State Department meltdown: Wimps, weenies, and a few brave men
Coddling Foggy Bottom
As I mentioned last week, State Department foreign service officer John Matel wrote an excellent, scathing piece lambasting his fellow diplomats/officers who balked at being assigned to the Green Zone in Iraq. Refresher:
I just finished reading a news article discussing some of my FSO colleagues’ vehement and emotional response to the idea that a few of us might have directed assignments in Iraq . To my vexed and overwrought colleagues, I say take a deep breath and calm down. I have been here for a while now, and you may have been misinformed about life at a PRT.
I personally dislike the whole idea of forced assignments, but we do have to do our jobs. We signed up to be worldwide available. All of us volunteered for this kind of work and we have enjoyed a pretty sweet lifestyle most of our careers.
I will not repeat what the Marines say when I bring up this subject. I tell them that most FSOs are not wimps and weenies. I will not share this article with them and I hope they do not see it. How could I explain this wailing and gnashing of teeth? I just tried to explain it to one of my PRT members, a reserve LtCol called up to serve in Iraq . She asked me if all FSOs would get the R&R, extra pay etc. and if it was our job to do things like this. When I answered in the affirmative, she just rolled her eyes.
Calling Iraq a death sentence is just way over the top. I volunteered to come here aware of the risks but confident that I will come safely home, as do the vast majority of soldiers and Marines, who have a lot riskier jobs than we FSOs do.
So, what is the White House doing? It appears President Bush has chosen to give in to the weenies:
The State Department has extended a window for diplomats to volunteer for Iraq duty in the hope the Bush administration can avoid ordering potentially unwilling candidates to serve in the combat zone, officials said Tuesday.
The department has put off until at least the end of the week the process of selecting foreign service officers for so-called “directed assignments” to Iraq as it looks for more volunteers to fill 48 spots that will come open at the Baghdad embassy and outlying provinces this summer, the officials said.
Amid a furor over the possibility that some foreign service officers may be forced to go to Iraq in the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam, U.S. officials said that as of Tuesday morning, 25 volunteers had already been approved for those jobs…
The good news is that volunteers are coming forward. The bad news is that throwing tantrums pays:
Harry Thomas, director general of the Foreign Service, informed Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte of the rising number of volunteers on Friday. At the same time, Thomas said he would delay the selection process until Nov. 16 at which time he would re-evaluate the situation and decide how to proceed, officials said.
Thomas’ decision last month to begin the process of directed assignments for posts in Iraq has sparked a decidedly undiplomatic dispute in the foreign service that has since spilled into the public arena after news reports emerged of a contentious State Department town hall meeting on the topic on Oct. 31.
At the meeting, hundreds of diplomats applauded when one of their colleagues likened a forced tour in Iraq to a “potential death sentence” while some questioned the ethics of ordering unarmed civilians into a war zone and expressed concerns about a lack of training and medical care for those who have served.
Over at the State Department blog, there are many interesting comments responding to Matel’s post, including cheers, jeers, and a call to make the State Department’s video of the town hall meeting public amid claims by some State Department employees who think the media coverage of the meeting has been unfair. A sample:
Roger in Utah writes:
I’m not an FSO but I am a retired Army officer. I find the controversy over assignment to Iraq by some in State not only distasteful but cowardly. Your job, like mine, is to serve your country. Period. Not when it’s convenient or comfortable or fun but always. If you don’t like that, then get out. It’s that simple. I could care less whether these words ‘offend’ you or not; your conduct and lack of dedication offends me! This is exactly why the military has such a low opinion of diplomats. The author of this letter is an exception but for the rest of you, if you don’t want the job give it to someone who is more capable and less a coward. Coward. That’s the word for someone who won’t risk their personal comfort or safety in the national interest but will still take the governments check. My disgust is limitless as I am sure it the case for those soldiers and Marines currently deployed.
Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007
***
Dan in Washington, DC writes:
Re the suggestion that @ Harry in Massachusetts offers about the State Department making public a tape of the State Department Town Hall Meeting where the Director General of the Foreign Service discussed assignments to Iraq, I think that is an appropriate idea.
I work at State and I’ve seen a tape of this meeting. As @ Jane reported, most of the meeting was a very productive, informative, positive and professional exchange regarding various issues and details related to staffing Foreign Service position and Foreign Service Officer service in Iraq. The majority of the exchanges at the meeting focused on Foreign Service Officers wanting to know the specifics about their service in assignments in Iraq, and also wanting to know about the support the Department will provide to those have already and will in the future serve in Iraq. The majority of the questions and comments were NOT about Foreign Service Officers objecting to or refusing to serve in Iraq!
Only towards the end of the meeting did some of the more emotional and heated exchanges take place. Seemingly, these few exchanges have been taken somewhat out of context.
