Middle East News
Washington "to order up to 50 diplomats to fill Iraq posts"
Oct 27, 2007, 13:38 GMT
Washington - The US government is to order up to 50 diplomats to fill vacant posts in Iraq in the first such large-scale forced assignment since the Vietnam War, according to a report Saturday.
Up to 300 employees of the US State Department will on Monday be informed of their selection as 'prime candidates' to fill the open positions, the Washington Post cited senior State Department official Harry K Thomas as saying.
It is expected that some of the candidates will volunteer for the posts. However in the event of some remaining unfilled by November 12, officials will decide who must report to the Baghdad embassy next summer, the report said.
According to Thomas, candidates would be permitted to decline an Iraq posting only on serious health grounds.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had signalled a possible shortfall in June, when she ordered that positions in Iraq be filled before any other State Department openings.
Her order followed a request by US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker for the number and quality of economic and political officers in the country to be increased, according to the Post.
The report added that diplomats' union representatives had protested against such a 'directed assignment'.
'Directing unarmed civilians who are untrained for combat into a war zone should be done on a voluntary basis,' Steve Kashkett, vice president of the American Foreign Service Association, told the newspaper.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Jerusalem prelate tells Arab Spring youth to have confidence
- 2. More than 100 killed in Syria ahead of ceasefire deadline
- 3. At least 43 killed in Syria, despite UN criticism
- 4. 19 killed in Syria as ceasefire deadline approaches
- 5. Pilgrims flock to Jerusalem for Easter, Passover
Older Talkback
page: 1
If the posts aren't filled by the end of the Presidential term, put Bush and Cheney over there since they seem to know it all!!
'State Dept. experiences army-type draft'
Not that you would know this, but people who have 'jobs' are occasionally told to do things that they do not want to do.
RE: Not that you would know this, but people who have 'jobs' are occasionally told to do things that they do not want to do.
===============
People with jobs generally have the option of quitting, in preference to moving to a place where you can get blown up on your way to work, or require protection via armed contractors. This is not about being asked to make the coffee.
The case for the volunteer army, as opposed to Selective Service (draft) has been made any number of times. The troops are better motivated and educated, and it's expected that their total service will be longer, so there's the ability to train them better, and see them turn into trainers/mentors for those that follow, once promoted. It's the idea of a 'professional army', and makes sense. Now, it takes all kinds of inducements, financial in particular, to get re-ups and enlistments ..... particularly when contractors are paid a lot more, and have a lot more freedom on the job. Recruitment standards have been lowered, and there's just so much of that you can do while maintaining proficiency.
I maxed out the National Guard tests in math and english years ago, by the way. The Guard unit I was in (42nd Div NYARNG) turned down lower-qualified people, since the draft created a waiting list for the Guard of 8 months or more. Believe me when I say that you did NOT want us in combat.
State Dept. employees are a mix of those willing and able to post in a conflict zone, but most are civil-service, and were not looking to be 'drafted' to a hot spot. Since the total requirement is 50 souls, perhaps enough will step forward out of the pool of 300 so that a 'draft' will not be needed. In any event, seeing this issue pop up now only emphasizes the problems in the area, as the Embassy is supposed to be highly secure.
I don't know the particulars of the large embassy complex, but no doubt all 50 would be housed within the embassy itself. That said, the Blackwater problem brought up the issue that when al-Maliki 'suspended' the contractors for a brief period, the diplomatic personnel, who were supposed to actually GO OUT and meet with the sheiks and other Iraqis, were stranded, as they could not go out to do their jobs without protection.
Policy can either dictate that anyone from State sit there in an office, making the Iraqis visit them (and run the gauntlet), or run the risk of visiting remote areas of Iraq and be wounded, or worse. Imagine the public sentiment if such an event occurred.
Karbala, for example, will become only the eighth of Iraq's 18 provinces to revert to Iraqi control, despite President Bush's prediction in January that the Iraqi government would have responsibility for security in all of the provinces by November.
(Old Army joke - 'I need three volunteers (pointing) - you, you, and you.'
www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-27-voa16.cfm
The U.S. State Department has informed its diplomats that some will be required to serve in Iraq because of a lack of volunteers willing to work there.
