the diplomatic and military communities as this, because there has never been such an obviously wrong-headed war of occupation before.

"[Diplomats] should just STHU and do THEIR job as well, or quit. Whichever, it makes no difference to me as long as they do not sully the ranks of government service with their cowardly presence."

There is nothing cowardly about speaking your conscience when one's country is on the wrong track.

'It broke my heart to imagine the child of a deceased servicemember reading what those diplomats said."

Then your heart is being hijacked by propaganda identical to that of the bloodiest tyrants of history. Blood doesn't sanctify bad policy.

"Like somehow their parent was worth less than a diplomat, when that parent was probably their whole world."

That's falling for the lies. If the USA is a nation superior to the fallen belligerent empires of the past, then we have got to make it clear to survivors that this war is a product of lies, not virtue. We can comfort each other as free Americans without kow-towing to the Party Line of our political usurpers.

"My husband is over there, with little to no protection, in the "belly of the beast". He is not safe."

That's not an opinion, but reality. I wish I had the time right now to convey my sympaththies. I've known war and uncertianty myself. I wish I had time right now to make you understand I'm not picking on you. We are struggling together as a nation to come to grips with an unfolding disaster of our own making. We are not going to come out of Iraq with our feelings and national honor intact. The longer we persist in denial, the greater the final toll will be.

"I believe that we should not have gone there in the first place, but I also believe that we cannot just pull up and withdraw with what we have created because it is "too hard".

It will be harder to sacrifice more lives in a wrongful mission. You're providing excellent discussion, dianacarol6, and I wish that I had more time right now to respond with more than a paltry "good morning, and good luck".

Agreed. If they refuse their assignment, they should be fired.

Then you don't agree with nations that close their embassy due to armed conflict in nations of the world? You'd force the diplomats of all nations to stay in a country rocked by armed revolution? ...even though diplomats aren't trained in the arts of war?

Baron Max

It will be harder to sacrifice more lives in a wrongful mission.

Would you have taken that same approach in World War II against Japan? If not, why not? Without "The Bomb", we'd have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of American lives taking Japan. Should we have just quit ...and not sacrificed those lives?

Baron Max

Baron Max: "Would you have taken that same approach in World War II against Japan?"

The USA is playing a role more similar to Imperial Japan than the Allies in the present drama we're trying to discuss.

"Without "The Bomb", we'd have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of American lives taking Japan."

Not true. After Leyte Gulf, the Empire was literally out of gas, and unsustainable. Japan was already defeated as an empire when her navy was destroyed. There was no justification for burning Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

"Should we have just quit ...and not sacrificed those lives?"

Yes.

The USA is playing the role of Imperial Japan in this drama.

I disagree.

After Leyte Gulf, the Empire was literally out of gas, and unsustainable. Japan was already defeated as an empire when her navy was destroyed.

And yet they kept fighting, didn't they ...and they kept killing American Marines and soldiers.

"Should we have just quit (fighting Japan in World War II) ...and not sacrificed those lives?"

Yes.

Wow, Hype, you'd have let Japan conquer all of Southeast Asia and steal all of the oil from defenseless people and nations? ...just like that?

With an attitude like that, Hype, I don't know why I keep responding to your bullshit posts. You're completely irrational as far as I can tell ....'course that's like lots of mamby-pamby liberals in the world.

Baron Max

After Leyte Gulf, the Empire was literally out of gas, and unsustainable. Japan was already defeated as an empire when her navy was destroyed.

Baron Max: "And yet they kept fighting, didn't they ...and they kept killing American Marines and soldiers."

There was no need to confront their fanaticism. Japanese garrisons had no means of resupply. They posed no further threat to Asia or the USA by that point, because the Empire was finished without the Imperial Navy.

"Wow, Hype, you'd have let Japan conquer all of Southeast Asia and steal all of the oil from defenseless people and nations? ...just like that?"

No, you're twisting my words again. It was necessary to stop Imperial Japanese aggression. It was not necessary to burn or invade Japan. Can we return to the topic at hand? I still have a few minutes before I must go.

There was no need to confront their fanaticism. Japanese garrisons had no means of resupply. They posed no further threat to Asia or the USA by that point, because the Empire was finished without the Imperial Navy.

So we should have just stopped and sailed for home? ...LOL!

And let the Japanese build back up so we could fight them again on some other day? ...LOL!

Or waited until they built back up, then started attacking China again? ...LOL!

