-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Condi Rice says YOU SERVE in Iraq to US diplomats...
- Thread starter wnied
- Start date
First
Lifer
Not sure what the expectations of State are, but I'm pretty sure they don't involve too many physical requirements like, say, what you'll see at the ROTC. Of course, they won't be in combat and no foreign diplomats, AFAIK, have been killed in Iraq, isn't that right? So how is that a death sentence?
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
According to the news articles I've read, one foreign service officer and two State Department security personnel were killed in Iraq.
They need to go it's their job.
But I do understand some of their reservations which include:
Only getting 2 weeks or so of battlefield survival training, don't know what all is involved in this but I'm assuming it's weapons training and that sort of stuff. When they were sending people to Vietnam they were given months of training beforehand. This is a legitimate gripe.
The other issue is that those who are returning with PSTD and related illnesses are not receiving the care they need. Also, IMHO a legitimate beef.
The State Department needs to take care of its people.
But I do understand some of their reservations which include:
Only getting 2 weeks or so of battlefield survival training, don't know what all is involved in this but I'm assuming it's weapons training and that sort of stuff. When they were sending people to Vietnam they were given months of training beforehand. This is a legitimate gripe.
The other issue is that those who are returning with PSTD and related illnesses are not receiving the care they need. Also, IMHO a legitimate beef.
The State Department needs to take care of its people.
Fern
Elite Member
Whaa..?
I'm pretty sure she's been to Iraq etc.
Sounds like your critisizing her for not actually being stationed in Iraq, though. That seems silly, AFAIK she's only recently joined the State Dept (as head) and we don't for good reason station the Dept head in Iraq.
Like many other jobs, you're told to relocate or lose your job. I've got zippo sympathy. Years ago I checked into joining the Dept, IIRC it's pretty clear up front you go where you're told.
Fern
wnied
Diamond Member
That's exactly what I am criticizing her for. She is backing a plan to send diplomats into Iraq for a period of one full year. While she herself has been in and out of Iraq so fast at times you'd never know she was there. With this plan, the state dept are setting up our diplomats to be targets of opportunity, with little to no training, in a war zone. I've never called this a death sentence, but stand behind my comment that its a death trap scenario waiting to happen. Her and people like her, who make everyday decisions to send our people into harms way, should meet a requirement of having been in the military and served, before being allowed to make the decision to send anyone else into harms way.
~wnied~
Starbuck1975
Lifer
You are placing an unrealistic expectation on Rice...given her position, it is unreasonable to expect that she serve from Iraq...however, diplomats are often called upon to serve in hostile or dangerous environments...goes with the territory of the job function...so your criticisms are unreasonable.
So you would require military service as a pre-requisite to running for say Congress...what about the President? Our nation's military tradition specifically and quite intentionally separates government service from military service, and places the military under the control of civilian leadership...a tradition started by Washington himself.
Fern
Elite Member
They're diplomats. Why do they need military type traing?
They're gonna be in the Green Zone.
What (military) training could they need other than "duck - incoming mortar!"?
I could see cultural training, maybe some fundamental language traing. They could do that there anyway.
Jeez, it's just for one year. When I looked into the Dept my fear was being assigned to a sh!thole for a very long or indefinite period. I'd go almost anywhere for just a year.
Got a question - Does anybody know what their duties there are going to be? I don't really understand why we've got (if completed yet) such a huge embassy there. What's the point?
Fern
RightIsWrong
Diamond Member
Oh, she's been....usually unannounced, surrounded by a mini-militia and out before dawn the next morning.
But let's not let reality skew our view of our "fearless" leaders.
Lemon law
Lifer
I think this thread is wrongly concentrating too much on the stinking security aspects of an Iraqi posting. But what we are really talking about are lower level diplomats who want
to climb up the career ladder. And for these people, an Iraqi posting is a resume killer damned if you do and damned if you don't.
For any type of aggressive young Turk diplomat, Iraq is going to be almost the worst place to advance a career because too many higher level diplomats have their own hypocrisies they are trying to sell so doing anything productive or innovative is going to be impossible. In short, nearly anywhere else is a better place to be in terms of being a diplomat and advancing a career. Meanwhile you get to be the smuck the locals call nasty names while you can't do anything to redress even legitimate grievances. Which means you can't build up any trust required to build a circle of friendly locals that in turn leads to more contacts and influence. Diplomacy is based on mutual trust and when the street runs not only one way, but leaves you a few streets away from the one way street, its not a pleasant posting.
to climb up the career ladder. And for these people, an Iraqi posting is a resume killer damned if you do and damned if you don't.