The department sent a cable Friday to all diplomats, saying that 200 to 300 people will be notified Monday that they are prime candidates for postings in Iraq.
Harry Thomas, the director-general of the U.S. Foreign Service, said those notified would have 10 days to accept or reject the position.
Thomas said those who refuse face the possibility of dismissal.
He said diplomats sent to Iraq will receive extra pay and vacation time.
(How about added health insurance?)
You embarrass yourself again.
'People with jobs generally have the option of quitting,'
They do, idiot.
'I maxed out the National Guard tests in math and english[sic] years ago, by the way.'
No one cares.
'The Guard unit I was in (42nd Div NYARNG) turned down lower-qualified people, '
'Never missed a drill', yeah... didn't care the first time.
'Believe me when I say that you did NOT want us in combat.'
Guess we will never find out.
'Old Army joke - ''
How would you know it then?
'Thomas said those who refuse face the possibility of dismissal.'
In other words, quit...
Good lord.
wouldn't this fall under the 'unfair labor practices' or 'maintaining a safe work environment' or do state work at the pleasure of the president, and this whole war thing is giving him a lot of pleasure, he's laughing at all the press conferences, the little twit
Oh no, is this the beginning of a full scale 'draft'
RE: I got a merit badge for whittling once...
----------------
... must have been your pecker.
Something else Shakespeare wrote ...
Tis a tale told by an idiot
full of sound and fury
signifying nothing.
(Be sure to avoid the issues at hand by resorting to condescension, instead of actually replying to points made.)
'Tis a tale told by an idiot
full of sound and fury
signifying nothing.'
I posted that for you long ago. You are reduced to recycling my insults, not very imaginative. In this context though, following a nonsense rant about National Guard tests and quick on the heels of your Cuba/Jack Parr effluence it is even more ironic.
'Be sure to avoid the issues at hand by resorting to condescension,'
The issue at hand is either they go where they are needed or they are fired. The fact that you can't get your 45 IQ points around that little nugget of information is license for someone else to be condescending to you, idiot.
'instead of actually replying to points made.'
As if you had a point.
All this bluster, of course, is an attempt to detract from the original story, where our diplomats need to be compelled to serve in Iraq, despite the fact that they'll be ensconced in a very expensive white elephant of a new embassy. You've now given up refuting facts, and all that's left is spouting like some beached whale. Do you have a blow-hole too?
You can check the detailed story on the embassy complex in Vanity Fair magazine. Bombproof rooms, and all. Those at risk will be the 'lucky' ones who'll have to venture out into all the 'success' and hope that their asses don't get blown off. That would be the diplomats, along with translators.
Insofar as the quote, I guess now you consider yourself to be Shakespeare, or 'dum dum on Avon'. Actually, you bear a closer resemblance to the tragic figure of Macbeth, who said those words. Do let us know when Birnam Wood gets, really, REALLY close, will you?
Perhaps King Lear would be a more appropriate model for you, since he ended up wandering about ranting, and talking to mice - the Bard authored (allegedly, if you're a Bacon fan) many tragedies, and would certainly have appreciated the rut that you're in (or the frustrated nut that you are).
So long as you mentioned Cuba (discussed in another thread), you might enjoy this:
www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/opinion/27sat1.html?th&emc=th
No one knows what will happen when Mr. Castro, who is ailing, dies. The United States is denying itself any chance to help influence Cuba’s future by sticking to the failed policies of the past. Its overriding interest should be in a peaceful transition to the democratic and economically dynamic society that Cubans have dreamed of for decades.
Easing the embargo could strengthen Cuba’s battered middle class and help it play a more active role in whatever comes next. Mr. Bush’s call for the Cuban people to rise up is more likely to persuade the government’s supporters — the only ones with guns — to hang on even more stubbornly or brutally.
Mr. Bush’s blind faith in missile defense is equally disquieting. The president has already wasted billions on a small and unproven system in Alaska. Now he wants to build one in Europe to guard against a possible attack on American allies by Iran.
Those allies are far less certain that Iran poses a near-term ballistic missile threat, and far less eager than Mr. Bush to anger the Russians, who fiercely oppose the system. Moscow, as ever, is being disingenuous. But Mr. Bush should be looking for ways to persuade Russia to increase pressure on Iran rather than giving it more excuses not to.