Hype, I can see that you and I are as far apart on issues as a conservative and a Muslim terrorist. "Diplomacy" between you and I is a major waste of time. :D

Baron Max

Asia would not have been conducive to any Imperial Japanese resurgence; it was all over in 1944. In the minds of the Japanese people the writing was on the wall as well. The defeat of the Empire was palpable, and working its way through Japanese society long before we burned their cities. We were too high on war in the USA to let them down easy. American anger wanted the "Japs" to burn, but in reality that holocaust had nothing to do with breaking the already paralyzed Empire of the Sun. It's a matter of established history, not opinion.

""Diplomacy" between you and I is a major waste of time. "

No, you're just retreating behind your precious lies when you are challenged. But with time, those lies are getting thinner. I can see you.

I got involved with this discussion because I was INCENSED :mad: that our diplomats made such a fuss about having to do their job, when my husband IS doing his job, to the best of his abilities, as ordered. So, to my mind, they should just STHU and do THEIR job as well, or quit. Whichever, it makes no difference to me as long as they do not sully the ranks of government service with their cowardly presence. It broke my heart to imagine the child of a deceased servicemember reading what those diplomats said. Like somehow their parent was worth less than a diplomat, when that parent was probably their whole world.

I too was angered at their reaction. The diplomats have options. They can quit their jobs. The diplomatic ranks would be better off without those who are unwilling to do the job at hand.

I too was angered at their reaction. The diplomats have options. They can quit their jobs. The diplomatic ranks would be better off without those who are unwilling to do the job at hand.

I think you're wrong. There have been many instances of nations closing their embassies and pulling their diplomats out of dangerous, overly violent nations. That's not just the USA, that's all nations with embassies. If things get to dangerous, we've always closed the embassies and pulled the diplomats out to safety. Why is this any different? And in reality, it's even worse!

Baron Max

I think you're wrong. There have been many instances of nations closing their embassies and pulling their diplomats out of dangerous, overly violent nations. That's not just the USA, that's all nations with embassies. If things get to dangerous, we've always closed the embassies and pulled the diplomats out to safety. Why is this any different? And in reality, it's even worse!

Baron Max

Our embassy isnt closed and they take an oath to go wherever the secretary of state assigns them.

http://usembassy.state.gov/

Dont want to do the job? They are Americans and are free to find another job. No one makes you work for the US government. They need to shut their yaps and do the job or hit the door.

Crybabies.

Then you don't agree with nations that close their embassy due to armed conflict in nations of the world? You'd force the diplomats of all nations to stay in a country rocked by armed revolution? ...even though diplomats aren't trained in the arts of war?

How does that follow from what I said. If your nation closes the embassy, you don't need to be there. But if it keeps them open and assigns you to that position, you should either do your job or quit.

A retired diplomat's recent message to Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/2007/11/more-on-need-to-close-down-us-embassy.html) is topical. Cole has been examining some of the precedent for closing the US Embassy in Baghdad.
As a retired foreign service officer ... at the State Department in Washington, I would like to add to your rationale for closing the US Embassy in Bagdad to save lives. In addition to the extreme danger involved, many of us would not go to Iraq because there is virtually nothing we can accomplish there. We could have no contact with ordinary Iraqis and would put our professional contacts or, for example, potential cultural exchange grantees, in great danger, simply by virtue of being seen with us, working with us, or participating in our programs. Unless some minimum level of security is established, we would be unable to achieve any worthwhile results, while causing great harm to cooperating Iraqis and their families--putting our own lives as risk for activities that would in the end likely prove useless and even shameful...

Much of the criticism of balky diplomats as cowards and uninformed is autopropaganda. As ever, pundits are attempting to keep opinion in line by dismissing informed dissent as cowardice. As I've already mentioned, Iraq is not an environment where Americans can constructively set up diplomatic shop. For Iraqis in the present situation, public deals and associations with Americans are too often the kiss of death. Genuine diplomacy will have to wait for sovereign governments to emerge there.

Baron Max: "Our embassy isnt closed and they take an oath to go wherever the secretary of state assigns them."

Do you mean this oath?
I ________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


If mandatory postings are the norm, why did Secretary Rice have to step in to impose it (http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSN02571669)?

If anyone has seen transcript or video of the town hall meeting (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110107O.shtml) that several hundred Foreign Service "cowards" spoke out through, I would very much appreciate links to them here in this thread.

How does that follow from what I said. If your nation closes the embassy, you don't need to be there. But if it keeps them open and assigns you to that position, you should either do your job or quit.

I agree. But what I'm saying is that the embassy should NOT be kept open in a fuckin' war zone!!

In many nations of the world, when there's high risk of armed conflict and danger to the embassy personnel, we close the embassy and bring the diplomats home (or to some protected location). And yet, here's Baghdad, dead in the middle of a war zone, and they want to open it up???

