Is a diplomatic assignment in Iraq a "potential death sentence"?
Here’s the situation: The U.S. State Department last week announced a plan to require some diplomats — under threat of dismissal — to serve at the embassy in Baghdad and in reconstruction teams in outlying provinces.
Then, the outcry began, according to today’s Associated Press story:
Several hundred U.S. diplomats vented anger and frustration Wednesday about the State Department’s decision to force foreign service officers to take jobs in Iraq, with some likening it to a "potential death sentence."
In a contentious hourlong town-hall meeting, they peppered officials responsible for the order with often hostile complaints about the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam. Announced last week, it will require some diplomats - under threat of dismissal - to serve at the embassy in Baghdad and in reconstruction teams in outlying provinces.
Many expressed serious concern about the ethics of sending diplomats against their will to serve in a war zone, where the embassy staff is largely confined to the protected "Green Zone," and safety outside the area is uncertain while a review of the department’s use of private security contractors to protect its staff is under way.
By the way, this news comes on the same day we learned that violent deaths in Iraq fell sharply in October. The number of Iraqi civilians killed fell from at least 1,023 in September to at least 875 in October, according to AP. Deaths among U.S. military fell from 65 in September to at least 36 in October. The October figure is by far the lowest in the last year.
Are diplomats overstating the situation when they say it’s a "potential death sentence"? Is this state department requirement more than they signed on for?
Kurt is the director of social media for the Post-Dispatch, where he has worked since August 2002. He's been a journalist since 1982, covering municipal government, courts, education and two hurricanes as a reporter before becoming an editor. 
They might mention to the boss that Iraq is still on the Stat Dept.’s Travel Warnings list as a country Americans should avoid. That might work.
Hmmmmm: The best that could be said for the diplomats is they didn’t make their case diplomatically. I question whether a bunch of hotheads, and compainers such as these appear to be, are qualified to serve this country in any embassy we have anywhere in the world.
Further, when the diplomats took ther jobs with the State Department they knew that they could be assigned anywhere based on the government’s need, and not theirs.
Don’t get me wrong. Based on the needs of the government, if a diplomat requests an assignment to a particular embassy give it to him/her.
There is no guarantee of safety at any embassy including Baghdad. It has been under construction for over 2 year. Did they just hear about it.
The hotheads and complainers appear to have chosen the wrong career. The Government should recognise that and usher them our the door for their own good.
From the few articles I’ve read, it sounds like “directed assignments” are absolutely part of a diplomat’s job description, so I don’t see where they have much room to complain. As for the “potential death sentence” idea, I don’t see where that’s particularly inaccurate either — there’s nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.
One particular quote, however, really rubbed me the wrong way. Mr. Croddy’s full quote is:
It’s not a case that the question itself was inappropriate, and it’s not a case that I hold enmity for diplomats. I think the reason it bugged me is that it exemplifies the idea that there’s little or no shared sacrifice for this whole Global War on Terrorism adventure. If the death and trauma and other assorted awfulness is good enough for our soldiers, shouldn’t it be good enough for everyone else even tangentially involved in the whole affair?
“It’s one thing if someone believes in what’s going on over there and volunteers, but it’s another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment…”
Hands down, this is the comment of the day - of the year! Why should the STATE DEPARTMENT employees have to go if they don’t “believe in what’s going on over there”?
That is priceless. Either this is 300 State Department employees finally standing up and speaking truth to power - what is going on over there is a mess and we object.
Or it’s a bunch of State Department cowards who were fine with keeping their cushy, well compensated jobs at the government trough, supporting policies they don’t believe in, just so long as THEY don’t have to go.
Sigh
In this world, there are many sources of dark humor, oh yes.
Of course it’s a death sentence - there are people over there issuing death sentences for Americans daily.
Being assigned to a war zone, even when you’re stationed in a heavily fortified, armed encampment is dangerous. However, unlike our soldiers, these diplomats have a choice; if they don’t want the assignment they can quit. Sure, they don’t want to loose their jobs, but the job needs to be done and if they won’t do it, then the government has the right to find someone who will.
I’m not one who sees that only 875 civilians were killed as a good thing, so I don’t blame the diplomats for being afraid. That assignment does come with the territory, though. I suppose if a diplomat feels that strongly about it, they should quit their job.
If our professional diplomatic corp cannot appreciate the need to be in lock-step to the concept of Democracy On The March, perhaps they need to go on one of those week-end retreats(with Richard Cheney??) for the purpose
of getting the proper mental outlook, introducing them to their future
bodyguards in Blackwater, etc—you know, ‘Uplift’. A tutorial on the use
of handguns for personal safety might also be useful.
Or, could these positions be filled by those on the pages of this blog
who are whole-hog in their support of our Iraq Expedition? They tend to be very ‘diplomatic’…
It sure is baby. Thanks to this midget cowboy and his unethical pals, we are hated around the world and diplomatic advances have been nullified. The damage is unreal. We have gone from a russian leader attending our ex-president’s funerals to aligning with China. Bush depends on ignorance and fear amongst his followers to continue his madness. He allowed anti-terrorist folks’ sites to be leaked. He fought the 911 survivor families in getting the 911 commission started. He puts people in more danger than they need to be day to day. Once you get out of the amerikan land mass and listen, you see how destructive he has been to the amerikan interests and friends. Why should they accept occupation by an idiot who invaded on no/bad intelligence? Would we? His people have put intelligence folks in danger like never before, then he has the balls to blame others. It is insane how folks still parrot his BS. More power to them balking at the insanity. He will conveniently blame the dems when they come in to str8ten his mess out. Left with a surplus and he sold your kids’ souls. The ones that survive his world occupations anyway. Jenna seems to be the only shining spot in that warped crew.
Yes johnh, a wonderful, remarkable bunker the size of Vatican City, right there by the rivers of Babylon, and estimates to the costs of operating
this structure run a mere billion or so a year. Another example of
‘Democracy On the March’…all this prattle over disengagement in Iraq
is shown to be worth less than a sub-prime mortgage in East St. Louis.
We’re staying: oh yeah, we’re gonna stay.
I feel so good about all this, don’t you?