No problem. The Chairborne Rangers at the Weekly Standard are busy fighting back at the "diplowimp" FSOs at State.

Behind them all the way, like good chickenhawks.

Posted by: hew at November 1, 2007 03:51 PM | Permalink to this comment

How can this even be an issue? I would hope no low to mid-level staffer at State is getting promoted without rotating through Iraq. That's where the skills and understandings they will need going forward can be learned. What do they think they signed up for if not to execute the foreign policy of the United States? And how many Americans with State have been killed in Iraq since 2003? "None" is pretty close; they should be embarrassed not to go while the military is doing what it is doing. (I haven't been to Iraq, but I was a combat engineer in Vietnam, so save the slurs.)

Posted by: Mahon at November 1, 2007 04:15 PM | Permalink to this comment

I would hope no low to mid-level staffer at State is getting promoted without rotating through Iraq. That's where the skills and understandings they will need going forward can be learned.

Right, because there aren't any other nations on the planet that the U.S. State Department needs to concern itself with.

Posted by: sglover at November 1, 2007 04:17 PM | Permalink to this comment

Mahon,

There are several legitimate issues to be raised.

1. Why does our embassy in Baghdad right now have to be larger than our embassy in Moscow during the Cold War, and physically the same size as the Vatican? Is there really a strategy that these FS officers are being asked to contribute to, or is this administration once again just throwing numbers (of troops, diplomats, buildings) at the problem and hoping that somehow, that will solve it?

2. The work of diplomacy requires close personal contact with people, and for many assignments it requires the ability to move freely amongst the local population. What sort of diplomacy can be conducted from the giant castle that is our embassy in Baghdad? The work of diplomacy is almost impossible when you're spending your life in armored personnel carriers, surrounded by heavily armed bodyguards (who have a nasty reputation for itchy trigger fingers and innocent civilian casualties).

3. How exactly can hunkering down in the Green Zone, or traveling around with soldiers on PRTs be described as "where the skills and understandings they will need going forward can be learned"? FSOs are supposed to cultivate personal contacts with locals, get to know the host-country on a closer level, report back about developments in the host-country, represent the US's policies, advance the interests of the US through personal contacts, negotiations, etc. How much of this really describes what FSOs are being asked to do in Iraq (or even _can_ do in Iraq, given the situation)?

4. If they are going to go, shouldn't those FS personnel who are sent be given more than the two weeks of training they're currently being offered, before being sent to a combat zone?

5. Yes, military casualties have been high, and the military's sacrifice has been noble and honorable. But the parallel between soldiers and FSOs should be drawn with care. FSOs don't get to carry guns, pilot attack helicopters, travel in battalions of FS officers, etc. When they're shot at they can't return fire. Moreover, although military lives lost have been higher, percentage-wise, than FS lives lost, the differences aren't huge, because the FS is so small. (I think it's about 2.7% and 1.1% respectively, or thereabouts.)

6. Out of the 250 positions that have to be filled, more than 200 were already voluntarily filled, despite all of the above issues. And all of the (many) other dangerous FS postings around the world are constantly being filled voluntarily. The issue isn't just danger, but the danger combined with the sense that the posting won't be for any real purpose, since the administration doesn't really have a thought-through mission for them to perform, but just wants to be able to say that it has hundreds of diplomats in Baghdad doing...whatever it is they do.

If you were a doctor, you might be willing to go into great danger to do your job. But if you were told you'd be without any medical supplies or equipment, or even a clear mission... you might think twice.

Respectfully,

Beren

Posted by: Beren at November 1, 2007 04:44 PM | Permalink to this comment

Actually they are not having that much trouble filling the mid and low level positions, the difficulty is filling the high level ones. The reason for that is there is a ton of them in Iraq and only a limited number of high ranked employees many of them have already served in Iraq.

Posted by: nathaniel at November 1, 2007 04:52 PM | Permalink to this comment

And soon John P. Normanson will be leading the Chickenhawk Charge against the State Department at Daddy's Magazine.

As Nathaniel noted, the problem faced by the State Department stems from the likes of Karen Hughes, Tony Snow, and their high-level equivalents at State turning their backs on their country in its time of need to enrich themselves at the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, and whatever scam Cliff May is now running on behalf of Jack Abramoff.