No, the embassy in Baggieville should NOT be open for business.

Baron Max

Much of the criticism of balky diplomats as cowards and uninformed is autopropaganda. As ever, pundits are attempting to keep opinion in line by dismissing informed dissent as cowardice. As I've already mentioned, Iraq is not an environment where Americans can constructively set up diplomatic shop. For Iraqis in the present situation, public deals and associations with Americans are too often the kiss of death. Genuine diplomacy will have to wait for sovereign governments to emerge there.

I find it difficult to believe that I would agree with you, Hype, ....but I agree with you, Hype.

Baron Max

I appreciate you saying so, Baron Max.

In today's State Department Press Briefing, it was noted that "directed assignments" are not business as usual, but are instead a response to a shortcoming of volunteers for the Baghdad US Embassy.

I had simple link, but the video is now unavailable the Dept of State website (http://www.state.gov/). Nothing spectacular, but you can still see that corroboration if you want on the C-Span Website (http://www.c-span.org/videoarchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,), (click on "State Department Press Briefing" and scroll to 16:30- sorry, it's a damn java link I can't drop into hypertext here).

These public employees are not all cowards, and those who have spoken up are not responding to normal procedures. Diplomats are not normally given deployment orders like soldiers.

Baron Max: "Our embassy isnt closed and they take an oath to go wherever the secretary of state assigns them."

Do you mean this oath?


Yes especially this part I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

This isnt the first time a sec. of state has mandated the filling of posts, its just the most recent.

And I am not saying they Cant Quit their jobs. They sure can. So they really have nothing to whine about. Dont like it, find another job, its what the rest of us have to do in the Real World.

Yes especially this part I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.


I was trying to finds that part of the Oath of Office, thank you for hitting the nail on the head, if they want the prestige of being in the U.S. Diplomatic Corp, then they have to fulfill the oath of Office and take the job assigned, if they don't want to do the Job as required, quit and find some other employment that won't put their ass's on the line.

milkweed: "...they really have nothing to whine about. Dont like it, find another job, its what the rest of us have to do in the Real World."

It rises above whining, and takes more backbone, to stand up for a job one sincerely cares about when someone's tinkering with the rules. Consider also that for dedicated and patriotic career US diplomats (not to be confused with pompous appointee Ambassadors) there is no lateral move. These kind of professionals can't just go work for another country.

Now if we were talking about posting the architects and enablers of this war in harm's way, I might reconsider my opinion: That new Embassy is plenty big enough for both Congress and the White House to set up shop. Iraqis wouldn't have to be insulted by the spectacle, because we control their press sufficiently to conceal the popularly-directed assignment from them. I think maybe our policy makers should conduct all their business from Iraq until they find a way out, or have been killed or severely wounded. I would expect much more to get done under those circumstances.

Consider also that for dedicated and patriotic career US diplomats (not to be confused with pompous appointee Ambassadors) there is no lateral move. These kind of professionals can't just go work for another country.

'Tis the season...
http://www.walmart.com/cservice/jb_index.gsp?NavMode=8

Har, har, welcome to WalMart. I take it you have a low opinion of American career diplomats, milkweed?

I think of them more as dedicated public servants, who continue to work and gain nationally-vital experience, insights, and contacts throughout the policy swings of Administrations that come and go. That's one of the reasons why I tend to listen when they make a rare (if diplomatic) appeal directly to the American public.

It's still so strange that "hundreds" of US diplomats participated in a town hall meeting on the directed-assignment issue 2 days ago, yet I still can't find a transcript or video of that meeting. WTF?

I just found some of the town hall meeting at Crooks & Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/).

video download -7MB (http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/23075/1/CNN-Diplomats-revolt-Iraq.wmv)

edit: apologies for the crappy link- turns out it's the typical CNN infotainent treatment, with hardly any substance. Still looking...

Har, har, welcome to WalMart. I take it you have a low opinion of American career diplomats, milkweed?

I think of them more as dedicated public servants, who continue to work and gain nationally-vital experience, insights, and contacts throughout the policy swings of Administrations that come and go. That's one of the reasons why I tend to listen when they make a rare (if diplomatic) appeal directly to the American public.

It's still so strange that "hundreds" of US diplomats participated in a town hall meeting on the directed-assignment issue 2 days ago, yet I still can't find a transcript or video of that meeting. WTF?

Somewhere I read there are 11,000+ employees of the state dept. 5,000 work in the USA alone. 1,000+ interns a year are put on at State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Service

250 people were notified they may be assigned to Iraq. There are approximatly 48 positions due to open in 2008. These are the positions that have no volunteers for, not the total number of positions. Its a one year position.