For any type of aggressive young Turk diplomat, Iraq is going to be almost the worst place to advance a career because too many higher level diplomats have their own hypocrisies they are trying to sell so doing anything productive or innovative is going to be impossible. In short, nearly anywhere else is a better place to be in terms of being a diplomat and advancing a career. Meanwhile you get to be the smuck the locals call nasty names while you can't do anything to redress even legitimate grievances. Which means you can't build up any trust required to build a circle of friendly locals that in turn leads to more contacts and influence. Diplomacy is based on mutual trust and when the street runs not only one way, but leaves you a few streets away from the one way street, its not a pleasant posting.
jackschmittusa
Diamond Member
If they are ordered to go, they should go, or quit.
That said, there are a number of reasons that they might not want to go if they don't have to.
It is a dangerous post of course.
It will be a lonely posting, without family, a very limited number of people to associate with, and virtually no opportunity to enjoy travel or sightseeing.
Some have voiced concern that it will be impossible to be effective as they will spend their time hunkered down in the Green Zone, isolated from the people and their problems etc., giving little meaning to their service.
Some feel that it is a useless mission that will force them to espouse and enforce policies that they do not believe in.
If the Iraqi government should fail, or fail to operate in a way that pleases the U.S., the diplomats may share the blame, even though they were forced to follow what they see as a failed strategy from the beginning.
That said, there are a number of reasons that they might not want to go if they don't have to.
It is a dangerous post of course.
It will be a lonely posting, without family, a very limited number of people to associate with, and virtually no opportunity to enjoy travel or sightseeing.
Some have voiced concern that it will be impossible to be effective as they will spend their time hunkered down in the Green Zone, isolated from the people and their problems etc., giving little meaning to their service.
Some feel that it is a useless mission that will force them to espouse and enforce policies that they do not believe in.
If the Iraqi government should fail, or fail to operate in a way that pleases the U.S., the diplomats may share the blame, even though they were forced to follow what they see as a failed strategy from the beginning.
I work state and can understand their issues. If i could go I would, I work in DoS, but am in a 2 year program.
The majority of positions have been filled I think its around 20-25% that are still open. If you have been here less then 5 years then this will help a lot if you are trying to move up, also you get extra pay. But a lot of people complaining have been here a long time and already are where they want to be.
I work in CA, Consular Affairs, and we sent all the CEPs and PMFs to 2 passport offices. A lot of the PMfs threw fits like little children but they were told the only way to get out of this is if you are going to Iraq. Number 1 issue for State is Iraq, 2 was passports.
So yea when you work state in most jobs they can send you just about anywhere. But at the same time I don't think state is handling this well. Some found out by reading the paper, little notice, etc...
The majority of positions have been filled I think its around 20-25% that are still open. If you have been here less then 5 years then this will help a lot if you are trying to move up, also you get extra pay. But a lot of people complaining have been here a long time and already are where they want to be.
I work in CA, Consular Affairs, and we sent all the CEPs and PMFs to 2 passport offices. A lot of the PMfs threw fits like little children but they were told the only way to get out of this is if you are going to Iraq. Number 1 issue for State is Iraq, 2 was passports.
So yea when you work state in most jobs they can send you just about anywhere. But at the same time I don't think state is handling this well. Some found out by reading the paper, little notice, etc...
Triumph
Lifer
Your suggestion makes no practical sense. Why don't you apply that policy to everyone in government and see how that works out for you? According to your plan, we should've put FDR in Germany, Abe Lincoln in Virginia, Harry Truman in Japan, and Woodrow Wilson in the muddy trenches of France. FDR and WW never even served in the military, by your logic they had no right to make any decisions concerning two world wars. :roll:
You have this distorted view of A: what these employees jobs as Foreign Service Officers entails, B: how many people go to Iraq and Afghanistan with 1 week of training and C: what these peoples' odds of dying are. I'm a civil servant, I went over, I know tons of people that have gone over, none of us think that we're being put into a "death trap," most of these jobs are desk duty behind the wire, with little risk of attack besides the occasional mortar and rocket round. You do not need specialized training to know how to get to a bunker. You're also ignoring the fact that many foreign service officers have already gone through training to protect themselves, certainly more than I got, and they're trained to be diplomats in potentially hostile areas, as a matter of course. That's their damn job!
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
Not all of them. Some will be out with military units or in smaller cities. They're not allowed to carry weapons, as far as I know, so they won't even be able to attempt to defend themselves.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