Posted by: Mark at November 1, 2007 05:16 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg:

It seems the foreign service officers all have the same option as Karen Hughes -- quit to be close to their family.

I understand your point. Just don't buy the implied analogy. If the FSOs do not want to go to Iraq, they should quit. They will make more in the private sector anyway, and the sort of real world point that this administration might understand would be made.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at November 1, 2007 06:05 PM | Permalink to this comment

As a lowly school teacher trying to make a mortgage and a car payment, what are the chances I could volunteer for an FSO job in Iraq? Can't say the job title would offer me any more respect than I get in my current form of public service but the pay bump would help me with my student loans....oh and the stories I could tell...

Posted by: Alex at November 1, 2007 06:08 PM | Permalink to this comment

The embassy compound is so damn big because it has its own water desalination plant and its own power plant. And its own shopping mall, if I'm remembering correctly. The employees need never leave it, which they probably shouldn't, once everyone else in Baghdad finds out they have their own special water supply and power plant. In a way, it's a perfect symbol of our "mission" there.

Yeah, I agree, I don't think the problem is the danger, I would think the bigger problem would be having to explain the Bush admin's "foreign policy." And issuing statements every time our torture program blows up in our faces and makes us look almost as bad as Saddam.

I would hate to work in the Foreign Service now. How demoralizing it must be, having to answer to people who seem determined to make your job as difficult as possible, because they're insulated from criticism by a gutless domestic press and protected from any possible physical harm by the Secret Service and the 10,000 miles between the Middle East and D.C.

Posted by: LL at November 1, 2007 06:17 PM | Permalink to this comment

Best. Idea. Yet.

HUNTER: GO TO WALTER REED AND BETHESDA FOR NEW STATE DEPT PERSONNEL

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, will be meeting with President Bush today regarding his Wounded Warrior proposal to Congress. During today’s meeting, Congressman Hunter intends to also suggest that State Department personnel who refuse deployment to Baghdad be replaced with wounded veterans at Walter Reed and Bethesda hospitals.

“When the State Department appears to be filled with reluctant personnel, let’s turn to those who have bravely followed the American flag in the most dangerous of assignments,” said Congressman Hunter. “The U.S. Marines, soldiers, airmen and Navy personnel presently recovering at our national military hospitals have all the character required by the Department of State. They are brave, loyal, intelligent and fiercely determined to win the War on Terror.

Posted by: edh at November 1, 2007 06:34 PM | Permalink to this comment

I would hope no low to mid-level staffer at State is getting promoted without rotating through Iraq. That's where the skills and understandings they will need going forward can be learned.

actually, whatever "skills and understandings" they pick up will be useless, because the skill set needed for a nation that we happen to be occupying incompetently aren't those that will be of value...

....unless, of course, another reckless idiot is put in the White House.

Posted by: p_lukasiak at November 1, 2007 07:54 PM | Permalink to this comment

The juxtaposition of these two "events" is more than passing silly; it's downright stupid as the underlying circumstances are wholly dissimiliar. If the members of the diplomatic corps are upset about an assignment in Iraq, then they can also resign. In fact, if Rice sticks to her guns, we likely will see a large number of resignations. That sounds like a good thing from what I saw some of these clowns spewing at the meeting today. They looked and sounded like a group of Code Pink nuts, minus the distinguishing pink outfits.

Posted by: Terry at November 1, 2007 09:04 PM | Permalink to this comment

--> Yeah, I agree, I don't think the problem is the danger, I would think the bigger problem would be having to explain the Bush admin's "foreign policy."

I think it's important to note that the Foreign Service positions in Afghanistan have consistently been readily filled. There's danger there too, but FSOs aren't shying away.

-->That sounds like a good thing from what I saw some of these clowns spewing at the meeting today.

So, you going to Iraq? Without insurance, a weapon, or training?

Suggesting that FSOs can just resign is facile. They have committed their careers to serving the US, and the only measurable reward they get is a good pension package. Which they don't get if they resign. Also, what private sector jobs are they supposed to go into? They don't have business management backgrounds, they don't write code, they don't necessarily have teaching credentials...