You want a career in the State Dept, then if your assigned to Iraq you go. This is a personal decision each worker has to make for themselves. Whining to the papers about how unfair it is when they get assigned to a post they dont want, rather than doing what every other american worker has to do, and decide for themselves whether the cost outweighs the benefit, does not endear them to my heart. Just like oil company workers who get shipped off to S.A. whining about how it aint fair. Too bad. Then quit your job. That what the rest of us have to do.

There is no laws being broken, no rights being violated, and no reason why these persons should be crying the blues publicly. I have alot more sympathy for the 15,000 chrysler workers that dont have the option of quitting a job they dont like, rather they are losing a job they worked hard on each day.

I don't know if anyone's seen this but I agree with the report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7074733.stm

I'd like to break through the media filter to hear uncut exactly what foreign service officers actually had to say on this. Most of what we're being fed so far is the "I'm scared" bit- But I suspect there's more to it than that, including reservations about how effective Green-zone-based work can be under present circumstances in Iraq. People headed for such careers have likely read and comprehended The Ugly American (http://www.amazon.com/Ugly-American-William-J-Lederer/dp/0449215261).

I'm still searching, and appealing for transcripts or video of last Wednesday's Department of State Town Hall Meeting.

Here is Jack Croddy

http://www.livevideo.com/video/APnews/245696F236B54686A8A4D385886EE476/raw-video-iraq-assignment-ups.aspx

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=113_1193952004

Thanks, Sam. Hopefully someone will put up the entire exchange eventually. It's hard to get a real sense of what was said from soundbytes.

Digg is a good place to keep watch

You want a career in the State Dept, then if your assigned to Iraq you go. This is a personal decision each worker has to make for themselves. Whining to the papers about how unfair it is when they get assigned to a post they dont want, rather than doing what every other american worker has to do, and decide for themselves whether the cost outweighs the benefit, does not endear them to my heart. Just like oil company workers who get shipped off to S.A. whining about how it aint fair. Too bad. Then quit your job. That what the rest of us have to do. There aren't very many companies who manage their executive level employees like that, and fewer still who do well in consequence. It still seems to me remarkably bad management, that would ever get into this situation.

I don't follow the logic of posting lots of diplomats to Iraq anyway - isn't most war zone diplomacy done somewhere out of range of the mortar fire?

One standard way to handle this in a private corporation is to bump up the compensation until the job posting attracts applicants.

But until we get better quality media coverage, it's hard to know what the situation is all about

There aren't very many companies who manage their executive level employees like that, and fewer still who do well in consequence. It still seems to me remarkably bad management, that would ever get into this situation.

I don't follow the logic of posting lots of diplomats to Iraq anyway - isn't most war zone diplomacy done somewhere out of range of the mortar fire?

One standard way to handle this in a private corporation is to bump up the compensation until the job posting attracts applicants.

But until we get better quality media coverage, it's hard to know what the situation is all about

These are not 'executive level' employees of the state department. That would be the title "ambassador". These are the equivalents of 'managers' and lower.

And it happens all the time where people are re-assigned to other areas of the country or abroad. It depends on corporate need. Again, these people are free to quit their jobs or move where they are assigned.

And I dont follow the logic of having an embassy open in Somalia, but we do. And I tell you what, I was sure glad the Canadians kept their embassy open during the Iranian revolution and hid US citizens within its walls until they were able to get documents to get our citizens out of that mess.

While the spin-piranhas swarm on character smears and ignore everything else, Charles Crain's article in Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1679818,00.html) touches on the kernel of all this:
The risk to life and limb is real. But the greater worry is that the risks and hardships will be in the service of a cause that is not only frustrating but potentially futile.

This story is exemplary of the intense denial American public discourse remains locked into. We can't debate honestly about Iraq in public forums in the USA, because confronting the Iraq expedition as a national mistake is still taboo. We can't bring ourselves to listen to the career diplomats who speak from experience about our failure. So we await a compounding of the tragedy before we'll remember -maybe only in approaching our total despair- that America is not the government. Our treatment of this story both in the media and right here in this forum hints at a long and painful recovery from this deadly denial. This buried debate is another example of our dangerous flirtation with the collective mentality that has consistently prepared the way for tyranny throughout history.

The risk to life and limb is real. But the greater worry is that the risks and hardships will be in the service of a cause that is not only frustrating but potentially futile.


So what does this have to do with people refusing to do their jobs? The risk existed long before the US went into Iraq. If the risk