Are they diplomats or duds?
Rice to cable diplomats urging them to go to Iraq
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to cable all U.S. diplomats urging them to serve in Iraq, the State Department said on Thursday, a day after a furor erupted over plans to order some of them there.
At an emotional town hall meeting on Wednesday, U.S. diplomats bitterly complained about the State Department’s decision to identify “prime candidates” who may have to accept compulsory one-year tours in Iraq or risk losing their jobs.
One said it was a “potential death sentence” to serve in Baghdad, where mortar rounds land in the heavily fortified “Green Zone” where the U.S. embassy is located. (emphasis mine)
Honestly, that diplomat should consider finding a new line of work. A diplomat is the “face” of America. How weak we must seem if our diplomats are so fearful. On the other hand, there’s not much point forcing them. Either way it’s a disastrous mix. Unwilling or fearful, they won’t be doing their jobs properly. Better to put out the call for people willing to serve.
How much does a diplomat earn, anyway?
November 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Odd. diplomats refusing combat duty. Next thing you know, the troops will be refusing
diplomatic duty.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Perhaps they should, BB. I do recall many lectures telling us we are diplomats for the United States when serving overseas. I hope I served my country well in that capacity while being a military wife.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Military wives play an important role as ambassadors, no doubt. Many places are curious about Americans and people there want to learn what we are really about. The issue in Iraq, IMHO is that it is considered counterinsurgency and the military needs civil ops assistance as emphasized in FM 3-24, the army manual recently issued under Petreaus’
guidance. Under current conditions, I doubt many military wives are in theatre, but there
is a significant need for civilian assistance (well, beyond the Blackwater type)..helping the Iraqis with local government, schooling, infrastructure, understanding a democratic way of doing things, etc. Such is the nature of insurgencies, operation out and among those needing help is very dangerous. So, it is a bit of a unique problem and I can understand
the need as well as the reluctance vis a vis the State Department.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Yeah but your capacity as a military wife did not include sending you in the middle of a war zone either. I definitely understand why a diplomat would not want to be sent in a dangerous zone like Iraq. When I become a lawyer, if the company that hires me suddenly decide that I should have to work out of the Bagdad office, trust me I will be the first to refuse, and imposing that on me would be really unfair.
November 4th, 2007 at 8:25 am
“Yeah but your capacity as a military wife did not include sending you in the middle of a war zone either.”
No, it only included having to do a bomb check of my car every morning before leaving for the office. It wasn’t a war zone, just a small community where a lot of American Soldiers were known to live and provide easy targets for terrorists coming into the country at will. It only included dealing with frequent bomb alerts in areas where we were known to shop. It only included being responsible for whole classrooms of small people during those alerts. But no, I wasn’t in a war zone. It wasn’t called that because we weren’t at war with the country in which we were living.