As is so often the case, what has been publicized by the media is basically only the emotional and heated exchanges, while the forthright and positive exchanges that characterized the majority of the meeting were not highlighted or at all mentioned.
An example of this focus on the emotional exchanges only is the CNN report found at the link below. In addition to only showing a few seconds of several highly-charged, emotional exchanges (taken out of what was a meeting that lasted about an hour and largely was characterized by much less emotion and much more professionalism), the CNN reporters report that the meeting was an “open revolt” and a “stunning uprising.” If this town hall meeting was an open revolt and a stunning uprising, then does CNN characterizes everyday U.S. Congressional proceeding as all-out, doomsday, global thermo-nuclear exchanges? Anyway, here is CNN clip:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politicsFor another perspective on this issue, below is a link to the American Foreign Service Associations (AFSA) take on these matters. Of special note is this excerpt taken from the AFSA President’s November 5th letter found on this site: “AFSA reminds everyone that directed assignments are not a certainty. Both the Secretary and Director General have said that they remain open to filling the vacancies with volunteers if they materialize. At least 15 additional volunteers stepped forward last week. Others may do so this week.†AFSA link: http://www.afsa.org/president-update.cfm.
Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007
***
Bill in Spain writes:
I have to agree with you, John. As a Foreign Service Officer who has served in his share of differential tours, I am somewhat dismayed to see the reaction. It seems a given that we are worldwide available and that there may come a time when you are assigned somewhere you did not particularly want to go. I feel those who declare their resistance most shrilly are doing the rest of us no favors. Our military colleagues are already disgusted by us and disrespecting the entire FS for the actions and statements of a few. Most of us are loyal and dedicated and, regardless of our political affiliations or our personal feelings regarding the situation in Iraq, will do our duty where it is required of us. Those considering vocal dissent should carefully consider the consequences of their words on the entire FS.
Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007
***
Jane writes:I am an Foreign Service Officer. I was at the town hall meeting. And I’m disgusted by the way this whole aftermath has played out in the media — and worse, by the way the Department has handled it.
I don’t think there was a person in that auditorium who thought he or she could change the policy. The vast majority of questions were on implementation issues, and were on technical details; those that weren’t, dealt with some anger over how the news was disseminated. The reason you only see one sound bite in dozens — if not hundreds — of newspaper and online articles is because that was essentially the only question/comment that would’ve been readily accessible to someone outside the profession. This was in no way the public protest it has been painted to be.
Moreover, although the initial Reuters coverage was fairly accurate, later reporting focused only on the “death sentence” comment and cut other important context, such as the way the Director-General hectored and belittled the audience, and compared FSOs to slave owners. The mood was far less confrontational at the outset of the meeting than at the end. And that, I believe, is the reason for the smattering of applause that Croddy received (which was far less, incidentally, than what was — justifiably — received than the brave woman who talked about her PTSD). People were applauding his anger against a Director General who was behaving like a child.
So: do “most” FSOs oppose directed assignments? That’s an open (and easy to research) question that certainly wasn’t answered during the meeting.
What has been answered is that, in the face of a massive public display of hatred for and ignorance about the diplomatic function, the Department’s only official response has been to dig up a clumsy flag-waver to egg on the detractors. How difficult would it have been to pull just one person from the “R” bureau to track and respond to news coverage with factual op-eds — heck, even letters — setting the record straight about the so-called “cushy” FSO life and about public service? It may seem like a warning shot to internal dissenters now, but what about when the lawmakers who are also following all this coverage realize how much popular approbation they can gain by slashing State budgets?
And gosh, could any of this in any way explain why only 12 percent feel the Secretary has the interests of the Foreign Service at stake?
And gee, could that, in turn, explain any of the reluctance so many of us feel (quite apart from the question of whether we’ll serve) in contemplating this assignment?
(For FSOs against directed assignments: here’s a nifty thought-experiment. Would you feel differently if Colin Powell had asked you to go? I know what my answer would be.)
Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007
***
Thomas in Colorado writes:I’ve been trying to get on with the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office as a Provincial Reconstruction Team Public Diplomacy Officer for more than a year, but have been rejected time and again. And I probably have the appropriate qualifications: years abroad in Asia, former journalist/editor at one of America’s premier newspapers, master’s degree in international relations, a firm belief in the mission, and a strong understanding of the principles and practice of public diplomacy and public and civil affairs (about which I teach at a local university). Would that those who truly want to serve and are qualified had the chance to do so.
Posted on Mon Nov 12, 2007
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Iraq
Riehl World View
» More Climate Change Fraud: Et Tu New Zealand?
Ed Driscoll
» Charges Filed In Kenneth Gladney CaseThe Other McCain
» Alan Colmes, having fun at #1Riehl World View
» Bet: Ratings Fail - Oprah/Obama Christmas SpecialMudville Gazette
» The five-year planNewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The Obamas
Simple assignment for diplomats who don’t want to go where their country has directed: Resign.
