US State Dept - Freaking Cowards!

[Werewolf]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21580523/

...one of their colleagues likened a forced tour in Iraq to a potential death sentence.

Disgusting! Sickening! Disgraceful!

After reading the full article - well - it's just lucky, for me and them, that there weren't any US Diplomatic personell withing striking distance.

[Len Budney]

The same subject is being discussed at (what used to be) Claire Wolf's forum. The big points made there so far are:

* The same folks who (presumably) support the WoT suddenly don't want to participate.
* Apparently they think they're better than the dog-faced grunts.
* Shipping bureaucrats over there certainly suggests a prolonged stay.
* On the bright side: more dead bureaucrats.

--Len.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

What do you expect?  They are career diplomats.  

[charby]

I'm for hire. I'll go be a diplomat anywhere, may not like what I have to say though.

[HankB]

The same subject is being discussed at (what used to be) Claire Wolf's forum. The big points made there so far are:

* The same folks who (presumably) support the WoT suddenly don't want to participate. Unarmed in a combat zone isn't exactly fighting the WoT.

* Apparently they think they're better than the dog-faced grunts. The grunts have guns, helmets, body armor, and combat training.


* Shipping bureaucrats over there certainly suggests a prolonged stay. True. Of course, we've had bureaucrats in Japan and Germany since 1945 . . . .


* On the bright side: more dead bureaucrats. Hmmmm. . . that's right. Nver mind. 

--Len.

[Bogie]

http://www.lyrics007.com/Warren%20Zevon%20Lyrics/The%20Envoy%20Lyrics.html

[De Selby]

Facing the same conditions anywhere else in the world, that embassy would be closed.  But because it's in Iraq, it remains open for political reasons. 

Diplomatic personnel aren't soldiers-different job, and one that requires a somewhat secure embassy and capital city to accomplish.  It's not fair to ask them to risk death in order to be showpieces. 

[CAnnoneer]

Diplomats will be sent where they have to be sent. They don't like it? Resign.

[De Selby]

Diplomats will be sent where they have to be sent. They don't like it? Resign.

And no one should ever question the .Gov's decisions on what to do with its employees, even when they may be sent to die for nothing.  Because that would be questioning authority, and in times of supreme national emergency, you do not question authority.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

embassys not to bad  the outlying consular offices might be a lil too much fun  especially since they can't be armed

[CAnnoneer]

And no one should ever question the .Gov's decisions on what to do with its employees, even when they may be sent to die for nothing.  Because that would be questioning authority, and in times of supreme national emergency, you do not question authority.

Bullshit. You are paid to do a job. If you are not going to do your job, you should expect to lose it. Saying "I am not gonna do my job because it is dangerous" is not being a brave whistleblower but a lazy coward.

[De Selby]

And no one should ever question the .Gov's decisions on what to do with its employees, even when they may be sent to die for nothing.  Because that would be questioning authority, and in times of supreme national emergency, you do not question authority.

Bullshit. You are paid to do a job. If you are not going to do your job, you should expect to lose it. Saying "I am not gonna do my job because it is dangerous" is not being a brave whistleblower but a lazy coward.

Again, that isn't the issue.  The issue is-why shouldn't the public question the wisdom of sending federal employees to die for what is basically a PR game?  The Iraqis are not going to be convinced to love America by a few state department personnel who are confined to the green zone (itself shelled regularly).

The fact that Diplomats are employees of the Feds doesn't mean you or I shouldn't question what the Feds send them to do-hence, saying "oh, they get paid for it!" doesn't in any way answer the objection being made in this case.  The objection is to the mission and its risks, not to the nature of the employment contract between diplomats and the government.

You need to answer the real challenge, not the strawman, before you can call BS.  What's being said here is "We shouldn't send foreign service officers to die for no reason", not "foreign service officers shouldn't have to take risks for their pay."

[CAnnoneer]

You need to answer the real challenge, not the strawman, before you can call BS.  What's being said here is "We shouldn't send foreign service officers to die for no reason", not "foreign service officers shouldn't have to take risks for their pay."

Prove that their presence there is unnecessary. On the contrary, I clearly remember a lot of complaints in previous years that, if anything, the DoS dropped the ball since day one by being understaffed in Iraq. The military instead are made to do stuff they are not trained to do - negotiate with factions and local authorities etc. - which should be handled by diplomats.

[De Selby]

Prove that their presence there is unnecessary.

That is pretty common sense-the big problems in Iraq right now from the US perspective are radical groups opposed to US presence killing anything that moves.  They shell the Green Zone regularly.  It doesn't take any imagination or expertise to understand how useless state department personnel are against that sort of threat.

On the contrary, I clearly remember a lot of complaints in previous years that, if anything, the DoS dropped the ball since day one by being understaffed in Iraq. The military instead are made to do stuff they are not trained to do - negotiate with factions and local authorities etc. - which should be handled by diplomats.

You can't negotiate without a modicum of security for the negotiators-anyone who meets with US personnel simply gets killed.  This is a pattern in Iraq, and the insurgents have proven capable of hitting people even inside the green zone.  So whatever might have been true in 2003 about increased State Department presence, it clearly is not true today.

When an Iraqi warlord with his own personal army who survived the entire occupation, under Saddam, and the Iran war, can be killed within a week of meeting with President Bush, it's safe to say that the security situation is such that more diplomats are not going to achieve anything.

[Hawkmoon]

I'm for hire. I'll go be a diplomat anywhere, may not like what I have to say though.

Just be sure to say it diplomatically and you should be fine ...

[CAnnoneer]

Prove that their presence there is unnecessary.

That is pretty common sense-the big problems in Iraq right now from the US perspective are radical groups opposed to US presence killing anything that moves.  They shell the Green Zone regularly.  It doesn't take any imagination or expertise to understand how useless state department personnel are against that sort of threat.

On the contrary, I clearly remember a lot of complaints in previous years that, if anything, the DoS dropped the ball since day one by being understaffed in Iraq. The military instead are made to do stuff they are not trained to do - negotiate with factions and local authorities etc. - which should be handled by diplomats.

You can't negotiate without a modicum of security for the negotiators-anyone who meets with US personnel simply gets killed.  This is a pattern in Iraq, and the insurgents have proven capable of hitting people even inside the green zone.  So whatever might have been true in 2003 about increased State Department presence, it clearly is not true today.

When an Iraqi warlord with his own personal army who survived the entire occupation, under Saddam, and the Iran war, can be killed within a week of meeting with President Bush, it's safe to say that the security situation is such that more diplomats are not going to achieve anything.

This entire post is pure propaganda. Keep it up. 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Prove that their presence there is unnecessary. On the contrary, I clearly remember a lot of complaints in previous years that, if anything, the DoS dropped the ball since day one by being understaffed in Iraq. The military instead are made to do stuff they are not trained to do - negotiate with factions and local authorities etc. - which should be handled by diplomats.

I'd bet that the military can do a much better job at it in this situation than the diplomats.

[roo_ster]

Creeping read my mind.

The problem with the State Department is that they forget that they are supposed to be representing America's interests to foreign governments, not foreign governments' interests to America.