Mr. Bush and his cadre may be stuck in the past. But Congress does not have to be. It should restrain even more than it has Mr. Bush’s exorbitant missile defense spending.
In what may be a futile attempt to get back to the subject and relegate this personal hissy-fits to other venues -
It is mixing the proverbial apples and oranges to confound the military with the diplomats. They are two completely things. Hello?
While, throughout American history, diplomats have been routinely assigned to hazardous and far-flung outposts of the world, they DO in fact have the choice of refusing the assignment, and honorably giving up their jobs.
The military does not have this option. That's why it's different from a civilian job.
State Department employees deserve a reasonable expectation of protection and training when accepting assignments in dangerous area of the world. This is only reasonable (as is the reasonable expectation of the military for adequate armor against roadside bombs). Please note the use of 'reasonable'.
To expect a desk warrior to enter combat conditions with no training for the environment is merely stupid. State Department training is in a completely different area from bombs and Hummers.
The only similarity between the two is that both the military and the diplomats have the reasonable right to ask: 'What are your plans to keep me from being killed?'
So far, I see few real long-term plans, either for the supposedly short-term military duration (it is to laugh!) or the in-theory long-term diplomatic corps.
If I were a diplomat asked to go to Iraq, I'd be asking some really hard questions.
The military should be doing the same.
Thanks for reading.
No doubt the staff will be OIL right in the green zone. America is building a country within a country, modelled on the USA of cource.
'All this bluster, of course, is an attempt to detract from the original story, where our diplomats need to be compelled to serve in Iraq,'
Who would want to go to Iraq on a good day? Weighing the choices between the Paris or Iraq... Gee, London or Sadar city... decisions, decisions....
The 'original story' was that some are being told that they will have to serve in Iraq or that their services are no longer required. The 'attempt to detract from the original story' was you blathering on about how they were being forced to go with some irrelevant, self aggrandizing BS about your ASVAB test a billion years ago. You need to go to some 'lonely hearts' chat room or just go down to the senior rec center before your early bird supper.
'You've now given up refuting facts,'
What fact? That they will be 'forced' to go? I already refuted it. They can quit, unlike your original post implied. Most people who say something in error and have it 'refuted' are capable of seeing that their 'fact' has been 'refuted' and either shut the hell up (God forbid you should EVER do that) about it or come up with some conformation of their original assertion.
You however just blindly blather on while anyone caught reading it scratches their head and thinks; 'Cant he see that what he said was wrong? It has been demonstrated to him that what he said was wrong yet he is still saying it without any acknowledgment of the evidence presented to him that it is wrong... This guy is in his own little world, isn't he? He is just not interested in reality, he wants to see things in his own little way and inflict that on the rest of humanity.'
'Do you have a blow-hole too?'
Again with the homo-erotic commentary... Even if I was gay I think I could do better then a needy lunatic.
'You can check the detailed story on the embassy complex in Vanity Fair magazine.'
Hooray... So much for not making 'an attempt to detract from the original story'...
This is another theme with this poster. He will say something and immediately contradict himself or accuse someone of doing something and immediately do it himself. I wonder if you are capable of even seeing this pattern. It would be comical if it weren't usually in support of terrorists or hoping for the defeat of the USA.
'Those at risk will be the 'lucky' ones who'll have to venture out into all the 'success' and hope that their asses don't get blown off.'
Violence in Iraq is down 80%. I know that you are incapable of acknowledging that but soon you will be the only one left who can not bring himself to be able to see the obvious. That will make you appear even more divorced from reality.
'Insofar as the quote, I guess now you consider yourself to be Shakespeare, or 'dum dum on Avon'. '
No... Just pointing out that I have used that quote referring to your tales told by an idiot repeatedly. It is just plain sad that you would toss it out in an 'I'm rubber you're glue' kind of way... The thing is, having beaten you about the skull with this quote several times it probably entered your consciousness in the same way a 2 by 4 enters the conscious of a mule. Just keep reading this: Violence in Iraq is down 80% and the terrorists are losing. Read it again. Maybe in a few months you can present that quote to me as if you had thought it up yourself as well.