Why am I not getting paid for these simple solutions to complex problems?
One positive way to view this and the President’s response, is that those who volunteer are hopefully the type of people we will want in charge in the future.
Let the folks who do not want to go to Iraq serve in another capacity. Their leadership skills, sense of duty and honor (or lack thereof) are on full display.
R.J.
If all the staties are liberal nudges, maybe the Secretary should order them to do their job and fire them if they don’t.
What if conservative diplomats refused to go to Iran because they didn’t believe diplomacy was the right approach?
There’s a difference between private political ideology and refusing to abide your oath. Plenty of my colleagues are liberal Army officers; they would never dream of resisting orders to go to Iraq.
Why are so many sub-cabinet leaders so bad at leadership?
…
Maybe I should volunteer. If the pay and benefits are good, why not? I don’t have anything better to do anyway. How much do those guys make and what do you have to do? (other than dodge bullets
Give them an order. Those that refuse to go, fire them all and do it today, not tomorrow.
I found Croddy’s comments very disheartening, but felt more optimistic upon reading Matel’s refutation.
Though I may not be qualified, but certainly more qualified than Croddy, if Condi called me up, I’d go in a heartbeat — it’s our country, it’s our future, it deserves our loyalty and patriotism no matter what the mission, nor what the administration in power.
My husband was livid about this story when it first broke. He told me about the State Department’s compound in the Green Zone and how the military were told to keep out of their way unless it was an E-9 or at minimum an O-6 who went to do business with those folks. I thought I would croak when that one man got up and said “Who will raise our families if we get killed?” Hey Bozo’s, the same people who are left behind when their loved ones who are serving in uniform are killed. What a bunch of losers. I liked the idea that someone came up with about having those who were injured or have left the service to be fast tracked into FSO jobs. If these namby pamby’s don’t want to do their job then they should be fired.
Yes, ShoreMark there does seem to be a few bright lights there but the whiners really need to go.
#1, How many Pesos do you want for sage advice?
Can we let the Marines delay their selection process regarding who they are willing to protect? They are after all, still public servants right? If one can refuse to serve the other, shouldn’t it still be true on both sides of the equation?
I’ll take whatever currency or coin is offered, provided it can feed myself, my wife, and my 13 children. I am not going to be overly selective like an empty-headed model. Of course, conversion rates apply.
If I got a call I would be there today, not tomorrow, not weeks from now, no questions asked except when and where to be … I still respect and honor the oath I took when entering the Marine Corps 44 years ago should my country call on me again … I’m sure they would have no trouble filling these jobs that certain “Americans” don’t want to do with folks right here on this website …
I agree with Michelle and Roger in Utah (from the Statie blog). But I can’t work up too much outrage because we are, after all, talking mostly about useless career bureaucrats.
Back in the 19th century we had Gilbert and Sullivan writing of the British governing class (in HMS Pinafore):
“Stay close to your desk…
And never go to sea!
Then you may be the Admiral of the Queen’s Navy!”
No criticism intended of US Navy officers — the G&S quote was about a political appointee.
These public servants don’t have the mettle or jewels to be called honorable, a title reserved for persons of character, such as our military men and women on the front line, not some fatted, powered prig in Prada.
Oh dear, I go to Foggy Bottom 6;30 am Wednesday for a two day seminar. Hope the stuff from the twerps doesn’t rub off.
Since Rice won’t address the situation, Bush needs to take a page out of Ronald Reagan’s playbook. Fire them all.
If Reagan could pull off firing all of the Air Traffic Controllers while keeping the airlines running, getting rid of career bureacrats should be a walk in the park. The result could certainly not be any worse than staying with the status quo in the State Department.
There more than a few retired military officers, myself included, who would drop what we are doing now to pick up the slack in Iraq or elsewhere.
“Foggy Bottom”? More likely “Lead Bottom”.
If the Foreign Service is hiring, where do I sign up? I would be more than glad to go to Iraq to serve my country. I not only have skills, I am a man of my word! Sign me up…
COWARDS, led by an NFL COMMISSIONER wannabe, who answers to a BUFOON!
Thirteen more months of this leadership should be enough to take this country down. GOD HELP US, PLEEEEESSSEEEE! I know you are enjoying his company, and he really is a great guy with lots of good stories, but PLEEEEESSSSEEEEE send Ronnie back, we really do need him.
Let’s think this through a bit. 30 have volunteered. Some have threatened to quit rather than go.
Personally, I hope Director Thomas is taking his good time. And after due consideration, he sends some of the loudest their new assignments. They are already loud, already an embarrassment.
Now they can be fired for cause.
And firing cowards always gives me joy.
I volunteer to take this oath to serve my country:
You are not truely a public servant until you have someone else do your job.