Posted by: Ava at November 1, 2007 09:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

Re: "Also, what private sector jobs are they supposed to go into? They don't have business management backgrounds, they don't write code, they don't necessarily have teaching credentials..."

A distinction they share with employees of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Sociology majors everywhere.

I am beginning to see the problem.

Posted by: Natalie at November 1, 2007 10:44 PM | Permalink to this comment

I suppose the small sample size doesn't permit one to draw any conclusions from the fact that more commenters on this thread are down on griping Foreign Service Officers than are down on Karen Hughes.

One might conclude that this is because commenters know their place; Ms. Hughes is a very big woman, a friend of the President's -- from the campaign, which is where real friends are made. So if she bails out, well, that's just what people of her stature are entitled to do. She handled her appointment to the State Department over two years ago in somewhat the same way, and with one exception that I can recall no one much objected to that either.

As far as FSOs are concerned, they can be sent where the Department wants them sent. If they don't like their assignments they can quit. Those are the rules. The reality is that some of the FSOs assigned to Iraq will quit, and will have to be replaced. This is not a good thing. The United States has lots of other embassies and consulates in lots of other countries, and lots of other interests that need looking after from a Foreign Service that, as I understand it, has a higher percentage of unfilled positions in its embassies overall than it does in the Baghdad Embassy. It needs more, not fewer career FSOs. This would be a mere detail if at the end of the Iraq rainbow there was a vast treasure of immeasurable worth to America's interests in the world, but not even supporters of the war believe that anymore. It's enough for them that their President wants something. We will have other interests in the world besides Iraq when he says we do.

Posted by: Zathras at November 2, 2007 12:06 AM | Permalink to this comment

"One might conclude that this is because commenters know their place...."

What a pompous load of crap! The reasons for my views, and perhaps a few of the other like-minded commenters, has nothing to do with Ms. Hughes position. My views have been formed by exposure in a number of different embassies around the globe, as well as offices within the State Department, to some of these career FSO's. And while some of them are outstanding servants of their country and do a terrific job every working day of their life, far too many of them are exact opposites from that characterization. Many are mere "time-servers" and epitomize the very worse elements of a governmental bureaucrat; and most unfortunately, there are not a few anti-Semites among them.

In many respects, some of these characteristics were on display in the forum at State.

Posted by: Terry at November 2, 2007 12:25 AM | Permalink to this comment

I love the Duncan Hunter idea. I think we should name him Ambassador to Iraq and let him spend a couple years there. As a patriotic American, I know I would feel much better if Duncan were in Baghdad.

Posted by: Steven Donegal at November 2, 2007 01:15 AM | Permalink to this comment

I'm just glad someone, somewhere, in the govt told Bush "no". They might get rolled. In fact I'm sure they will get rolled. They will have buckets of abuse dumped on them about their 'manliness'. Why, indeed, they might be called 'anti-Semites' 'its all a plot to hurt Israel....we'vew known for a long time about the Arab Lovers at Foggy Bottom'. A lot of things might happen to them.......

I'm just glad they, SOMEONE, told Bush "no". I hope it spreads. It will prove to be a better, and more just, nation if the rebellion does spread. But then again, I just read the results from a Zogby poll that indicated the majority of Americans support a strike on Iran.

Laissez les bons temps rouler.

Posted by: jonst at November 2, 2007 07:05 AM | Permalink to this comment

Yeah, goodie, someone just told Bush "no"! Well, goldenrod, the business of the U.S. Government will have to go on, and the problem is that the Department of State is supposed to be filled with Career Professionals.

Bush is only going to be around for another 13 months. Clinton just got her glass jaw smashed. That means you get Giuliani or Fred Thompson. So now you're going to have to get used to ANOTHER Republican President for another eight years (yes, get used to this-methinks the people have seen what happens when all the power is in the hands of one party and they don't like it...).

That forum was a display that Rice cannot be proud of when she has to go in an face Dick Cheney and Bob Gates. Especially Gates. U.S. Infantry and Marines don't get a choice of whether or not they get to serve in Iraq or not, and they are all volunteers.

The fact is, a lot of this is political, which is what a lot of the people who are supporting these clowns are papering over. This was a great day for Netroots who want to bash the Bush Administration, but it wasn't a good day for State.

