You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Iraq draftees seethe, pout, whinge, threaten to move to Canada
2007-11-01
U.S. diplomats on Wednesday bitterly criticized plans to force them to go to Iraq, with one calling it a "potential death sentence" and another pleading for psychiatric treatment for those who return scarred.
YJCMTSU.
The comments surfaced in an emotional, hour-long town hall meeting after the State Department announced after normal office hours on Friday that "prime candidates" for service in Iraq may have to accept compulsory one-year tours or risk losing their jobs. Among other things, diplomats told State Department Director General Harry Thomas they resented the fact that the decision broke in the news media before it was cabled to U.S. diplomats around the world late Friday night.

About 250 people received notifications this week that they are in a pool who may be forced to go to Iraq to fill roughly 50 positions for which no qualified diplomats have volunteered to fill next summer. They could be sent to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad's fortified "Green Zone," which is very occasionally often hit by mortar fire, or to civilian-military provincial reconstruction teams that seek to nudge Iraq's 18 provinces toward greater government transparency, rule of law and other political milestones.

"I'm sorry but basically, that's a potential death sentence and you know it," said Jack Crotty, who was nearing retirement after more than three decades in the foreign service, including a stint as political adviser to NATO's southern command.
Potential death sentences are only acceptable for our soldiers, it seems; Mr. Crotty is too good to stand up for us.
Thomas, who heads human resources for the State Department and sent out the cable on the forced assignments last week, did not respond in detail to Crotty's comments beyond saying that they were full of inaccuracies. He also reminded the group that as U.S. diplomats they had agreed to work anywhere in the world, saying that some day U.S. diplomats would serve in Iran and North Korea — countries with which the United States does not have diplomatic relations. "We cannot pick and choose where we go," he said. "We cannot shrink from our duty. We have all agreed to worldwide availability."
That should settle it. Even the Hildebeast would need to send diplomats to undesirable places; when called, you go.
Another official, Liz Campbell, said people in her office wanted to know why they were informed of the decision after the close of business on Friday and were "very disappointed" with the department that they learned of it in news reports. Thomas said he was sorry for how the news was released, saying it was "my fault" and reflected the need to consult top State Department officials and to vet everything thoroughly with lawyers.
I agree with the staff here. That was a low and snivelly thing to do. The employees ought to have had full notification before it went to the press.
No question of that. But I think the complainers would still be sounding off if they'd been told on the Monday the week before the press heard.
Rachel Schneller praised Thomas for taking what she called a hard decision to force people to serve in Iraq, saying she was pleased to have spent a year in Iraq herself. "It wasn't a tour without difficulties for me and it was a war zone and I came back wounded. I came back with a battle scar. I came back and was diagnosed almost immediately with post-traumatic stress disorder and I have been receiving treatment for that ever since," she said, her voice quavering. "I have to say that absolutely none of the treatment I have received for it came from the State Department. I asked for treatment from the State Department and I didn't get any of it from the State Department."
That should be fixed. They can line up next to our soldiers, who should also get the best care possible when they return home.
"But the treatment I have been getting has been excellent and the private sector is a wonderful thing," she said with a small laugh. "Now that you are looking at compulsory service in war zones ... we have a moral imperative as an agency to take care of the people who do take that step to serve their country in war zones ... when they come back."
Noah Schactman at Wired Magazine had some thoughts.
Posted by:Seafarious

#11  I don't think we should fire these guys.

Send them to work on road crews somewhere in the deeps South. They can earn their GS-18 paychecks standing out in the middle of 90 degree asphalt holding a goddamn SLOW sign for an eight hour shift.

Then find some about-to-be-honorably-discharged Lance Corporal somewhere and ask him if he wants to be a diplomat for six months at four pay grades higher than he currently is.

As a bonus he probably knows more about the native population to begin with, _and_ probably isn't as much of a dickweed when dealing with it, since he hasn't been told his whole damn education and life how much smarter he is than everyone else.
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman   2007-11-01 15:28  

#10  You are serving your country, not workign for a f**king country club.

If you aren;t up for doint hte things to make the nation succedd, then get the hell out of government service.

Who the hell do these peopel think they are? Self entitled asshoels.
Posted by: OldSpook   2007-11-01 14:56  

#9  if you don't want to play, leave. reminds me of the various Reservists that did not believe you could actually be ordered into a war zone.
Posted by: USN,Ret.   2007-11-01 14:39  

#8  "I'm sorry but basically, that's a potential death sentence and you know it," said Jack Crotty, who was nearing retirement after more than three decades in the foreign service, including a stint as political adviser to NATO's southern command.

Well, Jack, there are just as many dangerous - "death sentance" - places in Naples as there are in Baghdad. But then this is State Department folks who need a pin-striped environment where you are rewarded for choosing a good wine for the Secretary's in country visit and dinner.
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2007-11-01 13:07  

#7  The employees ought to have had full notification before it went to the press.

Indeed. But probably symtomatic of the level of competence State has been showing. A house cleaning would do them (and the US!) good.
Posted by: SteveS   2007-11-01 12:16  

#6  When they were rebuilding the last division, the 10th, at Fort Drum, the Army found a number of senior non-coms in a particular field reluctant to move to the great white north. That branch had previously had stagnation in the upper echelons of the rank structure. So, it used the opportunity to issue orders. It went through a dozen senior Ncos before one didn't submit his retirement papers. That one lasted six months before the CG called branch and said - now send me a real one. It is a good bureaucratic tool to clear out dead wood that the system otherwise makes extremely difficult to remove.

Maybe this is Condi's 'revenge is a dish served cold'. Her parting gift to the next administration.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-11-01 09:32  

#5  This confirms everything I thought about the narcissistic striped pants draft dodgers at State and their sense of entitlement. They are the sort who sing "We are the World" and believe it.
Posted by: RWV   2007-11-01 09:03  

#4  Saudi stipends are cut off when DOS personnel are in theater.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-11-01 09:00  

#3  Well, this is one way to begin sorting out the ... staff ... in State.
Posted by: lotp   2007-11-01 07:53  

#2  So the employees cry about having to hear it in the news.....

Here's an idea. Stop LEAKING every-phucking-thing.
Posted by: Mike N.    2007-11-01 02:40  

#1  "We cannot pick and choose where we go," he said

Things must have surely changed, they've used a seniority system and been "picking and choosing" for decades. KBR, BAE, SAIC, CACI, BAH, and Blackwater have few problems in finding employees willing to deploy to the ITA, and oftentimes for salaries much lower than those at US State. Could it be the caliber of employee is the problem? Their true colors have surfaced? Canvasing for 500 to fill 50 is an admission of failure. Fire the first three phuechs that say "no" on the bloody spot! Don't even let them have lunch or clean out their desks. The rest will deploy or you can fire them as well. No employer in the private sector would put up with that type of rubbish. Why should the US taxpayer?
Posted by: Besoeker   2007-11-01 01:40  

00:00