They have an “Association”. Their president is John Naland. You can email him here member@afsa.org I’ve let them know what I think of them, everyone else should too.
Are these people in one of those union things, where they only work at the job they want?
Probably easy money if you can get the job – whose crony are you? – and you don’t mind traveling.
Thanks for the email address gitarfan I will send them an email shortly to let them now what I think of their profession and it won’t be flattering.
My nephew ships out to Iraq for a 500 day deployment in January 08.
I hope he shares a plane ride over with one of these parasites.
It is his second tour. He can tell them stories of First Fallujah. Najaf.
Reassure them that most of the heavy lifting was done on the backs of men and women who didn’t get any “perqs” for doing what they had to do.
The State Department is a disgrace.
Look at what you’re saying. Neither Bush nor Cheney were willing to put themselves in harms way in Vietnam. By contrast, both of their Democratic opponents (Gore, Kerry) actually were fired upon “in anger”. Even the swiftest swiftboaters admit that. Is MM saying that someone who is not willing to be in harm’s way has no business running the country?
Sometimes I think lgm stands for lacking grey matter … how about getting “all” the facts straight … Agreed Gore and Kerry were in the military … so was George Bush …
Bush’s unit was never called to active duty … but neither were thousands of other National Guard and reserve units … and many of the units called to active duty never went to Viet Nam … so he didn’t refuse to face being “fired upon in anger” … he simply was never asked to …
As for Cheney … in the beginnings of Viet Nam he was in college and had a student exemption … something which was available to virtually all college students … it was not what today’s left tries to portray it as … it was in fact only a deferment until completing school … it had to be renewed yearly and you had to maintain good standing in college or it was revoked … after he completed school he was reclassified 1-A but was never called by the draft board …
And lastly I noticed you conveniently didn’t bother to make any comment about the worst offender of all … good old BILLY BOY … he not only didn’t serve he was a DRAFT DODGER (coward is a better description) who left the country to keep from serving when he was called to active duty and then actually worked against the war from outside the United States … not quite to the level of Hanoi Jane … but anti-US all the same …
Amazing how the left always wants to condemn Bush and Cheney on this but never wants to even mention the fact that they were here had they been called upon to serve while their Clinton God Icon broke the law and ran from his responsibilities as a citizen of this country …
This is what you get when an agency promotes mediocrity instead of firing them.
Until we can thin the herd this is the kind of civil servants we deserve.
I would love to see Duncan Hunter’s plan
implemented fire the whiners and hire injured and retired soldiers.
buckshot
I can only imagine the impression that would make on the Iraq people …
for them to see those disabled vets returning to Iraq to continue the fight to help in their becoming a Democracy would probably be an immeasurable and invaluable reinforcement to them of the United States commitment to their country succeeding …
Gah – that’s what I get for not posting soon enough. I was going to return fire on lgm but somebody beat me to the punch.
Also, IIRC, GWB did volunteer to go to Viet Nam, but they didn’t need his type of plane there. I don’t care either way. The man strapped himself into a plane that his detractors couldn’t even begin to think about flying.
Yep – ala Reagan and the air traffic controllers.
A long time ago as a young college student I considered a career in the foreign service. After doing a little investigating I discovered that, at the time, the FS was totally dominated by Ivy Leaguers, mostly from Princeton. I wonder if the same holds true today.
MTNEER said (#31)
The state department indeed is/was filled with our best and brightest. The Bushies have been doing whatever they can to fill it up with helluvajobers instead.
DesertLover #25 – thank you.
I know just how that baby in the picture feels. Everytime I see another injustice such as this and our various depts. in govn’t cave on the issue I just want to throw a tantrum (aka: hissy fit).
Cute baby, though.
On the one hand, we should only send people to an assignment that they believe in, lest they sabotage it.
On the other hand, we should only be emloying people who will not sabotage their assignments because of their ideology.
Quick Solution:
Fire them NOW!
Fun Solution:
Have Donald Trump meet with the loudest whiners, explain the above, then say, “You’re FIRED!”
Even More Fun Solution:
Those that want to stay away from the heat can be assigned to Antartica to count penguins.
lgm
I don’t have the numbers readily at hand but I would venture to offer that there have not been a large percantage of newly hired people in the FSO during the Bush years … so that would mean the people there have been working in that department for more years than GWB has been in office … it would be interesting to find out when the individuals raising all the fuss were first employed in the foreign service.
I also find it annoying when the state department doesn’t do its job supporting the executive branch. I am a civil service employee with the Air Force and spent the summer in Southwest Asia as part of my job. I knew when I accepted the job that I could be deployed. When I was tasked with the deployment, I did the necessary training, got the gear, put my worldly goods in storage and went. I have no prior military service and was a bit apprehensive, but I accepted the job in 2006 knowing that I would likely get deployed. So I went, without complaining and served my country and my Airmen.
AIRPOWER!