Not really a draft because they can still quit their job but it is pretty close... I wonder what will happen if there is a mass resignation over there. Some US diplomats angry over Iraq posts By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer 15 minutes ago WASHINGTON - 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 hour-long "town hall meeting" called to explain the step, these workers peppered the official who signed 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 so-called Provincial 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 so-called "Green Zone," and the 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. "Incoming is coming in every day, rockets are hitting the Green Zone," said Jack Crotty, a senior foreign service officer who once worked as a political adviser with NATO forces. Employees directly confronted Foreign Service Director General Harry Thomas, who approved the move to so-called "directed assignments" late last Friday to make up for a lack of volunteers to go to Iraq. "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," Crotty said. "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?" "You know that at any other (country) in the world, the embassy would be closed at this point," Crotty said to loud and sustained applause from the about 300 diplomats who attended the meeting in a large State Department auditorium. Thomas responded by saying the comments were "filled with inaccuracies" but did not elaborate until challenged by the head of the diplomats' union, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), who like Crotty and others, demanded to know why many learned of the decision from news reports. Thomas took full responsibility for the late notification but objected when AFSA President John Naland said that a recent survey found that only 12 percent of the union's membership believed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was "fighting for them." "That's their right but they're wrong," Thomas said, prompting a testy exchange. "Sometimes if it's 88 to 12, maybe the 88 percent are correct," Naland said. "88 percent of the country believed in slavery at one time, was that correct?" shot back Thomas, who is black, in a remark that drew boos from the crowd. "Don't you or anybody else stand there and tell me I don't care about my colleagues. I am insulted," he added. Rice was not present for the meeting, but her top adviser on Iraq, David Satterfield, did attend. Other diplomats did not object to the idea of directed assignments but questioned why the State Department had been slow to respond to the medical needs of those who had served in dangerous posts. "I would just urge you, now that now we are looking at compulsory service in a war zone, that we have a moral imperative as an agency to take care of people who ... come back with war wounds," said Rachel Schnelling, a diplomat who served in Basra, Iraq and said the department had been unresponsive to requests for mental heath care. "I asked for treatment and I didn't get any of it," she said in comments that were greeted with a standing ovation. Thomas, who has been in his current job for just a few months, said the department was working on improving its response to stress-related disorders that "we did not anticipate." Under the new order, 200 to 300 diplomats have been identified as "prime candidates" to fill 48 vacancies that will open next year at the Baghdad embassy and in the provinces. Those notified that they have been selected for a one-year posting will have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough say yes, some will be ordered to go. Only those with compelling reasons, such as a medical condition or extreme personal hardship, will be exempt from disciplinary action. Diplomats who are forced into service in Iraq will receive the same extra hardship pay, vacation time and choice of future assignments as those who have volunteered.
Is this career diplomats or political appointments? Betting the former, trying to weed out those closet Democrat diplomats.
My first thought is if there are any Republican chickenhawk war supporter political appointees who refuse to go or even complain about being sent they should be anally raped by an elephant for their two-facedness. My guess, though, is that these are professional career diplomats of all affiliations. I wouldn't chalk this up to some Machiavellian political machinations, but rather just good old fashioned desperation.
I read the thread title as "Democrats to be drafted to serve in Iraq", and though something good had come out this war after all.
Kinda tells you something when diplomats are refusing to take assignments and risk losing their careers.
They don't want dangerous assignments? Sorry, but not everyone gets to be on station in Paris or London.
"Other diplomats did not object to the idea of directed assignments but questioned why the State Department had been slow to respond to the medical needs of those who had served in dangerous posts." I think this is more telling. When you don't take care of people who returned from Iraq, it just adds fuel to the discontent.
Those PRT's have been a disaster. NPR did a report on them a while back. Most of the people working on those just came back completely frustrated with the politics and incompetence of Iraqi government officials. The whole idea of PRTs was to provide specialized groups to tailor to specific areas but the Iraqis have been slow to respond and these small groups don't have the leverage to force institutional change.
Rice is going to tell them to suck it up. I wonder how many will quit? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_embassy Rice answers anger over Iraq assignments By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer 14 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is trying to quell a revolt among U.S. diplomats angry over moves to force foreign service officers to work in Iraq under threat of dismissal. Rice plans to send a cable to all U.S. embassies and missions abroad on Thursday explaining the rationale behind the decision to begin the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam, a U.S. official told The Associated Press. The effort comes after a contentious "town hall meeting" at the department on Wednesday in which diplomats expressed serious concerns about being forced to work in Iraq. Rice, who did not attend the meeting, was making clear in the cable that foreign service officers have a duty to uphold the oaths they took to carry out the policies of the government and be available to serve anywhere in the world, according to the official. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the cable has not yet been sent. It was expected to be released through the department's internal messaging system before Rice leaves on a trip to Turkey and the Middle East later Thursday, the official said. The cable was drafted following the meeting and in the wake of widespread news reports highlighting the anger and frustration of many diplomats who attended and applauded loudly when one of their colleagues likened a forced tour in Iraq to a "potential death sentence," said the official. Several hundred foreign service officers participated in Wednesday's town hall meeting at which several diplomats, backed by the vocal support of their colleagues there, vehemently complained about the prospect of so-called "directed assignments" to Iraq to make up for a lack of volunteers. "Incoming is coming in every day, rockets are hitting the Green Zone," said Jack Croddy, a senior foreign service office, referring to the highly fortified area of Baghdad where the embassy is located. "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," Croddy said. "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. ... Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?" His remarks were met with loud applause. Although no U.S. diplomats have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, the security situation is precarious and completion of a new embassy compound and living quarters has been beset by logistical and construction problems. Despite the concerns, the director general of the foreign service, Harry Thomas, told those at the meeting that the decision would not be rescinded. "This is an obligation we must do," Thomas said. "We cannot shrink from that duty." Other diplomats said they were troubled that they might be sent to Iraq without the proper training or might suffer mental or physical injuries for which the State Department might not be able to provide medical care. Under the new order, 200 to 300 diplomats have been identified as "prime candidates" to fill 48 vacancies that will open next year at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and in Iraqi provinces. Those notified have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough say yes, some will be ordered to go. Only those with compelling reasons, such as a medical condition or extreme personal hardship, will be exempt from disciplinary action. Diplomats forced into service in Iraq will receive the same extra hardship pay, vacation time and choice of future assignments as those who have volunteered. More than 1,200 of the department's 11,500 Foreign Service officers have served in Iraq since 2003. But the generous incentives have not persuaded enough diplomats to volunteer for duty in Baghdad or with the provincial reconstruction teams. The move to directed assignments is rare but not unprecedented. In 1969, an entire class of entry-level diplomats was sent to Vietnam. On a smaller scale, diplomats were required to work at various embassies in West Africa in the 1970s and 1980s.