Don't expect the Democrats to ride to your rescue. Ahmadhi-Nejad will put paid to that hope. I suspect Noonan was right, and this weekend saw the early beginnings of the end of Hillary.

You all will come to rue the day that you tore down Condi Rice so much that she had no allies on the left or the right. You did this because you could, without thought to the consequences over Iran. Some day she'll be gone. And when she is, you'll be left with Giuliani, and the Podhoretz crowd.

Then where the fuck will you be, Greg?

Posted by: section9 at November 2, 2007 10:12 AM | Permalink to this comment

Hey Section 9,

We have the Podhoretz crowd now. And have for the last 6 years. The Rices' and the Powells' were, and are, simply, the beards and were, and are, allowed to stay around so long as they shut the fuck up and nod their heads. Their respective doubts can come in their memoirs. For shutting up and playing they got to have, some people, convinced they are serious beards. ANd they get fat speaking fees.

I repeat, I am glad someone told him "NO". I can only hope it will spread. I have my doubts it will spread. But I hope it does.

And Hillary will beat Gulliani like a drum. Don't believe all you read in the MSM. Believe none of it when it comes to Dem front runners.

Posted by: jonst at November 2, 2007 10:29 AM | Permalink to this comment

I wonder if the source of concern is not so much the *current* risk level, but the risk level that would exist after Cheney gets his airstrikes on Iran.

"That forum was a display that Rice cannot be proud of when she has to go in an face Dick Cheney and Bob Gates. "

She never could. She's a hack academic fit for nothing but glad-handing rich Stanford donors. She's been over her head all along, even in her alleged area of expertise, Russia.

Posted by: Jon H at November 2, 2007 02:02 PM | Permalink to this comment

It's kind of nice, though, to see that Section 9 joins Victor David Hanson in being a bit more uneasy about the consequences of bombing Iran than Giuliani's bulging-eyed optimists. Now if only he could explain to us how refusing to oppose the Bush Administration's Iraq policies will do something to reduce its probability...

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at November 2, 2007 04:41 PM | Permalink to this comment

A new piece by Charles Crain in "Time" seems to confirm "Beren's" account above: the problem is not JUST that State Dept. employees think they might be risking their lives, but that they think they're risking their lives FOR NO GOOD REASON. By way of Kevin Drum ( http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_11/012420.php ):

"The most demoralizing aspect of the violence may not be the physical risk, but rather the isolation and sense of futility the violence engenders. Most diplomats leave the Green Zone only rarely, and never simply to socialize with ordinary Iraqis or explore the city.

"....Most discouraging of all, the danger and discomfort do not seem to be in service of a successful strategy. [Jack] Croddy, the veteran diplomat, implied that the shortage of volunteers was a function of diplomats not believing in the American mission in Iraq. It's a fair point. Violence has dropped in recent months, but there has been little substantive progress on key issues from disarming Shi'ite militias to deciding how to distribute the nation's oil revenue. As the Bush Administration ratchets up its rhetoric against Iran it is American diplomats who must deal personally with Shi'ite politicians, who have closer ties to Tehran than to Washington."

To which Drum adds: "Foreign service diplomats routinely serve in backwater ratholes, and dangerous postings are often part of the bargain too. But when you combine that with a setting in which there's literally almost nothing they can accomplish, a revolt is hardly surprising.

"I'd add one other thing, too. As near as I can tell, Ryan Crocker is well-liked and highly respected. If even he can't manage to attract enough people to fill up all the open slots in Iraq — especially when a Baghdad posting also offers higher pay, the career boost of serving in a critical embassy, and a choice of assignments after your hitch is up — then service in the Green Zone must be a rathole squared. Apparently, there's just no one left who thinks there's any chance of making serious political or diplomatic progress there."

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at November 2, 2007 07:31 PM | Permalink to this comment

A very useful overall compendium of the extent of actual progress in Iraq is just out from Bradford Plumer—most of it godawful (including the GAO’s latest appraisal):

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2007/11/02/declaring-victory.aspx

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at November 2, 2007 08:14 PM | Permalink to this comment

I've linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/11/re-different-strokes-different-folks.html

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at November 3, 2007 01:42 AM | Permalink to this comment