'So long as you mentioned Cuba (discussed in another thread), you might enjoy this: '
No... Not enjoyable... What was that you said about 'an attempt to detract from the original story'????
And, pray tell, what are these 50 diplomats going to do in this war-ravaged country right now? Look over their shoulders, crouch under windows and behind furniture or be constantly surrounded with countless military for every step they take outside??
'And, pray tell, what are these 50 diplomats going to do in this war-ravaged country right now? '
www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot8sep08,0,1085443.story?coll=la-o pinion-center
pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/10/20/maybe_were_winning_in_ iraq.php
www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9804
In your own words maybe!!
What program - more of Bush's policies???
'???? Oct 28th, 2007 - 22:12:35
In your own words maybe!!
Report this comment
Jake Oct 29th, 2007 - 03:36:41
What program - more of Bush's policies???'
How can you write if you can't read?
There have been no mass 'directed assignments' in the Foreign Service since 1969, when an entire class of 15 to 20 entry-level officers was sent to Vietnam.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR200710260241 7.html?hpid=topnews
The union representing U.S. diplomats has officially objected to the Iraq call-up. 'We believe, and we have told the secretary of state, that directing unarmed civilians who are untrained for combat into a war zone should be done on a voluntary basis,' said Steve Kashkett, vice president of the American Foreign Service Association. 'Directed assignments, we fear, can be detrimental to the individual, to the post, and to the Foreign Service as a whole.'
Kashkett said the association had contended in meetings with Rice and Thomas that a diplomatic draft is unnecessary and that 'thousands' of diplomats have volunteered for Iraq over the past five years. 'We're not weenies, we're not cowards, we're not cookie pushers in Europe,' he said. 'This has never been necessary in a generation.'
Thomas also praised the service and noted that more than 1,200 of 11,500 Foreign Service personnel have already served in what has become the largest U.S. embassy in history. But the embassy's sheer size and the truncated, one-year diplomatic tours there have strained the service. The embassy and other U.S. diplomatic outposts in Iraq employ about 6,000 people, including several hundred Foreign Service officers, other State Department specialists, American contractors, third-country nationals and Iraqi hires.
The number of diplomatic positions in Iraq has increased every year since the embassy was opened in 2004. The expansion of Provincial Reconstruction Teams -- made up of diplomats who work with local communities outside of Baghdad -- from 10 to 25 last summer as part of President Bush's new strategy added another 30 Foreign Service personnel and many more outside contractors. Volunteers have filled all but about 50 slots that will be empty as of next summer, Thomas said.
At congressional hearings last summer, Kashkett testified that medical and psychiatric symptoms have become a growing problem for personnel serving in high-danger zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, the constant need for personnel in Baghdad has drawn new dividing lines between those who have volunteered and those who have not.
Purchase the November Vanity Fair magazine, and read the lengthy article on the new U.S. monolith being constructed in the Green Zone, to be known as the U.S. Embassy. THIS is where the new diplomats would be housed. Foreign service people do not sign up to live exclusively in compounds where bombs are going off in the neighborhood, and they're afraid to venture out to do their jobs. The military expect to be posted without a choice in the matter, but diplomats expect some decent conditions at the least.
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14993509
'The new U.S. embassy in Baghdad is shaping up to be the largest and most lavish embassy in the world. Tucked inside the heavily fortified Green Zone, the $600-million compound will include grocery stores, a movie theater, tennis courts and a club for social gatherings.
In 'The Mega Bunker of Baghdad,' Vanity Fair reporter William Langewiesche describes the compound — and argues that it's not being built for diplomacy.'
page: 1
State Dept. experiences army-type draftOct 27th, 2007 - 17:56:50
Apparently not everyone at State thinks that Baghdad is an ideal posting. Imagine the quality of work of those who will be forced to serve there.
Bush's prediction in January that the Iraqi government would have responsibility for security in all of the provinces by November, but only 8 of 18 have been handed off. Karbala joined the list, in spite of continuing violence and infrastructure problems. Check my post with links on:
news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1369164.php/At_leas t_33_killed_in_fresh_wave_of_Iraq_violence__Roundup_
The next President will inherit a major 'patch job'.
Report this comment